Fester,

This would be about the fourth or fifth time now that you've accused me of never responding to questions despite the fact that I've responded to every one of yours. It's nothing more than an attempt to avoid engaging with my arguments and to create a false narrative through repetition.

//You claim that fact checking is a simple exercise, almost mechanical.//

Where did I say this? I’ve actually said the opposite:

“No, I definitely didn’t make it sound like fact checking was always simple (although, sometimes it is). You even quoted me mentioning that it could take time, and solid media and information literacy - skills that don’t come easily to everyone.”
(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10476#364516)

//The conduct of the fact checkers during the referendum was highly biased and portrayed legitimate criticism as misinformation and disinformation, almost unanimously supporting the PM's accusations.//

That’s because his accusations were accurate. Do you have any examples of his accusations that weren’t?

//It is highly probable that Albo would use the misinformation legislation to silence legitimate criticism with biased fact checking.//

Which provisions in the bill would give him the power to do this?

//If John has legal training he should realise that establishing non-trivial "facts" acceptable to everyone is impossible.//

Facts aren’t determined by whether or not everyone agrees with them.

As for your Milgram comparison, equating Albanese’s approach to fact-checking with coercive authority figures in an infamous experiment is a gross exaggeration and deliberately misleading.

Milgram's experiments involved psychological manipulation to test obedience, whereas fact-checking serves to provide transparency and clarity based on objective standards. If you believe fact-checking is coercive or manipulative, it sounds like you're more concerned about being held accountable for your own misinformation.

"Milgram's experiments involved psychological manipulation to test obedience, whereas fact-checking serves to provide transparency and clarity based on objective standards."

No John, both involve using an authority figure to coerce people. Your own conduct in this discussion frequently exemplifies this, such as your proffering a fact check by RMIT as proof of the Uluru Statement being a single page, despite much evidence to the contrary.

Cult leader Albo would use the legislation to suppress legitimate criticism of government policy, just as he would have used it to oppose legitimate criticism of the Voice were it available to him, something you acknowledge by accepting Albo's view of Voice opposition as "misinformation and disinformation". I think it utterly disgusting for Albo to dismiss the referendum result on this basis. He is no better than Trump in this respect.

Having a government define what is truth is an abomination and has no place in a modern democracy.

"your beliefs about the cosmic law (as I currently understand them) assume that a person who is raped deserved to be raped"

You might have considered how long Glenn Hoddle lasted as England's soccer coach after voicing this view about the disabled. The Dalai Lama thinks the same but has kept his job, although the hand of welcome hasn't been extended since he asked that little boy to suck his tongue.

Fester,

No, I linked you to the statement to prove that it was one page. The purpose of my link to the RMIT article was to provide a more thorough explanation of what I was already saying about the distinction between the statement and the accompanying documentation.

So, my “conduct” here doesn’t exemplify anything at all - other than perhaps that fact-checking isn’t as impossible as you make it sound.

//…despite much evidence to the contrary.//

There is no evidence that the statement was more than one page, which is why you don’t provide any. Here it is again:

http://ulurustatemdev.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/UluruStatementfromtheHeartPLAINTEXT.pdf

//Cult leader Albo would use the legislation to suppress legitimate criticism of government policy, just as he would have used it to oppose legitimate criticism of the Voice were it available to him…//

Again, which provisions in the bill would give him the power to do this? I haven’t “acknowledged” that he would do this if he could, either. Go back and read what I said.

//Having a government define what is truth is an abomination and has no place in a modern democracy.//

Indeed, which is why there are no provisions in the bill that would give the government the power to do this. Can you point me to any? Perhaps I’ve missed them.

John,

"There is no evidence that the statement was more than one page, which is why you don’t provide any."

Spoken like a true authoritarian, but unfortunately Albo doesn't have the power to silence the truth that he doesn't like (yet), so I have the freedom to expose your Milgram like obedience to the cult of Albo.

You can listen to Megan Davis describe the Uluru Statement as a lengthy document in her Parkes Oration (2018) (from about 33 minutes if you don't want to hear the whole thing).

https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/bigideas/indigenous-recognition-as-a-step-towards-an-australian-republic/10772592

You could also listen to a lecture that Megan Davis gave about the Uluru Statement from the Heart and its implications in 2019 (from about 14 minutes if you don't want to watch the whole thing).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ph23ROLV9I0

Now I am sure that such evidence is meaningless for you John, but it might be of some interest to people who see truth as personal quest that can be freely explored by all humanity rather than a means of political oppression administered by an Orwellian bureaucracy.

Fester,

By relying entirely on Megan Davis’s statement where she refers to the Uluru Statement as being "roughly 18 pages long," you're engaging in a dishonest tactic known as 'quote mining'. You've no evidence at all.

Davis was referring to the additional materials compiled during the dialogues to provide context to the Uluru Statement. Here’s the relevant part her talk on YouTube you linked:

"The Uluru Statement is roughly 18 pages long, and the statement includes the story, the Aboriginal story of Australian history that we compiled over the course of the dialogues."

While she could have been clearer in that moment, she later clarified this distinction on multiple occasions.

The core Uluru Statement remains a one-page document, as Davis and others have clarified repeatedly. The accompanying documentations, including "Our Story" and background documents, makes up the additional pages, but these materials don’t change the fact that the core statement is one page. You’re misrepresenting this distinction in an attempt to confuse the issue.

That link again (I don't think you've had the courage to even click it yet.):

http://ulurustatemdev.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/UluruStatementfromtheHeartPLAINTEXT.pdf

There you have it. One page.

If you think something sinister was hidden in the supplementary documentation, then please let me know what it is. I won't hold my breath, though.

As for your claim that Albanese would use legislation to suppress criticism, again, I ask: where in the bill do you see language that supports this fear? If you can’t provide specific evidence, your argument remains speculative at best. Here's the bill again:

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r7239

Dear John,

Physical violence and coercion are only two forms of violence.
There are also other forms of verbal violence and noise too can be violent as it can cause others to suffer greatly.
It may be a matter of degree, but the principle is the same.

My point about history was that "evolution" does not necessary go from simple to complex as it were for the last few Millenia. I believe that history cycles and life will eventually become simple again, though sadly not in my own lifetime. I believe that if anything, there is a positive correlation between simplicity and happiness (thus a negative correlation between complexity and happiness).

Yes, though my view may not be popular nowadays, a person that is raped deserved to be raped because it must have been due to something similar which they did in their past (ditto all other "victims").

Yet woe unto the rapist: had you been able to see the full picture of their subsequent suffering, you wouldn't envy them!
Yes, justice was delivered to the raped and nothing could hinder that justice, but no sensible person wants to be the means by which that justice is delivered.

Governance attempts to be proactive and could at times change the means by which justice is delivered, but as I just explained, had I called the police and they somehow managed to stop the neighbour's motorcycle, then I would incur some other form of noise-based suffering as I deserved, perhaps in the form of a snoring partner, perhaps in the form of tinnitus, perhaps in some other form I cannot even think of right now. Police would then pat their shoulders and think they have done a great job, but truly they were not able to help me.

governance could not prevent chaos and exploitation - chaos because there was never an underlying chaos to begin with and exploitation because those who seem to be exploited, deserved so, and had a specific way of exploitation been blocked, then divine cosmic order could find 1000's of other ways to achieve the same.

[continued...]