The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > What is the difference between an argument and a quarrel?

What is the difference between an argument and a quarrel?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Research is time consuming but it can be - so rewarding.
I wish you every success with the hard work.
I researched a great deal on various topics -
including compiling an anthology of anti-nuclear
Australian poetry, and also the subject of the
Holocaust in Lithuania. This was a real revelation -
and to me the Holocaust in Lithuania exemplified
the argument of those who insist that there is no
such thing as "objective history."
In discussing the Holocaust, as in any murder case,
one camp may call for uncompromising indictment of all
deemed guilty, while another, if not denying the guilt
of the "defendant," may argue extenuating circumstances,
ranging from temporary insanity through provocation.

I therefore understand well the problems involved.

Some of the problems that we encounter in arguments
are summed up rather well in the following website -
which may be of interest:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015/04-30/green-weve-nothing-to-fear-but-our-sense-of-certainty/6432502
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 30 April 2015 6:31:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Foxy,

I read http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015/04-30/green-weve-nothing-to-fear-but-our-sense-of-certainty/6432502 article and found the following:

"Where were McIntyre's defenders when blogger Andrew Bolt was prosecuted for a breach of Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act? Alternatively: how could you argue for individual liberty and deny that same courtesy to McIntrye?"

Green set up a straw man. He assumed that nobody who defended McIntyre would object to Bolt's conviction. Then he attacks those who were inconsistent on the assumption that those who were consistent didn't exist.

I thought Bolt's conviction was wrong and thought McIntyre's sacking was wrong. I am sure I was not alone in that. The author assumed that people having my position don't exist.

I objected to the comments made by Bolt and McIntyre. However, I don't think either legal sanctions or dismissal was justified.

McIntyre did not make his comments in the context of his broadcasting, and Bolt made his in the context of an opinion piece. There should have been no penalty in either case.

Green's straw man argument stinks.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 30 April 2015 6:59:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David F.,

I got a different take from the article.

As for Bolt - his article was full of factual
errors. He had not done his homework.
McIntyre could have expressed his views privately.
However he went against company policy in his actions
and ended up paying a price for it.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 30 April 2015 11:41:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Foxy,

Do you maintain as Green did that people apparently cannot be against both the sacking of McIntyre and the conviction of Bolt?

As far as I know, Bolt did not make statements that weren't true. He did not deny that the people he mentioned in his column had ancestors who were Aborigines. He denied that they were real Aborigines because they had no Aboriginal features and were blue eyed and blond. That is a matter of opinion. I disagree with Bolt's opinion not his facts.

McIntyre did not make his statements during his broadcasts. He made them on social media. I think it was an unfair restriction on his speech to penalise him because of statements he made which were not made in the course of his duties. McIntyre did express his views privately since he did not express them while he was on duty as a broadcaster. I am expressing my views privately right now even though I am on olo. Privately does not mean that one does not have an audience. Privately means to me that it is not in the course of one's employment or duties. That is one's private as opposed to one's public life.

I found the statements of both Bolt and McIntyre offensive, but free speech includes the right to say what others may find offensive. In the most lamentable tyranny one is free to express what offends nobody.

I disagree with what both Bolt and McIntyre expressed, but I think both had a right to express it without penalty.

I agree with Justice Holmes of the US Supreme Court that speech which does not present a clear and present danger (He gave as an example of speech that one should be restricted is yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre where presumably there is no fire.) should not be restricted.

I usually agree with what you write but not this time.
Posted by david f, Friday, 1 May 2015 3:50:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David F.,

We will have to agree to disagree.

Especially in the Andrew Bolt case.

The following website explains Justice Mordecai
Bloomberg's decision:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/in-black-and-white-andrew-bolt-trifled-with-the-facts-20110928-1kxba.html

As for Scott McIntyre - yes he did go on social media with
his comments - however he was asked to delete them by his
employer when they caused such a stir - McIntyre refused
and apparently his actions breached the SBS code of Conduct
and Social Media Policies and Protocols.
Of course it did not help matters that Malcolm Turnbull -
the Minister responsible for funding to SBS - also objected
to the tweets.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 1 May 2015 11:53:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Foxy,

I read the article. I am wrong. Since they have been identified as Aborigines all their lives Bolt lied in declaring that they had chosen to identify with their background for gain.

In regards to Scott McIntyre SBS as a broadcaster is supposed to be independent of the government. However, no entity funded by the government can really be independent of the government. When Malcolm Turnbull who has a big voice on funding for SBS 'pointed out' McIntyre's comments SBS got the message. If Turnbull had not called I doubt that McIntyre's comments would have breached the SBS code of Conduct and Social Media Policies and Protocols.

I don't like the expression 'agree to disagree'. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing, and that expression sounds as though one must be in some sense agreeing when one is not disagreeing.
Posted by david f, Friday, 1 May 2015 12:49:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy