//It would not be over-confident of me to think that most Australians (other than your idealogical mates, of course) would agree with me 100%.//

No, over-confident would be an understatement. Hubris springs to mind. Also mania; in particular, megalomania.

//Honestly, I don't care what your parents did or didn't do.//

As long as they weren't darkies.

//Where no foreign born citizen can ever be president.//

But where they can become Governor of the world's eighth (8th) largest economy, just by pumping iron and acting poorly in successful movies.

//The have a very insulting outlook on Australia and Australians.//

Et tu, ttbn.

Foxy,

Of course you are wasting your time, you dear old thing. Like most people of your political persuasion you think that keeping on and on will make others change their minds. I believe that you honestly think that you are totally right and anyone who disagrees with you is totally wrong. Newsflash: we think the same thing about you.

There is no point in telling people you disagree with to 'shut up'. You have to persuade them. I've said it before: I think that I would like you if I knew you. But, boy oh boy, do you have a naïve view of the world and your ability to convince people to believe absolute bulldust that you have picked up from the internet or your Leftist heroes. People like you are the people in the U.S. who still can't come to terms with the fact that the game is up for Left in that country. Something similar is going to have to happen here soon, if there is not to be a massive blowup.

Further, my statements – all statements and beliefs contrary to yours – are NOT negative. They are POSITIVE from the opposing point of view.

I don't think there is much point in us discussing anything in the future. No hard feelings.

Yes, ttbn.

<<I believe that you honestly think that you are totally right and anyone who disagrees with you is totally wrong. Newsflash: we think the same thing about you.>>

But one will be closer to the truth than the other, and evidence can determine who that is.

Your total lack of links backing your assertions, and frequent resorting to ad hominems, suggests that you, ttbn, are usually wrong. Indeed, you are always wrong. I don’t know how you manage it!

<<There is no point in telling people you disagree with to 'shut up'. You have to persuade them.>>

Correct, but as you demonstrate continuously, and even allude to in the case of yourself, some are beyond persuasion as they are unwilling to view any evidence that contradicts their dearly-held beliefs. When one refers to science as “blah”, as you do, they have lost all hope of ever being persuaded of anything that may conflict with what they want to believe. It’s how some avoid cognitive dissonance, and we see a grand display of that in you.

<<Further, my statements – all statements and beliefs contrary to yours – are NOT negative. They are POSITIVE from the opposing point of view.>>

This is the Equivocation fallacy. Unless you actually thought that’s what Foxy meant by ‘negative’? I thought it was pretty obvious what she meant.

AJ Philips links are merely an appeal to authority by those who do not, or can not, think for themselves.

It appears that is all that is left in academia, the left, [same thing these days] & green bulldust.

Please keep up with the arrogance, it tells everyone what you are.

There’s nothing wrong with appeals to authority, Hasbeen.

<<… links are merely an appeal to authority …>>

So long as they’re not the fallacious kind. Here's how to tell the difference: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority

<<It appears that is all that is left in academia, the left, [same thing these days] & green bulldust.>>

Funny, most of what I see coming from academia is evidence-based research. You’re just stroppy that none of it agrees with your ignorant views.

<<Please keep up with the arrogance, it tells everyone what you are.>>

And you keep up with your ignorance and ad hominems, I can assure you it reveals a lot more.

Anyway, to get back to topic: obviously what Senator Gichuhi will find herself in the middle of constantly, is a debate about what multiculturalism means. It seems there is 'exclusivist multiculturalism', and 'inclusive multiculturalism', both of which can be distorted.

I don't know if these are terms in use, but they do it for me: one puts 'culture' first, the other puts 'Australian values' first.

'Exclusivist MC' suggests that:

* people can come from anywhere and keep all their cultural, religious and social practices intact and unchanging.

* people from different groups are permitted, even encouraged, to form 'communities' or ghettoes where they can practise their customs, religion, social relations, etc. without interference from the encompassing State; more extreme forms of this sort of MC would allow, even encourage, different groups to impose different legal and social systems on their 'members', but not of course on other Australians, only their own 'members'.

* a slogan for this approach, and its pseudo-left Anglo supporters, would be 'Each group to its own'.

'Inclusive MC' suggests that people coming here from elsewhere:

* can make use of all of those practices provide that they do not conflict with Australian values - and that governments encourage people to integrate into the Australian community as soon as practicable:

* In this model of MC, the concern is that Australians of non-Anglo/Celtic background are not excluded from participating in Australian society to the fullest, on the grounds that they are different, or have different 'needs'.

* this approach welcomes migrants and refugees as future Australians, on the assumption that, with all our relatively minor differences, we are all Australians together.

Clearly, I'm an inclusivist multiculturalist. Equally clearly, the pseudo-Left these days is more drawn to exclusivist MC, which is perhaps why they attempt to shield Islam from any analysis and are so quick to label anybody who does as Islamophobic.

And of course, stricter citizenship tests favour one approach over the other.

Just trying to understand.

Joe