[Cont.]
This is the way I roll.
And I stand by my own 'Rules of Forum Engagement' because I WANT to get to the truth of things and I recognise the only way to do it is separate arguments that do hold merit from those that don't.

I've had a long day, kids birthday parties and gatherings with friends.
I'll try to respond to more of what you and the other forum members said tomorrow.

Thanks for your comments, for now I'll give credit where credit is due.

[But know this: I'll acknowledge you won a battle here but you should know I'm definitely not ready to concede the war in this 'Battle of ideas'.
And there's always Pro's and Con's on both sides; my stubbornness (or being off my game) might just give you more opportunities to call out my stupidity again in future, but we shall just have to see how it plays out.]

Well played Aiden.

This is how I play.

Point out the flaws in my arguments and advance the path to the truth on any issue;

- You can use humiliation and abuse against me to prove your argument if you wish; but your arguments MUST HOLD MERIT.

However, be warned, DO NOT use humiliation or abuse against me if your arguments DO NOT HOLD MERIT;

- Because I most certainly will turn it around ON YOU every time, to make you look even more stupid, and occasionally it's a deliberate trap.

If you think I'm skating on thin ice, consider the distinct possibility that I may have deliberately ventured out there fully knowing the risks, and that I didn't just accidentally find myself out there.

If you successfully point out the flaws in my arguments and advance the path to the truth on ANY issue YOU WILL earn my respect, and I WILL NOT hold it against you whatever methods you used to drive your points home, so long as the issues you raise HOLD MERIT.

By winning the argument ON MERIT you've PROVEN your wisdom or intellect on that issue was superior to mine, as well as proving the methods you used to get there worked; and I WILL give credit and respect for advancing the path to the truth as a process.

Canem,
>I don't know how Aiden calls himself Australian while being anti-nationalist.
I made a commitment to this nation and I've stuck with it. Why do you consider me to be anti-nationalist?

Is it because you can't comprehend how I reject the claim that nationalism is based on racism? Or because I reject Armchair's non sequiters about what the effects of open borders would be?

Or is it that you think having government at a world level would somehow make nations obsolete? If so, you can rest assured that's not a view I share.

Armchair Critic- I thought your comments had overtones of Desmond Morris - The Human Zoo - "From Tribes to Super Tribes".

Armchair Critic- Also- You did say that your "idea" was in development and you were trying to understand the role that the "concept and propaganda of racism labeling" plays in the political sphere. Perhaps there are certain parts of the sphere that like to keep this a mystery. But your research capability is legendary so I'm confident that over the weeks and months reading you will make much more headway than I could at my best.

AC,

You've made me think about how I would identify
myself. I've written previously on this forum
that I don't have the answers to the big questions
in life. But everything is relative, everything has
its story, and everyone has obstacles to overcome.
They are our greatest teachers.

Each of us goes through transitions and transformations.
The important thing is that we acknowledge them and
learn from them.

Back to the question - how do I identify myself.
First off - I'm a female, a daughter, wife, sister,
grandmother, neighbour, friend, story-teller, writer,
researcher, educator, and also a dreamer.
I am the people I love. Family to me is everything.
There's probably more that I could add - but Thanks
for making me think a little about these things.