BTW, Indy was he that "real Aboriginal man"
Paul1405,
You're proving time & time again with almost every post that you'll never muster the mentality required to comprehend the gist of common understanding.
So, rather than explain it to you I leave you with the challenge of working it out for yourself, asking your mates for help is fine by me, as long as you eventually "get it" !

Individual,

How's that again?

God, Paul, you're so funny ! They must piss themselves over their kale smoothies down at the Smashed Avo Collective. But your implied suggestion that it's no big deal to bash a wombat's head in with a rock may not seem all that funny to one of your other groups, you know, the animal-lovers. You might have to very carefully explain it to them.

Alternatively, you could have the courage to confront some of the dilemmas of intersectionality - while you (and Foxy) feel you must support, or at least never criticise, any action by any Indigenous person or fear of being racist (and thereby commit racism: it's a complicated world), you also have to explain to other virtuous groups how proper and normal it is to bash a wombat's head in.

Sorry, I can't wish you good luck. Have the courage to criticise vile acts, no matter who commits them. Let's move on.

Joe

There is still room for the science of determinism to act as an arbiter here.
the Peano theorem establishes that for every initial condition there is at least one local solution of the equation. I like that one.

I prefer this to other looser variants of determinism theory, the loosest of which is the
more Metaphysical in its attempts to explain the philosophy of the science.

But first should we ask of the situation, who was the more stoned, the wombat or the cop?
And keeping the argument on the outback track, since there is now one less wombat, it naturally implies as a consequence, one spare hole in the ground, and one remaining live cop...Mmm.

Back to the theories of determinism, which when push comes to shove, very quickly find themselves entwined in argument with the therory of indeterminism.
Paul 1405 comes close to the bone here; politics is never far away from an indeterminate argument.

But let us on these pages, not act as a vigilante against the appearance of injustice by the cop towards the wombat.
Feeding into the solution must be all determinates. The order of collation can't be given to personal value judgements, since that involves an inequality of the first order.
Removing the sense of pity towards the wombat, and removing likewise the sense of rage towards the cop, helps the theory of determination progress to a solution.

I don't wish to add my own judgements into the mix, to a greater extent than I wish that a sane non-judgemental consideration is similarly applied by those here with a burning interest in justice towards wombats; which I've determined are the vast majority.
Poor cop.

Dan

Dan,

Amidst all that postmodernist verbiage, when you write,

"Removing the sense of pity towards the wombat, and removing likewise the sense of rage towards the cop ..."

if you mean, "abandon any sense of right or wrong, which are bourgeois and neo-liberal concepts anyway, and assume that nothing wrong was done to that dead wombat, and that therefore the police aide did nothing wrong ...."

you show yourself as morally bankrupt as the police aide.

Call it like it is: a totally dumb-arse act by an idiot terrified of nature.

Joe

How's that again?
Foxy,
I had half-an ounce of benefit of doubt reserved for you but it's gone now. Sorry !