I have discussed many topics in online opinion. Although I have learned from others my views have not changed. I won’t state them again as most of you already know them. However, I was wondering if these discussions have changed anyone’s views. If there is anybody out there who has changed their opinion on anything as a result of discussing matters in the Forum I would like to hear from that person.

No david f, nothing I have seen here has changed my ideas or opinions, reinforced them if anything.

However I have learned some things here, which has changed my ideas on which groups deserve more, & which deserve less help.

No david f, I’ve always found OLO to be a merciless war of words fought from very entrenched positions.

I don’t particularly want to change my position on anything. I’m proud of my prejudices which I have cultivated over many years. I don’t sit on fences.

Dan

In my time on OLO, I have never known anyone to change his or her mind. This why it is ridiculous for posters to carry on arguments with each other. We all know what everyone thinks about everything. I am not the slightest bit interested anymore in arguing the toss with people who disagree with me. I prefer to support and encourage people who think the same way I do. I rarely, if ever, read the posts of people whom I know are critical of my opinions.

I am highly unlikely to agree with davidf, for instance, but I am happy to give my opinion on his threads; I just will not argue with contrary posters or david himself. The is no point. We all have opinions, and that's that.

Dear David,

Thanks for this discussion.

In all the years that I've been on the forum I have
to admit now in looking back - I have changed in
my thinking at various times.

I once was convinced that the forum was a great place
to discuss issues. I admired the diversity of opinions.
And I was made to question some of mine. And also to
do research on subjects that I knew little about.
It was a learning process.

Then things got nasty - with labelling and insults and
disrespect where I began to think that the forum was
a snake-pit of old conservative ignorant people
with a distinctive set of traits including conformity,
intolerance, and insecurity who saw the world in very
rigid and stereotypical terms.

People who tended to think in terms of general categories
if only to enable them to make sense of the world by
simplifying its complexity.

Over time, however, I found that these people were capable
of surprising. And it made me aware of my own biases and
prejudices. I learned that my pre-conceptions were not always
correct and to try to not be so judgemental of others.
To look to myself as well - and try to see things from
another's point of view. Try to understand where they were
coming from.

I am no pundit and I am still a work in progress. As I
grow older I realize just how much I still have to learn.
I'm still negotiating my own voice and still learning to
be secure in speaking my own mind.

One thing I have learned is that if your intention is not
just to win the argument then you can feel good that you
have spoken your mind without malice or anger but just
from the depth of your own truth.

cont'd ...

If we only listen to people whose views agree with
ours - then it becomes merely an echo-chamber.
From which we don't grow or learn.

Dear Foxy,

You wrote: "One thing I have learned is that if your intention is not
just to win the argument then you can feel good that you
have spoken your mind without malice or anger but just
from the depth of your own truth."

Can we have our own truth? We can have our own opinion, but does truth vary from person to person?

Dear David,

Of course truth varies from person to person.
People are capable of being thoughtful and
rational, but our wishes, hopes, fears and
motivations often tip the scales to make us
more likely to accept something as true
if it supports what we want to believe.

In reality, we rely on a biased set of cognitive
processes to arrive at a given conclusion or
belief. This natural tendency to cherry pick and
twist facts to fit our existing beliefs is
known as motivated reasoning - and we all do it.

In today's era of polarized politics and when facts
themselves are under attack - understanding this inclination
(and finding ways to sidestep it) has taken on new
urgency according to psychologists.

cont'd ...

Dear David,

People communicating the facts often do so with
the implication that the target is a bad person
at worst, or uneducated or misinformed at best.
However I have learned that the adversarial
approach is not likely to change minds.

For example, if you want to convince a vaccine
skeptic or a climate-change denier that immunizations
are safe or that climate change is real -
the key question is not - why do they disagree with
the science? But rather why do they want to disagree
with the science?

Answering that will probably require doing something
people in our increasingly polarized political
climate are loathe to do: Less talking, more listening.

There's a time for the middle finger.
And a time to put it away.

Dear Foxy,

One of the sources of conflict on this planet is equating belief with truth.

Dear Foxy,

You wrote: "For example, if you want to convince a vaccine
skeptic or a climate-change denier that immunizations
are safe or that climate change is real -
the key question is not - why do they disagree with
the science? But rather why do they want to disagree
with the science?"

I regard it as futile to try "to convince a vaccine
skeptic or a climate-change denier that immunizations
are safe or that climate change is real"

There is no key question that will convince them. If enough of them get together to control the government we all lose. Such is the case now. Both Libs and Labor support giving tax breaks to Adani even though almost all scientists have connected the dots in regard to the connection of burning fossil fuels and global warming.

Dear David,

Beliefs are inherently subjective. Knowledge is a
belief that can be verified and understandably
caries with it a high sense of certitude -
1) of being a belief
2) of being true and
3) of being justified.

The truth I originally spoke of was subjective truth
from my own experiences.

I am more optimistic. In Victoria due to public pressure
children have been forced to get the "jab" in order to
go to childcare and school. "No jab - no play".

The same has to happen with enough pressure on the
government to do something about the effects of climate
change. Politicians ignoring voters on this matter will
do so at their own peril as Tony Abbott found out when
he lost the seat of Warringal to a pro-climate change
advocate.

Dear Foxy,

You wrote: "For example, if you want to convince a vaccine
skeptic or a climate-change denier that immunizations
are safe or that climate change is real -
the key question is not - why do they disagree with
the science? But rather why do they want to disagree
with the science?"

There is no key question that will convince them. Both Labor and Libs favor giving tax breaks to Adani even though almost all scientists make the connection between climate change and burning fossil fuels. The lemmings continue to exist because some don't jump off the cliff. However, climate change affects deniers and accepters of science. God botherers think He will fix things. Their belief is inimical to reason, science and human life.

....a pro-climate change advocate.
Foxy,
And, what has this advocate achieved thus far apart from ousting pollie ?

no one on olo who supports the baby killing industry seems to have changed their mind. There are however many who rely on science and reality rather than allowing a sick flawed narrative to keep their head in the sand.

Individual,

If you're really interested you can Google her
Climate Change Bill 2020 as well as her push for
a conscience vote for MPs.

However we should not forget her getting rid of
the wrecking - ball that was Tony Abbott. Warringah
is better off as is the Liberal Party.

runner,

I don't think that anyone on this forum supports
a "baby-killing industry".

If you think they do please provide the evidence.

Foxy,

Yes, belief, truth and reality are usually complicated. Issues, especially those which are controversial, are by definition tortuously complex, many-sided, even contradictory, often unresolved, and even unresolveable.

And that's not even getting into Popper's reservations about the problems with equating reality and knowledge.

Runner's obsession, for example: abortion, raises the issue of the rights of women to the choices of what to do with their own bodies, and the different rights of men to, on some basis, dictate what women can do with their own bodies.

Yes, there is a time to rejoice and a time to weep, and, as you remind us from Ecclesiastes 3:1, 'There's a time for the middle finger. And a time to put it away.'

Thank you :)

Joe

Dear Joe,

Thank you for your comments.

My views have never been set in concrete.

And they have changed over the years on so many
issues. The biggest changes were made living
away from home and family in the United States
for close to ten years. That influence was
massive. As has been my time on the forum
over the years.

And, there's even more to come that I'm looking
forward to. One thing that hasn't changed is my
optimism and belief that people are basically
good. That's a belief that I accept as being true.
It's a believe that could turn out to be false.

Hi Foxy,

That raises the slim possibility that even people like Runner and Josephus are, in some way, good people, not the censorious, miserable, condemning, 'holier-than-thou' naggers that they seem.

That gives me hope :)

Love,

Joe

sally steggall political achievements
Foxy,
Nothing comes up in Google ?

The following could be relevant:

http://vinayrnair.wordpress.com/2016/04/09/three-types-of-arguments/

Individual, Zali Steggall has been Member for Warringah for just 18 months. Tony Abbott was Member for Warringah for 25 years; I don't know what political achievements he made in his first 18 months, it was over four years before he became a minister. Steggall is an independent; Abbott was a member of a major party. So apples and oranges.

Ahhh, but Foxy;
What if the science has changed ?
It has changed but there is such an enormous investment in belief that
a change of belief will have more political affect than can be tolerated !

DAVID F...An interesting topic you've raised here? When it comes to belief and truth rarely in my industry do the two seamlessly blend together. As police, we might harbour a belief about an individual, whereas the truth could be entirely different altogether. Yet on other occasions, despite all the obfuscations to the contrary, they're one and the same.

I do wonder at times if such a thing exists at all? Absolute truth? My version of the truth could be quite different from yours. Yes, this site has taught me things to the point I may not have changed my views, but not to be so dogmatic with my own. Thank you David F.

OSW,

There is only one truth about everything. That there is more than one truth is a lie, put about by the soft totalitarian, increasingly aggressive and ascending Left. We must resist those lies, even if we cannot stop them.

Of course, to give the benefit of the doubt, it could be said that the Left (not the cleverest of groups) could be confusing 'truth' with 'opinion'.

Dear Joe,

I'm sure that both runner and Josephus are good
people.

Individual,

Zali Steggall is trying to achieve what she promised
in her campaign. Being an Independent - that is not easy.
However - the following links may help:

http://www.zalisteggall.com.au/climate_change_bill_2020_business_overview

And -

http://www.zalisreggall.com.au/spread_the_word_climate_act_now

Dear Yuyutsu,

Thank you for the link.

Dear Cossomby,

Thank you for your comments and explanation.

Bazz,

Science will always look for explanations and test
those explanations against evidence, but how exactly
this gets done may evolve. The scientific enterprise
is not static. Science is deeply interwoven with
society, and as it has changed, so too has science.

Modern science practices have been transformed by
increasing knowledge, changing social concerns and
advances in communication and technology.

cont'd ...

Individual,

My apologies for the typo in the second link.

Here it is again:

http://www.zalisteggall.com.au/spread_the_word_climate_act_now

I hope it works this time.

Dear O Sung Wu,

Welcome back.

Glad to see you posting again.

Hi there TTBN & FOXY...

FOXY thank you for your nice welcome back I appreciate it very much. But I've aged rather badly with my memory of some things waning rapidly. Thank you for your continued friendship, nonetheless FOXY.

TTBN - you're quite right mate, there's only one absolutely truth. To say otherwise is wrong. What I meant to say, it's our perception of what's true, I guess - I dunno mate what I mean now?

Zali Steggle's Climate Change Commission is a worry.
Can you imagine the ingrained fixed belief in a team of
a couple of hundred public servants.
The whole country could be knee deep in snow and nothing would change.
Note the rigidity of some of the covirus regulations, that is what
some are already suggesting for global warming.

That global warming has occurred is not questioned, what is disputed
is the cause. The reports of unseasonable cold times may well be
caused by the very low sunspot counts, but never mind the new sunspot
cycle is now underway and those cold periods will cease being so
noticeable. The sun's radience cycle and the milanovitch cycles will
eventually take control and bring on the next cold period in some
300 plus years time.
Just you wait and see !

Dear Bazz,

Luckily in this country we have leading climatologists
and a pre-eminent public research organisation -
CSIRO to guide us in the right direction. Australia is
one of the standout countries in terms of human
development status. It is not corrupt and its science is
world class. This matters.

The only danger lies in the dismissal of issues which require
radical solutions that are likely to harm vested economic
and political interests.

New ideas instead of being welcome for the opportunities
they open up for the improvement of the human lot will be
seen as threats to those who've become comfortable in their
ideologies.

But hopefully with enough public pressure and political
support - this may slowly change.

david f,

I have never seen you raise a discussion on mathematics and computers, which are your fields of knowledge.

You always seem to be talking about things outside of your knowledge eg all the Arts things like history, sociology, anthropology, archaeology, philosophy, etc. But never about the things you actually know about.

I'm curious as to why you want people to see you as someone who as knowledge in the Arts things rather than someone with knowledge in mathematics and computers.

I would not trust the pseudoscience gurus we have in Australia like Tim Flannery, "The Dams will never again be full" and the CSIRO who changed historical records to suit their science. Zali Steggall a snow skier champion knows zero about Climate as the ski fields have record falls this year. She was put in place by Antifa a communist support team.

Dear Josephus,

What do you really know about Zali Steggall?
Or for that matter about Antifa?

If you want to be taken seriously you have to do better
than just repeat what you've obviously heard someone
else say.

You need to provide something of more substance, more
evidence based information.

Josephus, Our parliamentary system is representative government. There is no requirement that members of parliament have any education, or know anything about climate, or anything else. They are there to represent us. So it is appropriate and inevitable that they reflect all of us: the dumb and the smart, the educated and the uneducated, the nice and the nasty, the bad and the good. We know that all of those things are subjective, both left and right think they are the goodies and the other side are the baddies. Steggal 'represented' enough people to win that seat, regardless of who did or did not back her, or what you think.

FOXY,
I receive Zali Steggall news letter each month, and know she gets her information on Climate from Tim Flannery. I was following her through the Election and know that Antifa were raising money for her campaign to oust Tony Abbott.

Foxy,

You need to keep in mind that Josephus is a pseudo-intellectual.

Dear Josephus,

Antifa gets its name from a short form of -
"anti-fascist" which is about the only thing
its members agree on. They are a decentralized
collection of individual activists who mostly
use non-violent methods to achieve their ends.
Their goal is to resist the spread of fascism
in the United States.

I think that your linking them to Zali Steggall
here in Australia is simply not true.

Also, You have no way of knowing where from
and what information Ms Steggall gets on
climate change. I imagine it is from a variety of
various reputable sources.

Josephus,

You need to take note of what Foxy is telling you.

Now, would you like to give us one of your pseudo-intellectual retorts that we have become so accustomed to seeing from you.

.

Dear david f,

.

You ask :

« … if these discussions have changed … [my] … opinion on anything as a result of discussing matters in the Forum … »
.

Yes, it has, except for a few rare exceptions. It has been extremely positive. That is why I continue to come here as often as I do.

I like to bounce my ideas and opinions off the minds of others to gain from their knowledge, experience, and different points of view. Though I do my best to keep my mind as much open as possible, I am only too conscious of my limits. Without some form of social interaction, I am perfectly incapable of seeing things exactly as everybody else does, no matter how hard I try.

Fortunately, my ideas and opinions almost invariably evolve “as a result of discussing matters in the Forum” and elsewhere. They no longer run the risk of being cast in stone. They remain alive and subject to change, improvement and enhancement like that produced by biological evolution. Thanks to my exchanges on the Forum, my ideas and opinions seem to undergo a natural process of cultural, intellectual, and psychological evolution, much to their advantage.

Like genetic evolution, the “changes” produced by this process are neither instantaneous nor especially radical, such as, for example, switching to a diametrically opposite point of view to that which I may have held prior to my foray on the Forum. It is, on the contrary, a gradual process that takes place progressively as I observe, interact with, and strive to understand other peoples’ points of view.

At the end of the process, my ideas and opinions are rarely exactly the same following my discussions as they were prior to the discussions.

I see the “change” as extremely positive and am grateful for it – irrespective of its magnitude – of utmost importance or even if only marginal. Both are well worth the effort and both are reassuring – the former for correcting my gross errors, the latter for confirming me in my opinions.

.

Foxy and I had a disagreement regarding our 'perceptions' of Tony Abbott.

However, I now realise that 'attitude' was the key to our difference of opinion.

Foxy could 'evaluate' Abbott more clearly than I could, without any attitudinal aberration - whereas I was 'relating' to Tony, possibly because of some shared appreciation of volunteering in firefighting and surf-lifesaving.

I still see Abbott more favourably than Foxy would, but I now have greater respect and appreciation of her 'vision'.
Abbott was wrong in denying 'climate change' - but apparently this was not a sufficient blemish to sway my 'illusions'.
Sorry Foxy, my bad.

I wonder if others, including runner and Josephus, could possibly review their 'attitudes' - in search of clarity and truth?

Understanding has come a long way since the Egyptian Pharaohs and Roman Emperors considered themselves to be 'gods', and since the Spanish Conquistadors and other adventurers and missionaries wrought death and destruction on so many from the diseases they introduced, and since early Christian settlers to Africa considered the 'natives' as sub-human - an approach leading to Apartheid and so much un-Christian intolerance.

Some still do not accept that we are all Homo Sapiens Sapiens, sharing incontrovertible common DNA, including some Neanderthal components.

Some don't wish to accept that if God created Man in his own image, then 'He' also enabled disabilities, deformities, gender dysphoria and uncertainty, deafness and blindness and so many other 'variations'.
All God's Children.

Science may not be perfect and immutable, but surely reference to the unsubstantiated notions of mere 'mortal' writers can offer no valid counter or opposition to verified and verifiable scientific fact?

If people are to move forward with any hope of universal tolerance and world peace, then surely all of humankind will have to accept the rights of all to acceptance, whatever may be their individual differences and variety of 'beliefs', in universal application of 'The Golden Rule', the pursuit of truth in all things, and the application of Common Law and moral and ethical conformity.

Imperfect but with potential, if intent is true to universal ideals.

Dear Saltpetre,

I always read your posts and I value and respect
your opinions.

As far as Mr Abbott is concerned - your views on him
made me look at things through a different
lens which I appreciate and Thank you for doing that.

I was encouraged by your opinion to look at things
from a different perspective and I feel all the better
for having done so.

Foxy,

Would you describe Saltpetre as a pseudo-intellectual?

I would.

MO,

No intellect here, just a brain running rampant.

Wonder of wonders, the world is full of 'illusion'.
(And China is going 'Green'?)

Still waiting to see if Runner and Josephus may join the 'attitude revolution'.
It is a brave new world - for the lucky ones.

Mr O,

You ask whether I would describe Saltpetre as a
pseudo-intellectual.

No. I would not.

Saltpetre is someone truly interested in ideas and
knowledge and is open to having his mind changed.

A pseudo-intellectual is someone more interested in
appearing to know a lot, in impressing people and in
being right.

Hi Foxy,

You rightly define a pseudo-intellectual as " .... someone more interested in appearing to know a lot, in impressing people and in being right."

Apart from the village idiot on his wall, I wonder who that might be applied to ?

Nope, that's about it.

Love,

Joe

FOULmouth,

It also means 'a person exhibiting intellectual pretensions that have no basis in sound scholarship.'

Which is you to a tee.

But cheer up, you're not Robinson Crusoe on OLO.

Mr O,

Do you see yourself as the man Friday?

Foxy,

No. I think the shadyminister has already got that job.

Mr O,

There's always room for one more.

Mr Opinion,
And, your definition of sound scholarship is based on what, self appraisal ?

...... variety of various reputable sources..
Foxy,
reputable in whose opinion ? Over the years we have seen many such reputable sources proven wrong. So, how can we be certain they're not wrong again nowadays ?

Individual,

The information provided by - reputable sources
can be verified and understandably
carry a high degree of certitude.

individual,

I know exactly what sound scholarship is.

I could explain it too you but my words would be lost on a pseudo-intellectual such as yourself.

Foxy,

As you say "There's always room for one more."

But why would someone as well educated and knowledgeable as myself want to buddy up to a pseudo-intellectual the likes of FOULmouth and the shadyminister?

Foxy,

I don't think I've changed my views much, but I've certainly modified some, and been wonderfully informed in respect of others, such as yours ;)

Misop,

I imagine that a genuine intellectual wouldn't constantly go on about his intellectuality, he would take it for granted - which obviously indicates that you may not fit into that category, or that you have graduated from some piddly diploma or degree, maybe in medieval sophistry, or 18th century Korean flower arrangement, or advanced critical environmental sociology theory, or something equally relevant.

If you want to claim any intellect at all, you would be advised strongly to never bring up that of others. I've learnt from experience that a fool can masquerade as a wise man by never opening his mouth: a pregnant stare into the distance, solemn and wise nods, have served me well :)

Joe

Mr O,

Only you can answer that question.

Dear Joe,

Many of the things that most of us were brought up
to believe to think "could never happen here", have
already begun to happen: dangerous scapegoating, violent
hate crimes, small-minded intolerance for the views of
others. At what point do we wake up enough to know that
without treatment this desease will destroy us?

It's more important that we renew dignified and respectful
dialogue with those we don't agree with than we slavishly
keep on congratulating those who have the wisdom to see
things our way.

However, there are some people on whom these tactics just
simply don't work and as you rightly point out - in that
case it is best to just walk away.

I have learned so much from you - and continue to do so.

Foxy,

It's more of a statement than a question.

And the fact is that I only comment on fields that I am knowledgeable in, thus avoiding being called a pseudo-intellectual.

Too bad a lot of others on OLO don't follow that line (I'm not dropping names of course but you know whom I'm talking about).

Misop,

You claim: " .... I only comment on fields that I am knowledgeable in .... "

But you comment on quite a few fields which you are obviously not familiar with. I'm certainly not saying that you shouldn't - we all do that. But perhaps you should focus on critical environmental sociology theory, if that's what you have any familiarity at all :)

Still, it's very brave of you to continually venture into fields in which you are not at all familiar - a veritable Leichhardt or Scott of the keyboard :)

Joe.

FOULmouth,

You're wrong again.

Sociologists study everything that people have anything to do with. That's what I like about sociology because I get to be knowledgeable on lots of things.

I know that as a pseudo-intellectual you find that hard to understand. But that's just the way it is old timer.

By the way, have you seen Phil around. I'm still holding my breath waiting for him to tell us what planes he flew and which aircraft carrier he served on. I CAN'T HOLD ON MUCH LONGER PHIL !

Mr O,

No offence but -

Your claim to only comment on fields that you are
knowledgeable about is not quite true.

Your behaviour on this forum does not support
that statement. All you seem to do is talk about
your qualifications and belittle those of others.
You also try to provoke people and attempt to divert
discussions. That is unfortunately -
the behaviour of a troll.

You do not provide many constructive comments and
behaving like a troll you are replaceable.

On the other hand
you could surprise us and try to contribute something of
substance for a change instead of treating this place as
a showcase for your "qualifications".

You may actually learn something - by contributing
something of substance. It will be an education for you
as - other posters always know something
you don't.

Keep an open mind and remember that commenting is a
privilege not a right. You have to earn it.
Respect that is.

Foxy,

Fair enough.

I'll have to not talk on fields I have no knowledge of.

I definitely don't want to look like a pseudo-intellectual so can you let me know what they are so that I don't do it?

Misop,

Where would any of us start ?

You and Trumpf have something in common": you both think that whatever little you know of a subject, say, viruses, brain surgery, re-organising a state's train schedules, black holes, that's all there is to know.

I had a friend like that, he worked and saved, worked and saved; took out a mortgage on one beach-side flat, then another, then on a house - then (I think) put the lot up against a loan to invest in a dodgy building company. This was just before the GFC. So of course, he lost the lot, has retired and now lives in a shack on a remote country block. What he thought he knew, he also thought that was all you needed. I don't think he's learnt a bloody thing since.

Sometimes it pays to stand back, learn, reflect, learn some more. But I don't suppose this will make a scrap of difference.

Joe

FOULmouth,

I've got a better idea.

I stop explaining things and just point out where you and your fellow pseudo-intellectuals are wrong.

Now, where's Phil?

Misop,

I had great respect for Mother Teresa. Her persistence with intractable problems was an inspiration. But I think you would push such limits of dedication a bit too far, even for her.

You, explaining anything ? Still waiting.

Joe

Foxy,

It's not a matter of behaving like a troll.

It's simply that I set my standards higher than you do.

You enjoy engaging with pseudo-intellectuals like FOULmouth and the shadyminister. I don't.

Calling the pseudo-intellectuals out for what they are is not being a troll.

Mr O,

A discussion forum is not a place to show case
your qualifications but to educate your readers
by contributing something of substance and in
turn getting educated by your readers who always
know something you don't.

You put a lot of comments to derail discusses.
That is the behaviour of a troll.

Dear Foxy,

Don't excite the village idiot too much, he might fall off his wall.

Joe

FOULmouth,

Why do you call people derogatory names like idiot if they don't agree with you?

I've never done that.

I've called you LOUDmouth to accentuate your pseudonym and FOULmouth simply because you actually do have a foul mouth - but never idiot.

I think I should start calling you PSEUDOmouth because it's just you.

Misop,

You're the troll, you can call me anything you like :)

As for my never being an idiot, I wish I could return the compliment :(

Anyway, ...... BTT: thanks David, for raising this issue. After all, surely the purpose of discussing opinions is to modify them in some way, either to strengthen arguments for them, or even to 'see the light' and change one's views in another direction - although I think personal experience and others' experiences, is probably more effective, it gets deeper into our psyche. We learn. Well, most of us :)

Joe

Whatever PSEUDOmouth, whatever.

You're the one who keeps pretending to be something you're not.

... pseudo-intellectual.
Mr Opinion,
I'm starting to regret having coined the above term in various posts on OLO. I could not have foreseen you turning into a Parrot & a pseudo-intellectual one at that !

.

Once upon a time in the city of Shravasti, there were many brahmans of varying sects, opinions and beliefs. They argued over doctrine and Dhamma, criticizing each other for variations in viewpoint. One morning, the brahmans encountered the Blessed One (Buddha) and asked of his opinion regarding their quarrels; he told them this story:

Once, in the city of Shravasti, there was a king who asked a servant to find all the men who had been blind since birth. After all the blind men had been gathered in one area, the king further instructed the servant to present the group of blind men to an elephant. The servant introduced each of the blind men to a different body part of the elephant, saying, “this is what an elephant is like.”

The king then went to the blind men and asked each man to describe to him what an elephant is like.

The first blind man had been shown the elephant’s head, the second had been shown the ear, and, in turn, he presented the rest of the blind men the tusk, trunk, body, foot, hindquarters, tail and tuft of the tail. Each blind man answered according to his experience, saying the elephant was like a jar, winnowing basket, ploughshare, plough pole, granary, post, mortar, pestle and broom, respectively.

The blind men then began to fight and to argue over what the elephant was like, which pleased the king. The display was entertainment for the king, who knew that the clashing of views and beliefs would incite the primitive instinct to defend what belongs to oneself and to attack what is regarded as belonging to others.

The Blessed One turned to the brahmans and said, “with regard to these things, you’re attached. You see only one side.”

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

A moral is easily extracted from this parable: a singular perspective is insufficient when attempting to come to a conclusion regarding the nature of reality. Since individual perspectives cannot hope to grasp the whole alone, difference and variation are required if we are to understand anything at all about the nature of our existence.

It is natural that most issues are complex, that people will have different perspectives derived from their limited range of experience, and that people will express these opinions through dialogue and debate. The secondary moral the parable teaches is that such differences should not escalate into anger or aggression in an attempt to defend ourselves and injure what is in disagreement with ourselves. In a world where diverse opinions exist within family units, let alone the diversity that spans our globe, this parable teaches us that the key to harmony is to learn to differ in opinion gracefully, without succumbing to the instinct to claim, “only this is right; all else is wrong. ”

http://abstractelephant.com/our-mission/

.

individual,

If you're going to get jealous about it then I'll let you be PSEUDO-individual.

There, happy now?

O, I dare not use Mr, if you want to be accepted on these pages as an adult stop behaving like a spoilt child. Demonstrate you are educated and can intelligently contribute to the subject.

Dear PSEUDO-individual,

I was totally unaware that you had coined the term 'pseudo-intellectual', as you explain in your post on page 13.

Thanks for letting us know and I am really sorry for using your term 'pseudo-intellectual' without seeking your permission.

And WOW you must be really really really smart to have come up with 'pseudo-intellectual'. You are an absolute genius.

Dear Banjo P.,

Thank you for the parable of the elephant.

And so true. How we see things depends on
so many variants, lenses, and perspectives.
And each of us may have different takes on what's
important to us. In the case of the elephant -
if size was what mattered - he would be king of the
jungle!
(smile).

The term "pseudo-intellectual" has existed for many decades. see: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/pseudointellectual - this dictionary gives its origin between 1935-40.

But that aside and back on topic. For me in general the discussions on this forum very rarely convince me to change my views. Very few comments here ever present cogent well reasoned arguments. Many people, myself included sometimes, just repeat ad nauseam their own personal statements about their general political stance or opinions as though it is the ultimate truth, or give anecdotal/distorted/biased/out-of-context tidbit facts and quotes to justify their claims, or they just in effect cut-and-paste comments/opinions from other websites . The number of comments which give a well-reasoned fact-based argument that supports their position are in the minority.

thinkabit,

No, you are wrong.

PSEUDO-intellectual told us above that he coined the term.

Credit given where credit due.

You're probably upset because he beat you to it.

But that aside and back on topic. I think that the likelihood of being influenced by what others tell you is dependent on the extent of your own knowledge.

David F asked- I was wondering if these discussions have changed anyone’s views.

Answer-

Interesting comments on this thread. The question is broad.
I see the issues as more subtle than many postings.

The discussions while they don't usually change my views- do sharpen my delivery. Everybody goes through times in their lives where they question long held principles. Sometimes it's enough just to help people understand that some believe in a certain way and it has it's own logic.

Questions such as "what is truth" have been around for thousands of years. Some parts of these have been "answered". Cultural complexity makes the nature of truth more complex and unstable- this points to the idea that truth is cultural. Sometimes we try to find truth where there is only perspective- like "the elephant in the dark"- sometimes there is "no truth" only tradition.

Then there are those that seek to obfuscate.

I use a combination of subjectivism, empiricism, and rationalism.

Zealot's preach before they teach.

Truth is written by the survivors

Antifa cells seem to have similar characteristics to paramilitary teams and sharing tactics with other teams, opsec. Their flag represents the black of anarchism and the red of communism. Those on the left try to downplay the sophistication of antifa and similar groups.

I find antifa and similar groups have sophisticated tactics for example at the recent Washington protests.

This is not surprising given their links with communism and the philosophy of Communist Total War and Military Intelligence and Trotskyist Permanent Revolution.

I'm sure the cellular structure, training, and operational security is useful in many contexts for achieving team goals. Even companies have been known to hold "boot camp training".

Millions of Americans feel pressure currently to pick
a side to suppport or denounce a faction knowing
that whatever they say about white supremacists, Antifa,
or Black Lives matter, they risk being criticized for
failing to condemn violence on "their side" or for
suggesting a false equivalence between the groups.

So how can an observer find clarity?

One way to distinguish is between a group's end and its
means.

ISIS is an example. Their stated end is the creation of a
repressive theocracy. There's no reason to doubt that
claim. And the means that they've chosen, terrorism, rape,
plunder and pillaging is abhorrent regardless of whether or
not it proves to be practically effective all should condemn
the means and their end.

cont'd ...

Antifa (short for anti-fascist) is the name loosely
affiliated with anti-racist groups that monitor and
track the activities of local neo-Nazis. The movement
has no unified structure or national leadership and has
merged in the form of local bodies nationwide particularly
on the West Coast of the US.

The primary goal is to stop neo-Nazis and white supremacists
from gaining a platform rather than to promote a specific
agenda. Their aim is to deny fascists a public forum.
Which is why they turn out in numbers to physically confront
neo-Nazis, the KKK, and white supremacists at public
demonstrations.

They don't eschew violence but rather see themselves as
engaging in "self-defense" protecting other protesters and
confronting neo-Nazis.

The Black Lives Matter movement arose as a primary end to
stop unjust killing by policer officers - but some of its
members have broader agendas like economic redistribution.
However reforming policy is the movement's primary goal and
it is one that is universally shared.

Analysis of the BLM protests found that 93% were peaceful and
some of the violent incidents at the rallies were simply
opportunistic vandalism.

Most of the protest leaders have tried to stop looting and
other violence recognizing this is counter - productive and
wrong.

Moreover BLM is an open movement with a host of organizations
particularly along with self-proclaimed supporters rather
than a tight group with a defined membership. Therefore
labelling the movement as violent is false.

cont'd ...

One noticeable thing is that at the Trump rallies
the supporters exhibit a defaced American flag.
Where the colours have been changed but the design
pattern maintained. In most countries that would be
considered a punishable offence. Instead of the
regular stars and stripes the flag is white stars
on a dark blue background, white and dark blue stripes
and a black stripe through the middle.

Surely normal Americans would take offence?

I have just done some research and learned that
there is a " Thin Blue Line Flag". According to the
Oxford Dictionary the term "Thin Blue Line" is
"used to refer to the police, especially in the
context of maintaining order during unrest".

According to The Marshall Project, it was after 2014
that a flag representing the Thin Blue Line idea
appeared, a black and white version of the American
National flag, with a blue-stripe running horizontally
under the stars.

As racial discord simmers across the United States,
several parts of the country continue to witness clashes
between anti-racism activists and supporters of President
Donald Trump.

At these confrontations, a symbol that has increasingly been
put on display by right-wing groups is the "Thin Blue Line"
flag. A continuous rendition of the Star-Spangled Banner
which has sparked intense debate over the years.

The flag stirred controversy after it was co-opted by
right-wing groups, especially by the Blue Lives Matter
movement, which sprung up in 2014 as a counter-face to the
anti-racism BLM movement.

In 2017, the Thin Blue Line flag was flown during the
Charlottesville incident, then reported as the largest
gathering of white nationalists in over a decade, which
ended with a woman being killed
and at least 20 being injured after a car
drove into a crowd of protesters.

Fringe elements at the rally were seen carrying the banner
along with Confederate flags and Nazi symbols.
This flag's adoption by fringe groups, however,
did not sit well with
all Thin Blue Line supporters. Thin Blue Line USA, among the
country's largest retailers of pro police merchandise,
condemned strongly the flag's display at the Charlottesville
rally and issued a statement saying:

"We reject in the strongest possible terms, any association of
our flag with racism, hatred, and bigotry. To use it in such
a way tarnishes what it and our nation believes in".

Hear, Hear!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Antifa_sticker_on_No_Parking_sign.jpg

"Both the name antifa and the logo with two flags representing anarchism and communism are derived from the German Antifa movement."

"A majority of adherents are anarchists, communists and other socialists who describe themselves as revolutionaries"

"Bray states that "[t]he vast majority of antifa militants are radical anti-capitalists who oppose the Democratic Party" and that Democratic Party leaders, including Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, have condemned antifa and political violence more broadly.[63] Despite antifa's opposition to the Democratic Party and liberalism, some right-wing commentators have accused their adherents of being aided by "liberal sympathizers" "

"The Anti-Defamation League states that "[m]ost antifa come from the anarchist movement or from the far left, though since the 2016 presidential election, some people with more mainstream political backgrounds have also joined their ranks".[14] Similarly, Mark Bray argues that "[i]t's also important to remember that these are self-described revolutionaries. They're anarchists and communists who are way outside the traditional conservative-liberal spectrum".[51] ABC News notes that "[w]hile antifa's political leanings are often described as 'far-left,' experts say members' radical views vary and can intersect with communism, socialism and anarchism"."

"The movement is loosely affiliated[8] and has no chain of command, with antifa groups instead sharing "resources and information about far-right activity across regional and national borders through loosely knit networks and informal relationships of trust and solidarity".[41] According to Mark Bray, "members hide their political activities from law enforcement and the far right" and "concerns about infiltration and high expectations of commitment keep the sizes of groups rather small".[41]"

"The antifa movement has grown since the 2016 United States presidential election. As of August 2017, approximately 200 groups existed, of varying sizes and levels of activity.[71] It is particularly present in the Pacific Northwest.[72]"

"According to Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at the California State University, San Bernardino, antifa activists feel the need to participate in violent actions because "they believe that elites are controlling the government and the media. So they need to make a statement head-on against the people who they regard as racist"."

"Scott Crow told an interviewer:

The idea in Antifa is that we go where they (right-wingers) go. That hate speech is not free speech. That if you are endangering people with what you say and the actions that are behind them, then you do not have the right to do that. And so we go to cause conflict, to shut them down where they are, because we don't believe that Nazis or fascists of any stripe should have a mouthpiece.[17]"

"Antifa activists often use the black bloc tactic in which people dress in black and cover their faces in order to thwart surveillance and create a sense of equality and solidarity among participants."

"...antifa became prominent in the news during the George Floyd protests"

"In August 2020, many small business owners interviewed by The New York Times in what was the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone in Seattle blamed people they identified as antifa for much of the violence and intimidation of their patrons while distinguishing antifa from Black Lives Matter."

"In July 2020, FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, who stated in a press release[128] on June 4, 2020 that "anarchists like Antifa" are "exploiting this situation to pursue violent, extremist agendas""

Research shows the threat posed by far-right extremist
groups far exceeds that of other groups. Far-right
extremists were behind two-thirds of the attacks and
plots in the United States in 2019 and more than 90%
in the first half of this year.

Left-wing ideology has also inspired terrorism in the
past, and indeed, left-wing terrorism remains a real
contemporary threat. To understand the present we have
to understand the past and its history. But Antifa does
not represent a terror threat by virtue of its
organization and activities. As it currently stands, it falls
below the conventional threshold for terrorism.

Antifa is not a homogenous entity, and has no identifiable
command structure, leadership apparatus or radicalised
membership. To designate Antifa as an "organization" is to
misconstrue the present reality of the movement.

The Brookings Institute has a great deal on its websites
on this issue on how protests are being conflated with
terrorism.

Foxy comment 1-

"Antifa is not a homogenous entity, and has no identifiable
command structure, leadership apparatus..."

Answer 1-

I guess that Antifa is similar to ISIS and Al-Qaeda in that regard.

Foxy comment 2-

".. or radicalised membership. To designate Antifa as an "organization" is to misconstrue the present reality of the movement."

Answer 2-

I'm not sure you can say that Antifa is not radicalised.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radicalization

Radicalization (or radicalisation) is the process by which an individual or group comes to adopt increasingly ‹See Tfd› radical views in opposition to a political, social, or religious status quo. The ideas of society at large shape the outcomes of radicalization; for example, radical movements can originate from a broad social consensus against progressive changes in society or from a broad desire for change in society. Radicalization can result in both violent and nonviolent action - most academic literature focuses on radicalization into violent extremism (RVE).[1][2] Multiple separate pathways can promote the process of radicalization, which can be independent but are usually mutually reinforcing.[3][4]

Radicalization that occurs across multiple reinforcing pathways greatly increases a group's resilience and lethality. Furthermore, by compromising a group's ability to blend in with non-radical society and to participate in a modern, national or international economy, radicalization serves as a kind of sociological trap that gives individuals no other place to go to satisfy their material and spiritual needs.

Mass radicalization
Chairman Mao Zedong writing On Protracted War in 1938.
Jiujitsu politics

Also called "the logic of political violence", Jiujitsu politics is a form of asymmetrical political warfare in which radical groups act to provoke governments to crack down on the populace at large and produce domestic blowback that legitimates further violent action.[49] The primary purpose of a radical group using this tactic is not to destroy the enemy outright, but to make the enemy strike at political and ideological moderates, such that the existing political order loses its claim on legitimacy while the radical group gains legitimacy.[50] By destroying moderates, radical groups encourage a bifurcated society and use state's reactions to violence as a justification for further violence.[51] Al-Qaeda's strategy of luring the West, specifically the United States, into ground wars in Islamic states that polarize the Ummah against the West while avoiding engagements that would allow the American military to draw on its technical superiority is an example of jiujitsu politics. David Kilcullen, Counterinsurgency advisor to David Petraeus during the Iraq Surge, has called this the "accidental guerrilla syndrome".[52]

This tactic is also pillar of Maoist insurgency and serves both the purposes of tactical and ideological advantage.

This is interesting...

The Three Stages of Mao’s Communist Revolutionary Warfare (What Today’s Left Seems to be Following)

http://www.headlineoftheday.com/2020/07/04/the-three-stages-of-maos-communist-revolutionary-warfare-what-todays-left-seems-to-be-following/

Canem Malum,

What is your take on Xi telling the PLA to prepare for war on two occasions over the past several years?

China's annexation and militarisation of the East and South China Seas should give you the hint.

Taiwan.

Will China's invasion of Taiwan be the start of a second Pacific War?

I imagine yes.

Most terrorism researchers have rejected the idea that
Antifa constitutes a terrorist threat, instead
comparing them to gangs, militants or activists.

While Antifa has previously engaged in low-level
violence such as street skirmishes and obstructing
right-wing demonstrators it lacks organizational
coherence and a meaningful command structure. This limits
the likelihood of organised and sophisticated violence akin
to terrorism.

Conflating protest movements with terrorism or violent
extremism poses numerous risks to a democratic
society. For one, it undermines a central pillar of any
functional democratic system, the right to protest.

It also suppresses or manipulates legitimate dissent to
serve a secondary agenda in the case of President Trump -
to paint Democrat-controlled cities as out of control.

When the Trump administration threatens to designate
Antifa a terrorist organisation or send federal forces
to cities to quell violent protests, it also diverts
resources away from other high-priority threats. This
includes right-wing extremism which has claimed dozens
of lives in the past year in places like Christchurch,
El Paso, and elsewhere.

This is not an "either/or" situation - the threats from
both right-and left wing groups must be countered. But
governments must allocate resources based on the actual
threat they represent, rather than political rhetoric.

The political appeal of labelling oppositional protesters
as terrorists must not outweigh the risks it poses to
democratic principles.

In the current international security environment there
are many threats to democracy, but in order to truly
safeguard it, we need to fiercely defend the rights of
citizens to protest and voice dissent.

Dear Foxy,

"In the current international security environment there
are many threats to democracy, but in order to truly
safeguard it, we need to fiercely defend the rights of
citizens to protest and voice dissent."

Exactly ! Even though I suspect that provocateurs, from both 'left' and right, will try to destabilise tense situations, it's possible that 'sensible-centre' demonstrators and protestors will see those bastards coming and expel them (if it's their 'own') or expose them (if they're not).

Trump might be an idiot, obsessed only with himself, but he is surrounded by total mongrels who wouldn't hesitate to use provocateurs, like the Wolverines, or the 'Proud Boys', armed neo-fascist groups, to attack peaceful demonstrators.

With only 20 days to go to the election, I anticipate that Trumpf will incite such groups to attack peaceful Biden supporters, and more so as the day itself gets closer. After Trumpf's phony virus 'scare', i.e. nothing more than a panic attack, I suspect that he and his cronies will use every trick in the book to destroy democracy.

Joe

Dear Joe,

I agree 100%.

Dear Foxy,

On the subject of provocateurs: yes, of course, we can expect the Trumpf camp to send in such destabilisers, but it has to be admitted that the pseudo-left throws up its own, anarchists maybe, who have their own idiot agenda of 'no-government, no-state-, no power-structure', whose rationale is to tear everything down now - it's all corrupt capitalism - and re-build a New Utopia of sweetness and light, all love and no power for or over anybody.

But surely we have enough experience now, of a hundred 'socialist' revolutions and revolts and coups and pusches, to realise how idiotic that always is. My dear old grand-dad was a Wobbly back in the 1900s, I don't know how deeply he believed in the anarchism of the IWW, but I don't think he would have countenanced any of the inevitably 'necessary' turns to exterminate all unreliables once in power, of whom he may have been one if that idiocy ever got close to fruition.

So the major enemies are the neo-fascists, as they always have been. And Trumpf, a political slut, will use them if he needs to. We're in for very dangerous times.

Love and best wishes,

Joe

"Love and best wishes" ?

Smoochy smoochy kissy kissy honey bear.

Mr Opinion said-

Canem Malum, What is your take on Xi telling the PLA to prepare for war on two occasions over the past several years?
China's annexation and militarisation of the East and South China Seas should give you the hint.
Taiwan. Will China's invasion of Taiwan be the start of a second Pacific War? I imagine yes.

Answer-
Good question Mr Opinion.

As Newton says- a mass will continue in a straight line at constant velocity unless it is acted upon by a force.

The PLA is the biggest military force on Earth by some measures. I don't know how the US can stop China even if the US wasn't undermined by Communism. It's good that the US is far away from China and so less vulnerable to direct physical action. China perhaps already indirectly controls much within it's domain and is seeking influence further afield in the Indian sphere and the Middle and Central East.

China has a multi-dimensional strategy. I haven't read much on their Belt and Road international strategy other than their foreign aid and African activities. The history of MAD strategy is low level tactics and intelligence warfare with perhaps the odd strategic invasion. I suspect that there will be a fair amount of "bait and switch".

China already has effective control of Taiwan and Hong Kong so it can safely use this as a distraction for other more profitable activities.

In the end everything is about power- the question is how can China get the most power in the shortest time? And then use this power to grab for the next target. But they aren't the only rising and expanding power. There are alliances and competitors. What do you trust when you can't trust anything- your family, your people, ... there are and will be betrayal... often within our own ranks... this must be managed decisively and effectively. The government may need to implement inconvenient security measures- temporarily. The government will probably (and evidence appears that it has) itself be compromised by the enemy and itself. Some elements may require cleansing.

Hopefully this "Locke Liberal Experiment and it's dramatic failure" will return the world to sanity.

At least if the US is ever attacked by China it will be Californian Liberal's that are effected first.

I hope "our boys" are working on these issues.

For Australia (Satire)- It would be amusing to wake up to the news reports one day to find that China had smuggled military material including 500 J-18 VTOL Stealth Fighters into the Port of Darwin, Brisbane, Sydney, and Melbourne overnight and these supported by undercover Chinese student reinforcements had managed to obtain air superiority and territorial control of the north and east coast.

Please look after each other- remember the history of our British Culture- our friends in Europe- and further afield- and the trials that have gone before.

Sometimes all you can do is pray.

Remember the history of our British culture?

Yes, but do it right with the reality recap
of Australian history.

" We're engrossed with reality TV these days, yet we so
often neglect the greatest reality of all: the reality of
our nation and how it came to be..."

Taken from the blurb of the marvellous book -
"Error Australis"
TV columnist,
comedian, and history buff Ben Pobjie recaps the history of
Australia from the humble beginnings of a small patch of
rapidly cooling rock to the modern-day status as one of the
major powers of the sub-Asian super Antarctic next-to-Africa
region".

"As thrilling as it is to see Delta Goodrem's chair turn
around, there's no argument that World War
Two was even more exciting and, like any good
recapper, Pobjie provides an
immediate, visceral sense of what it was like to be there
in the moment at our nation's defining events".

" It is only by looking at where we have been that we can
understand who we are, what we stand for and why nothing
seems to work. "Error Australis" is a scholarly and hilarious
account of a young nation that has spent many years seeking
its place in the world, and almost as many years not liking
what it has found".

Noni Hazelhurst wrote after reading the book - "Savage,
provocative, hilarious, deeply-depressing and brilliant -
should be required reading for secondary students".

Shaun Metcalf stated, "It's as if Manning Clark had a
lobotomy and rewrote the Short History of Australia with
a crayon. I enjoyed it!"

" Freaking hilarious, had me gasping with laughter"
Julie Goodwin.

Whatever happens to Australia the country, we can be sure
of one thing: Australian history, rich and colourful and
filled with heroism and drama, will live onto infinity.
And for that we can thank the hard-working historical
recappers who work themselves into the ground to keep
the flame of history alive for future generations. In other
words, we can thank people like Ben Pobjie.

You're welcome.

Foxy,

What do you think about the Great Asianization Period (1980-2020) in Australian history?

Mr O,

Please don't involve me in your obsession.