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.