Are we really entitled to our opinions?
Can we say or think whatever we like?
We've seen examples of how amateurs
feel they're entitled to disagree with climate
scientists and immunologists and have their own views
"respected."

No one can stop people from saying that
vaccines cause autism, no matter how many times that claim
has been disproven.
Are we entitled to opinions - if being entitled shelters
beliefs that should have been abandoned?

The wording of your post clearly shows that you do not believe that everyone has the right to an opinion, so there is no point in adopting your role of inquisitor AGAIN. We all know what you think; you know what other people here think.

Scientists disagree with other scientists. People agree with scientists who say what they want to hear. Lots of science has been proved spectacularly wrong.

All of which has nothing to do with opinions, which everyone is entitled to hold on any subject under the sun. In your case, you think that you are entitled to decide that some people's opinions "should have been abandoned".

ttbn,

Of course informed citizens should have opinions.
The problem is that in some issues expertise or
training is necessary for an opinion to have
weight.

It is important to gather knowledge from appropriate
places (hence my often use and referrals to links).
For example in medicine and in science, you can't just
have an opinion without an evidence base.

We live in a culture that tells us that everyone's opinion
matters. Unfortunately some people mistake this idea as
meaning that everyone's opinion matters all the time,
even if it is uninformed or misinformed.

Famous philosophers like Immanuel Kant encouraged
critical thinking and questio9ning of what we are told.
My dad encouraged that in all of us as well. But (and it's
a big but - an important part of thinking for oneself is
having intellectual humility in knowing when we don't have
enough knowledge on a topic.

My own take on this is: People have a right to free speech (ie. they can talk all they want), but they don't have a right to demand that I listen to them and certainly not to be unquestionably believed.

Utter rubbish. Nobody needs any 'training' to express an opinion. Decisions are not made on opinions. None of the opinions we express here mean a thing to anyone but ourselves. Opinions are not worth a pinch of poop. Your opinions, my opinions, are not even known by any but a few people on this site. I have opinions on Scott Morrison, for instance, what he should do and, more importantly to me, where he should go. If I expressed them to him, personally, he would decline to take any action on them. But, I have the right to hold those opinions and express them. I don't need "training". I am very well read, but even that doesn't mean that my opinions would ever be acted on. In the meantime, we are all able to agree with or disagree with options, and it is absurd to suggest that only certain people, with certain qualifications or knowledge have the right to say what they think to whom they choose. And, I haven’t seen any changes made according to your opinions over the time you and I have been opining on OLO. But, I get the feeling that you think you should be listened to. I have no such illusions for myself.

We are all entitled to our opinion. Equally we are all entitled to express that opinion (at least in this society at this time).
a
Equally we are ll entitled to critique the views of others. No one is entitled to demand that their opinion remain unchallenged.

As to experts, we should all seek the views of experts. But a range of experts. Too many think that an expert view is unassailable, without realising that experts also have differing views. AGW is the perfect example. It is claimed that there is a consensus of expert views on the dangers of warming when clearly and obviously that's simply wrong. So in order to form an informed view, its important to canvas a range of expert views and then form an informed opinion.

But I find many people form a view, then go seeking experts that will confirm that view. And then demand that their views not be challenged because its supported by selected experts.

Perhaps the most worrying opinions are those of
people who actually don't care about getting their
facts straight or about being right they just care
about being believed or winning an argument.

Making sure that your opinion is properly grounded
does have a moral dimension to it -
if your opinion can have devastation for
people, animals, and the planet

According to this amusing little book I stumbled upon years ago - "Crimes against logic" by a certain Mr. Jamie Whyte who points out that having 'rights' necessitates 'obligations'. In this instance -

Q. Does your right to your opinion oblige me to agree with you?
A. No.

Q. Does your right to your opinion oblige me to listen to you?
A. No.

Q. Does your right to your opinion oblige me to let you keep it?
A. No. We often have an obligation to change other's opinion. Example: You have to cross the street with a friend. A car is coming yet your friend still takes a stride into the road. Knowing that your friend is not suicidal, you infer that they are of the opinion that no cars are coming. Are you obliged to let your friend keep this opinion?

I trust that this has settled the discussion and made everything perfectly clear and logical. (Smiley emoji.)

Journalists should keep their opinions to themselves !

Aries54,
Careful boyo!!
Logic around here could get you into trouble.

"I have a right to my opinion." is something that a person
usually states when they're attempting to reject
objections to their argument. They do this by claiming that
they're entitled to their opinion. This claim is usually
spoken by people who are trying to defend their argument
on its merits.

It's a last ditch in their attempt to rescue their position
no matter how ill-founded or wrong that opinion might be.

However the right to hold an opinion is usually not what's
in dispute. What is usually in dispute is whether one's
opinion is true or false. It's the content of the opinion
that's usually being questioned.

cont'd ...

For example not everyone has the knowledge necessary
to form an opinion that is a serious candidate for the
truth - as in medicine or science. As mentioned earlier
the statement that vaccines-cause-autism promotor with
no medical credentials is not a candidate for the truth
like a doctor. Some opinions need to be evidence based
to hold any weight.

Ok foxy, so what's your view on this:

On the front page of the ABC web site at the moment is a link to this article: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-09/apy-artist-betty-muffler-painting-heal-country-naidoc/100271288
The heading of the story is "How APY artist Betty Muffler uses painting as a means to heal country". And in body of the article it makes mention to how this artwork can "heal". For example: "That motion of moving across the work has actually got the power to heal, because, of course as a ngangkari, she has mara ala, she has open hands, her hands are taking that power from her body. And that power is being placed along that canvas."

Now clearly this, according to modern scientific theories, is a complete load of BS. So do you think she should be allowed to say this? And should the ABC publish an article like this?

Entitled yes and, obligated to keep it to yourself if you have no integrity !

Good Morning thinkabit,

Do you realize that it is NAIDOC Week?

NAIDOC celebrates the history, culture, and
achievements of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander people and it runs from 4th July until
11th July. Betty Muller is an Aboriginal artist
and famous for her beautiful work. The ABC is
featuring her work during this week. It is
appropriate to do so.

Thinkabit

You are most certainly allowed to express your opinion on the aboriginal-myths and frauds. No need to ask Foxy.

As for her baloney about 'I have a right to my opinion'" is something that a person usually states when they're attempting to reject objections to their argument",' I don't know of an instance where that has occurred on OLO, or anywhere else. Most people don't feel the need to claim a right that they know they have; they just express their opinions in the knowledge that most people other than the few Foxys of this world accept diverse opinions as part of human discourse, no matter what they think of those opinions.

I note that she has now turned 'opinion' into 'argument'. Foxy is an argument junky who will argue until the cows come home; that's why she sets up her little inquisitions, asking for OUR OPINIONS, which she believes some of us don't have the right to express, strangely enough: then she can regale us with reasons why she is 'right' and everyone but the other TWO people who hang onto her every word are 'wrong'. Foxy is a 'useful idiot' for her Marxist heroes, so totally convinced of her virtue that only prolonged professional help would see her face up to her unawareness of her lack of comfortable socialisation with her peers.

ttbn has again proven my point. He's using a last ditch that
attempts to rescue his position by defending his right to
hold an opinion no matter how ill-founded or wrong that
opinion might be. And he thinks that he can accomplish this
by hurling insults. Unfortunately for the forum -
ttbn will always have something to say
and nothing to contribute.

thinkabit,

I likewise was rather intrigued by the story about this artist. I think it's important that these type of stories are told so that we can remained appraised of just how gullible certain sections of society have become in this post-enlightenment era.

Seriously, these people believe that this woman is able to transfer this fictional power from her body onto the canvas and then have that spread around as the canvas moves around. We need to know that there is this element in our culture that is so removed from the modern world that they are beyond help. So in that regard the ABC does a service, in its own credulous manner.

Little wonder that the close the gap mantra fails when we have some segment of the community that think that canvas has healing powers.

To be clear, art can carry its own form of power. When I first saw the 'Mona Lisa' in the flesh, so to speak, I had an emotional reaction to it that I found surprising. But never did I think it'd cure my haemorrhoids.

Equally when I saw 'Blue Poles' I thought it was a stretch to call it art, let alone great art. More in the realms of 'The Emperor's New Clothes' where the woke are supposed to see things that aren't there.

This 'art' from this 'artist' is in that genre.

So yes I think the ABC should publish this stuff. But not for the reasons they or the woke elite imagine.

these people believe that this woman is able to transfer this fictional power
mhaze,
Not just this woman, Yuyutsu has is not even here on Earth I believe !

Now, thanks to the internet, history can only be invented once !

Foxy,

I would suggest that you seek help, you poor deluded creature; I could even refer you to an ex-colleague. But, given your age and the bubble in which you live, it is probably too late for you.

Foxy is unable to show how anything I have said about her waffle has "proven (her) point" as she asserts, but I will merely suggest that her constant comebacks could possibly prove my point that she is an argument junky. She argues to keep up her 'score' of responses, responses that, if you have nothing better to do and check them, you will find that the 'responses' are mainly her own harangues against one or two only of the same posters taking the piss, which she doesn't recognise' as such, or from from her best buddies, 'Dear Paul' and 'Dear Steelie', who stagger to her aid like the ancient Don Quixote. If she wants 'likes', she could move to the more disreputable and hysterical forms of social media.

I will also just suggest again, that people with Foxy's extreme mindset are only questioning other people's rights to opinions, never their own. The very idea of questioning anyone's right to opinions is extreme and more suited to the totalitarianism of CCP. I'm still amazed that a person could be so out of touch with reality to start a thread like this one, even though I concede the right to do so

ttbn,

I can't argue with your logic you dear
sweet man.

May your day be as pleasant as you are.

Hi thinkabit,

Thank You for asking me the question about
Betty Muffler. I did not know anything about her
but thanks to your question - I did a bit of
research and hopefully the following link may
be of some interest to you as well:

http://www.agsa.gov.au/education/resources-educators/resources-educators/tarnanthi-2020-open-hands/betty-muffler/

Reading this link explained a great deal about the artist to
me. It also reminded me of the old adage - that a mind is
like a parachute. It only works when it's open.

that a mind is like a parachute. It only works when it's open.
Foxy,
Yes, time you pulled the rip-cord, you've been in freefall far too long !

individual,

I don't want to add to Foxy's 'score', but I just had to compliment you on your parachute post. Very appropriate. Just my opinion, of course :).

My apologies thinkabit. Here's the link again:

http://www.agsa.sa.gov.au/education/resources-educators/resources-educators/tarnanthi-2020-open-hands/betty-muffler/

"that a mind is like a parachute. It only works when it's open."

"There's nothing so closed as a closed mind that thinks its open."

There are a number of moral issues here.
- No one is entitled to demand that someone listen to them. However, we aren't entitled to attack someone's beliefs if you haven't done them the courtesy of allowing them to explain them.
- If I do someone the courtesy of listening to their views, I will expect them to extend the same courtesy to me.
- The right to free speech doesn't extend to the right not to be disagreed with. However, when speech has real world consequences like losing one's job, it is no longer free.

Hi benk,

Not everyone knows how to handle diverse views and ideas
and not everyone realises that we don't all think the same.
You're spot on when you suggest that none of us have to
tolerate abuse, nasty behavior, or disrespect. We should
learn from each other and we certainly don't have to
participate in every argument to make a point.

People who feel that they are entitled to their opinion
we need to ask - is it a worthwhile opinion. Having a
worthwhile opinion on complex matters and being worth
listening to on that opinion requires hard work and
preparation. It usually requires years of education in which
one reads widely and learns to think carefully. It also
requires life experience (book learning only gets one so far).

The ideas and positions one develops in their studies need to
be tested in the real world.

... studies need to be tested in the real world.
Foxy,
Wow, you're coming around, try do another jump !

"Are we really entitled to our opinions?"

This depends what one means by "entitled".
I looked it up:

Entitled = believing oneself to be inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.

Well, that being the definition, nobody is entitled: having and keeping one's opinions is our birthright, it was never granted to us by any others, it is not a privilege or a special treatment and we inherently deserve this without exception.

However, nobody is entitled to rob others of their opinions either.

Some intrusions into our body are considered despicable and criminal, rape being one example. If that is the case with intrusion into our bodies, then how more so with intrusions into our minds?!

If genitals are considered "private", then how more so our minds!
Those who consider it OK to intrude into other people's private minds and rob them of their opinions are worse than rapists. China attempts just this on an industrial scale (so was the Spanish Inquisition, but it is no more), so perhaps such people ought to be sent back to China where they belong.

Of course people are entitled to their own opinions but they aren't entitled to their own "facts".

Opinions held in contradiction of hard undeniable facts may be interesting but are inherently worthless. Discarding some truths while hanging onto others or simply believing in something doesn't make it true.

From my experience, most people have a firm and fixed view of reality or the world and when challenged, rather than reassessing their opinion prefer to double-down and attack the messenger instead of the message. Some see this as a typical Amygdala brain response.

ttbn, individual, and mhaze,

This is for you:

" On this forum where you like to talk
There's an "awful woman" that you stalk
She's a "closed-minded" creature that you see
Not "open-minded" like you three

She's being blocked by a "close-minded" door
'Cause it's important to you to even the score
And like anything that is attacked
She continues to fight until she snaps

Perhaps the best thing for her to do
Would be to walk away from all of you."

Foxy,

This particular spat started when I pointed out that you'd listed a bunch of men who you thought to have been validly accused and that you'd been rather selective in your list. That is, that you'd selected people in groups you dislike and 'exonerated' men in groups you favoured even to the extent of listing Prince Andrew for his Epstein links but ignoring Clinton's much greater Epstein links.

Basically I pointed out that you were being political in your assertions rather than 'believing all women'.

But then, instead of acknowledging the bias or defending the bias, you attempted to ignore the bias. And when I didn't let you get away with that, you threw this tantrum, basically demanding that your bias go uncommented on.

I know your self-image is one of being unbiased and so my proving otherwise pisses you off. The solution to that is to be less biased or accept the bias with good grace. But pretending it doesn't exist and that others accede to that pretence isn't going to happen.

"Perhaps the best thing for her to do
Would be to walk away from all of you."

or just try to do better.

Perhaps the best thing for her to do Would be to walk away from all of you."
Foxy,
No, because it wouldn't solve anything. I'd recommend to her to force her indoctrination aside & start looking at what's really happening out there.
Accept that others had experiences that no idealist opinion can nor should alter.
Accept that a level of education does not equal experience.
Stop dishing out snide remarks & none will come your way either.
Stop placing so much weight on some "educated" person's opinion & none on peoples' experiences. Stop believing that less educated people are somehow less knowledgeable.
If she does that she could become a valued contributor.

Volpacchiotto, ?the legend of good women?

Dan

The notion that to be unbiased is a virtue, no its not, its a nonsense, whose unbiased anyway, certainly not me, or mhaze, Indy and ttbn, we are all very opinionated and biased. All the great people of history, which we are not, were biased in favour of their cause or beliefs, in their case, their opinions led to some monumental changes in the world. To have no opinion on a subject is not being unbiased, its just having no opinion. People with no opinion change nothing, people with opinions change everything. Sometimes for the good, sometimes for the bad.

Where hide the volpacchiotti when they wandered far from the lair in adventure?

The blackberry bush.

Why hide in the blackberry bushes little volpacchiotti?

It’s our “opinion” we are safe inside the blackberry bush.

http://cdn.shortpixel.ai/client/q_glossy,ret_img,w_1200/https://allthingsfoxes.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/fox-symbolism.jpg

Funny how Foxy starts the thread with two contreversal claims that she posses the truth that all must accept as fact.
1. Climate change is caused by humans
2. Vaccanations have no side effects
When there is conflicting evidece on both issues by scientist. She has made up her mind [a closed mind] and it is closed to any with a differing view. So on those subjects the discussion is closed.

She gets too much oxygen from people who think that she is going to see the error of her ways. She is not going to see the error of her ways because she is convinced she is right and anyone who disagrees with her is wrong. That doesn't make her that much different from the rest us; she just takes it to extremes. Most people 'let it go' after a short while, she doesn't. Foxy uses OLO as a therapy of sorts. Don't let her use you as therapists. She will never respond to treatment.

I don't mind differences of opinion.
I do mind misinformation.

We should all try to be informed instead
of just opinionated.

Opinions do matter especially if they are
supported by facts. We gain entitlement
through revisiting our views with a critical eye.
And sometimes we may need to re-adjust our views.

As Socrates pointed out:

"It's better to change an opinion than to persist in
a wrong one."

Gentlemen, have a nice day.

So it depends on whos science you accept as fact. Remember Tim Flannary who stated Warragamba dam would never be full again. Others who said in 1986 that we only had till 2,000 to reverse the increase in carbon emmissions or the human race would become extinct, all believed at the time as fact, and the scare mongering began. You are not allowed to question the science, as it could cost you your employment as Peter Ridd suffered. If you are a university graduate you must accept the ideas presented by the professors otherwise you loose your seat as did Professor Peterson.

Josephus,

It isn't a question of whose science we accept as fact.
It's a question on whose science has been verified.
If someone states an opinion as a fact then they take
on the burden of proof

If you want science "verified" you missed out badly with climate science, most of which has turned out to be wrong. But, as I say, nobody will ever be able to convince some people. Best to leave them alone to make fools of themselves. Nothing said by anonymous people on the internet is worth a flick of spit anyway. It’s just another form of amusement for people who are never going to be listened to by the powers that be. All we have is one lousy vote every 3 years; and the way the current parliament is heading, we won't have that much longer. Covid is not the only thing to come from China. Anyone who goes into politics has a latent authoritarianism in them, and Covid is a "unique opportunity" for them. As Prince Charles.

Opinions are subjective beliefs. If they
were objective they'd be facts, not opinions.
As long as opinions are stated as opinions,
they don't matter in the sense that they're not
conclusive, they're just opinions.

They matter to the person holding the opinion and those
who agree with them perhaps, but in the final analysis,
everybody's got one, there's nothing inherently special
about opinions.

However, if you state your opinion as a fact, then you
take on the burden of proof. And if it is possible to
prove your opinion - then it wasn't an opinion to
begin with, it was a fact. Facts are truths that have
been verified - unlike opinions they can be proven.

Hi Foxy, don't rely on any of thee guys for therapy, cause out will come the leaches and frogs eyes to remove the bad humors. That's what they believe.

Proud Boy Jose'

I've re-read Foxy's opening two posts. There is no claim in those post that 1. Climate change is caused by humans or 2. Vaccinations have no side effects.

Just as you have claimed the Washington rioters of 6th Jan, their actions were acceptable.

Dear Paul,

Opinions don't change facts. But facts should effect
opinions and do, if we're rational.

cont'd ...

Dear Paul,

I'm beginning to think that sometimes people talk
too much, and by talking they give themselves away,
of course. So if we want to look good, attractive,
intelligent and mysterious - perhaps we should
keep quiet - or at least not say too much.

It is easy to understand who a person is by what they
say about others. One can learn a great deal about a
person by learning whom they condemn, about whom they
rejoice, whom they worship, whom they detest, and about
whom they lie.

We're lucky that voting is secret. If we found out who
voted for whom, we might be outraged, but then we would
be able to understand how it happened that what no one
wanted to take place did take place. An autopsy of the
vote would show what disease the political corpse was
suffering from.

For our politicians is is simpler - based on what they
promise it is easy to understand when and how they will fool
all of us. Such is their profession - to pretend to be
magicians, fortune-tellers and gods. And what's most
important - there are many people who want to be
seduced, fooled and deceived.

So I guess what I am learning from all this is - not too
open my mouth too much or wear my heart on my sleeve.
Not sure if it will work all of the time - but I'm willing
to give it a go.

It's my firm belief that we're all entitled to our opinion, right, wrong or otherwise. Those of us who are daily regaled with the opinions of others, if we don't like what we hear, we don't need to listen.

If you recall the events of 1939-45, if you expressed an opinion that was contrary to the powers that be in Nazi Germany, soon after voicing that opinion, two heavily built blokes wearing black leather overcoats would come to your house and take you for a drive. And you'd never be seen again. Should that ever return, well, we're all buggered, I reckon? It all about free speech, without the need to destroy a person character.

I guess it's human nature that we all like to think our opinions are right thus valued; therefore, others should listen to us. So I suspect it all comes down to good manners that we listen to others and their opinions without resorting to character assassination(s) and putting the ol' Florsheim into a person's good fame and reputation 'cause he happens to have a different opinion to you.

There is no greater example of this than the police force - a dog eat dog organisation from the Commissioner down! One wears their ballistic body armour backwards to stop the many knives you'll find in your back at the end of your shift. Please, don't doubt me; it's so friggin' true.

o sung wu,

Glad to see that you are still with us. I liked your back stabbing prevention anecdote!

I remain amazed that anyone could even think of asking if it was OK to have opinions; even more amazed when they wriggle around by saying, grudgingly, that yes, maybe …. but …..

There are no 'buts' about it, and no qualifications as to what opinions can be expressed. As you suggest they are not binding. After all, the person who first asked this silly question has never been short of dogmatic opinions, and she is still at it without harming or influencing anyone.

Dear O Sung Wu,

Welcome back.

Not everyone has the expertise necessary to form
an opinion that is a serious candidate for the truth.
A person stating that vaccines-cause-autism with no
medical credentials is not a candidate for the
truth like a doctor.

In your case your years of experience in the police
force give your opinions justification to the content
of your opinion on what goes on in the police force.
Yours is a worthwhile opinion and is worth listening
to. You have the life experience that is required.

Thank You for sharing your expertise with us.

cont'd ...

Dear O Sung Wu,

I also think that we should respect diverse views
and ideas. As I've stated previously - not everyone
thinks the same. This doesn't mean that we have to
tolerate abuse, nasty behavior or disrespect. It just
means we don't have to accept every judgement and
criticism. We learn from each other. We don't have to
participate in every argument to make a point.

Of course opinions matter especially if they are supported
by facts and observations, and life experience.

However not everyone has the expertise necessary to form
an opinion that is a serious candidate for the truth.
You with your experience do. Thank You for sharing it
with us. Your experience holds weight and is worth listening
to.

Foxy,

"However not everyone has the expertise necessary to form
an opinion that is a serious candidate for the truth".

If this is so, what are your qualifications? How are you qualified to express opinions? What are your qualifications to decide who is entitled to express opinions on Online Opinion?

There is no definition of an 'opinion' or rule for the expression of opinions that in any way supports your notions on this subject. If what you say was true, there would be no OLO, or any other social media, nor much opportunity for discussion anywhere.

Hi there TTBN & FOXY...

G'day TTBN...

How have you been, my friend? In my 'opinion' there's good value in what both of you've said. TTBN, you naturally take it as a given that we all have opinions and are entitled to do so. And I agree with you. It's quite natural for people to voice their opinions on a wide variety of topics.

Though as you'd know TTBN, you keep your mouth shut, your eyes and ears open, when you're in the military, especially when a superior is giving orders. And should those orders sound absurd, short of being in a life-threatening situation, you carry those orders out. Occasionally you may be asked for your opinion by a superior in a difficult situation (that shows good leadership, in my view). We're all entitled to share our opinions in 'most' circumstances, I would aver. Save for official briefings, lectures unless specifically asked. Many thanks, TTBN.

Hi there FOXY...

Thank you for your welcome back, that's very nice of you. Some of what you say I would agree with. Though you'd never dare give your opinion in a military briefing unless it's sought. But in a more relaxed setting, you can share your opinions and views without upsetting or eclipsing superior officers.

I don't think it's wrong or in bad form to express an opinion even if you have no knowledge of a topic. However, else will we learn otherwise? It's not unlike a silly question. Provided it's asked to clear up some fact in issue, it's never a silly question. It becomes a silly question when it's calculated to embarrass or belittle some individual, usually in a formal setting where opinions may not be welcome, like lectures or briefings.

Getting old FOXY and TTBN means I turn in very early these days. So I'll bid you both a good night.

Dear Foxy and Ttbn,

«Not everyone has the expertise necessary to form
an opinion that is a serious candidate for the truth.»

No one at all can form an opinion that is a serious candidate for the truth,
for the simple fact that Truth is not an opinion!

.

Dear Foxy,

.

An opinion is “a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge” (OED).

It is different from a belief which means “the acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists”. The expression “belief in” means “trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something” (OED).

I see personal opinion as something healthy and constructive – provided it is the result of truly personal, well-informed, critical thought.

Unfortunately, I have the impression that that is less and less the case today. What I observe seems more like is a distinctive increase in herd behaviour. The so-called emergence of the individual appears to have switched to reverse gear and become a regression of the individual – as attested by the rise of populism, multiple conspiracy theories and massive herd behaviour fuelled by modern technological facilities of instant communication : smartphones, personal computers, internet, social media, etc.

As the following article in the Britannica Encyclopedia points out :

« Freud retained this emphasis in viewing crowd behaviour and many other forms of collective behaviour as regressions to an earlier stage of childhood development; he explained, for example, the slavish identification that followers have for leaders on the basis of such regression.

More sophisticated recent efforts to treat collective behaviour as a pathological manifestation employ social disorganization as an explanatory approach. From this point of view collective behaviour erupts as an unpleasant symptom of frustration and malaise stemming from cultural conflict, organizational failure, and other social malfunctions. The distinctive feature of this approach is a reluctance to take seriously the manifest content of collective behaviour. Neither the search for enjoyment in a recreational fad, the search for spiritual meaning in a religious sect, nor the demand for equal opportunity in an interest-group movement is accepted at face value »

http://www.britannica.com/science/collective-behaviour/Major-forms-of-collective-behaviour

The « slavish identification » that “Donald the Dictator’s” followers have for him seems to bear out Freud’s analysis.

And I regret the current development of what I consider to be herd behaviour that is replacing good, healthy, well-informed, critical thought.

.

Opinions don't change facts. But facts should effect opinions and do, if we're rational.
Foxy,
I have always lived by that & it made me a target for the irrational i.e. Leftists !

No matter what our opinions are
we'll never be able to make everyone
agree with us - although it's never stopped
people from trying - whether it comes from
religion, atheism, science, philosophy,
politics, economics, certain trades, academic
subjects, the media, and so on.

Our opinions are important to us because they're ours.
And we seem to need to understand the reasons and
evidence of others before revising our own options
which are usually based on our own life experience.

Opinions are subjective. (personal) and they are
relevant to our own lives and therefore we shouldn't
try to impose our opinions upon others. Objective facts
can be debated, reasoned, tested and revised but
opinions are not facts and they shouldn't be mistaken
as such.

Dear Banjo,

Unfortunately we all to often see opinions
impressed upon huge groups of people through the
media these days. This perversion of opinion
adoption does not take away from the importance
of legitimate opinions. Scientific opinions don't
depend on whose science we accept as fact - it
should depend on whose science has been verified.

Opinions matter to us and perhaps to those who
agree with us but in the final analysis, they're
not conclusive and everybody's got one.

Instead of advising on her qualifications to have opinions that other people are not qualified to have, as requested, Foxy continues to run off at the mouth with garbled nonsense that bears no relationship to her original post.

She says, "no matter what our opinions are
we'll never be able to make everyone
agree with them".

NB - "make" everyone agree. Reveals her dictatorial personality; and she certainly has failed to boss anyone into agreeing with her ghastly opinion on their rights to express opinions.

"Our opinions are important to us because they're ours.
And we seem to need to understand the reasons and
evidence of others before revising our own options
which are usually based on our own life experience."

So, what the hell has she been on about! No good asking her, of course.

"Opinions are subjective. (personal) and they are
relevant to our own lives and therefore we shouldn't
try to impose our opinions upon others".

Ya gotta laugh. She spends most of her time trying to impose her opinions on others. And she gets very snaky when she inevitably fails to do so.

"opinions are not facts and they shouldn't be mistaken
as such".

Everybody but she knew that right from the beginning. Will she be able to see what a waste of time this thread has been now that she has unravelled it herself? No.

What we think of as facts - is to make a claim that
it is true - and defending that claim may be harder
to defend because it can end up being wrong - despite
our honest commitment to genuine inquiry.

Therefor the right to hold an opinion is usually not
what's in dispute. Its whether one can provide a
justification to the content of the opinion.

The claim to "I have a right to my opinion"
in which a person attempts to reject objections to their
claim is usually a last ditch that attempts to rescue their
position by defending their right to hold an opinion no matter
how ill-founded or wrong that opinion might be.

As we can see this is a complex subject - and often is
not so easy to understand or argue.

We can only be responsible for what we say not for what others
understand. And we often don't always say what we mean - and it comes out wrong.

"And we often don't always say what we mean - and it comes out wrong".

Save that one for the men in white coats.

I mean this respectfully Foxy.

Do you know what you're also entitled to do?
Answer = 'You're also entitled to shut the hell up' -

Let's look at that.

Who the hell are you to say what limits should be placed on others rights to have an opinion ON ANY TOPIC?
Who the hell are you to even suggest that there should be limits?

What if I decreed 'Foxy MAY ONLY speak if she says what I believe'

Maybe you think I'm being hard on you?
Well, your poor logic impacts me and erodes my right to have a say;
- So I have to teach you a lesson.

You want to establish limits to what I can and can't say?
Right now, I'm choosing to recognise MY limits, by not swearing at you.

"feel they're entitled to disagree"
- They ARE entitled to disagree

You're inadvertently trying to push the idea that ONLY graduates in their particular specialised field are worthy of valid opinions to begin with.
- That unqualified people have no right to opinions at all.

Tell me what qualifications do you have for YOUR OPINION?
- That qualifies you to say I'm not allowed to have MY OPINION?

What have you got a diploma in, talking bs?

If you're telling me I'm not entitled to an opinion
(Always just assume I'm the one who disagrees every time)
- That I should instead just shut-up and stay silent;

Then I think YOU should just shut-up and stay silent yourself.

Answer - You see I'm not being hard on you AT ALL
- I'm just doing to you EXACTLY what YOU PROPOSED to do to me first.

You somehow assumed it was ok to deprive me of my right to an opinion.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinions;
- And opinions can be judged on a basis of their own merits.

Beyond that, the second you suggest that people aren't entitled to their own opinions, that's the exact second that you're no longer entitled to yours.

So respectfully,

SHUT THE HELL UP.

HI AC,

Please go back and re-read my posts in full.

You just may understand better what I was saying.

I am responsible for what I say not what you
understand.

cont'd ...

Hi AC,

Let me get this straight - you want me to
"shut the hell up" but you're entitled to
say what you like?

Okkaaay.

You're a bit slow Foxy, but yes exactly.
I want to be able to say whatever I want, and you're only allowed to say things that I permit.
Do you think this is unfair?

- WELL ISN'T THAT WHAT YOUR SUGGESTING? -

Are you so clueless that you don't see that's exactly what you were suggesting?
You did it first.

If I want to say vaccines cause Autism, or that climate change is a load of dogpile;
Or if I want to say that pigs fly backwards to Antarctica on their annual yearly migration, who are you to say I can't?
Other people are going to call me out for what I say.

You know men can have periods, apparently.
Maybe I've got mine right now.
It's 2021, the word breastfeeding is banned because some tranny dude in a dress might feel excluded Foxy.
Milk doesn't come from a breast, apparently it comes from a chest.
Absurdity and bs is all around us, everywhere you look.

But you want to limit my right to an opinion.

Because this world is a beacon of sanity and morons might listen to other morons and that might be dangerous?
Well it's morons running the show.
What's dangerous is you taking a leap forward in helping to establish the thought police, which is sadly a VERY REAL THING in 2021.

And what should you propose my punishment be?
10 lashes in the public town square?
No, you'll fine me (steal from me) and try to take my drivers license if I don't pay.

You can't stop people from having an opinion,
So don't try to stop them from voicing it.

Don't double-down on stupid Foxy.

If you say something stupid, others have a right and a responsibility to tell you it's stupid.
(It's a non-violent form of correction, and you pay a price in humility by saying stupid things)

That's like level 1 stupidity.

You can either accept the level 1 stupidity and humility that goes with it, or you can 'double down on stupid'.

You don't like that others say your idea is stupid.
Sure who does, but if you wanna throw a tanty because you can't accept your idea is stupid, and you wish to push the issue and raise it to a level 2 stupidity;

That's when people don't just have a right and responsibility to say your idea is stupid;
- But that you are stupid.

Unfortunately we have the Forums 'Usual Suspects' who prattle on with nonsense about man made climate change is non-existent, and the virus is nothing more than a bad cold. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, these old blokes carry on with "stupid", as AC calls it. The same fellas probably believe the Earth is flat and the Moon is made out of green cheese, and would argue the pants off anyone who wants to disagree.

Hi Paul,

Some people are more interested in proving themselves
right then in getting the best outcome. They want to
show you where you're wrong without understanding where
you're coming from. They get angry and into personal
attacks if your views don't agree with theirs.

If entitled to an opinion means entitled to have your
views treated as serious candidates for the truth, then
it's pretty clearly false and this is a distinction that
often tends to get blurred.

Not everyone has the expertise or the life experience to
form an opinion that is a serious candidate for the truth.
A vaccines-cause--autism promoter or the covid is only
the flu with no medical credentials is not a candidate for
the truth like a doctor.

We should all be able to know how to handle diverse views
and ideas. I have said that not everybody thinkgs the same.
We learn from each other. Opinions of course are always
personal relevant to our lives. Objective facts can be debated,
reasoned, tested, and revised - but opinions are not facts
and they shouldn't be mistaken as such.

.

To all & sundry,

.

Foxy asks :

« Are we really entitled to our opinions? Can we say or think whatever we like – if being entitled shelters beliefs that should have been abandoned? »

She goes on to explain her concern :

1. « We've seen examples of how amateurs feel they're entitled to disagree with climate scientists and immunologists and have their own views "respected”. »

2. « No one can stop people from saying that vaccines cause autism, no matter how many times that claim has been disproven. »

These are valid concerns and, if I may, I should add a third one which I find particularly preoccupying, even though it does not concern us directly here in Australia – yet !

3. “Donald the Dictator’s” continued assaults on American democracy following his refusal to recognize the results of the 2020 presidential election which were officially certified by his own vice-president., Mike Pence, despite the threat of being lynched during the insurrection of the Capitol.

What is particularly disturbing is that “Donald the Dictator’s” baseless claims of mass electoral fraud and rejection of democracy are backed by the GOP and the Republican-controlled US senate as well as millions of followers throughout the country, including several violent right-wing extremist groups.

None of that augurs well for the future of democracy, not only in the US but even here in Australia and right throughout the free world. The US is a beacon of democracy. When the US catches a cold, the whole world shivers.

That said, no doubt, “Donald the Dictator” also has his unconditional followers and backers here in Australia and in every other country around the world, including Russia and possibly even China.

Everyone has a right to his or her opinion. That is a fundamental principle of democracy that merits our utmost respect.

But there are two other fundamental principles that we must also respect :

2. Citizen involvement in decision making

3. Majority rule

If we value our democracy, we must respect all three fundamental principles and ensure that everyone does.

.

Well I always thought Paul is an extremist, his language of his opposition is extremist as he paints them as ignorant. Typical of the left who are dishonest in representing an opposing view. They become factually extreme.

Dear Banjo,

Thank You.

Informed citizens should have opinions.

The problem is that on some issues expertise or
training is necessary for an opinion to have weight.

It's important to gather knowledge from appropriate places.
In medicine, in science, one can't just have an opinion
without an evidence base.

But in a culture that tells us everyone's opinion matters
some mistake this idea as meaning that everyone's opinion
matters ALL the time, even if it is uninformed or
misinformed.

Of course critical thinking and questioning of what we are
told is important. But an important part of thinking for
oneself is having intellectual humility in knowing
when we don't have enough knowledge on a topic.

Knowledge is often created "by communities of inquiry it's
done by teams, it's done by groups of people and it's done
in conversation." And making sure that your opinion is
properly grounded does have a moral dimension to it.

Perhaps the most worrying opinions are those of people who
actually don't care about whether their opinions are
properly grounded. They care only about being believed and
winning the argument. (or an election - as we saw with Donald
Trump). And that can have devastating effects.

Foxy says: "Some people are more interested in proving themselves
right then in getting the best outcome".

Hell's Bells. She is so far gone that she is blithely unaware that she is describing herself! As long as people keep posting, she will continue trying to justify herself and her nonsense.

As for that other idiot calling everyone old blokes, he is an old bloke himself - he's been 68 for a good while, who knows what he is now. But the only thing young and immature about him is his addled mind. Perhaps he has already reached his second childhood.

Josephus,

I'll repeat what I've written previously:

No matter what our opinions are we'll never be
able to make everyone agree with us and it would
be wrong to try that - although it's never stopped
people from trying - whether it comes from religion,
atheism, science, philosophy, politics, economics,
academic subjects, professions, trades, or even the
media.

And of course our opinions are important to us because
they are ours. And if your opinion differs from mine
I need to understand your reasons and evidence before
revising my own options which are based on my own
experience. Likewise your opinions are more important
to you which is as it should be - for exactly the
same reasons.

Opinions are always personal relevant to our lives and
very little bears much fruit by us trying to impose
our opinions upon others. Or by personal attacks and
insults. Objective facts can be debated, reasoned,
tested and revised. Opinions are not facts - and until
they are verified - they should not be treated as such.

Informed citizens should have opinions. But as I stated
earlier - the problem is that on some issues expertise
training or life experience is necessary for an opinion to
have weight.

ttbn,

Why the continued vitriol?

Opinions don't change facts. But facts should
effect opinions and do, if we're rational.

I don't mind differences of opinion. I do mind
misinformation.

Try being informed instead of just opinionated.

.

To all & sundry,

.

Some may take comfort in this, at least … for the time being :

http://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/07/09/did-trump-damage-american-democracy/

.

Dear Banjo,

Thank You for the link.

It is comforting to read.

Well worth it.

Foxy,

Another slithering away as your rubbish post falls further apart. It's 'misinformation' now, not 'opinions' which was the essence of your post! You have not just lost a screw, as the saying goes, you are falling apart. Most people know when they are done for, but not you: you don't have the sense to move on, as I'm now going to do. You will undoubtedly keep coming back if anyone dares say anything more - you will still be yapping when they screw the lid down on you.

ttbn,

I don't know what is eating you.

Seriously, you need to seek professional counseling.
Being so obsessed with me is not healthy for you.
Your rants and raves about me , your vitriol, -
says more about you than it does me. And I am becoming
quite concerned about you.

You're not in a good place from what I can see.
Take care of yourself and don't be concerned about me.
I'll be fine. I hope that you shall be fine as well.

Take care and stay safe.

I knew Josephus was a far right extremist when he supported violent rioting Jan 6th in Washington in an attempt to overthrow a legitimately elected President. The self proclaimed "pacifist" had nothing to say when six people died in the riots.

Hi Foxy,

Don't argue with that crazy old demented fruitcake. Who cares what he thinks.

Hey Foxy,
Everyone is entitled to their opinion Foxy,
No-one is forced to listen or agree with it.
And all people have the option of revising their opinions, when more information becomes available.

Humility is the thing that pushes us in the right direction.
When we say or do something stupid, others point it out and laugh at our foolishness.
This may cause us to look at things differently and revise our positions.

We're all entitled to our opinions, but we have to put ourselves out there and risk ridicule and humility when we do.

And when others say or do stupid things we have a right and a responsibility to call it out.
It's a non violent way that we all learn and grow as human beings.
If we don't point and laugh, others don't ever learn anything.

Just don't point and laugh too hard;
- Because at some point it'll be your turn -
You'll be the one whom others will be pointing and laughing at...

Hope you didn't take too much offense to my rant,
- I did say 'respectfully', twice.

Should one argue and debate absurdity?

Two fellas meet, one says to the other; "Did you see that scientific doco on the telly last night which explained the origins of mankind, from our earliest days in Africa to the present?"...."Nah its all bunk, my Bible says we all came from Adam and Eve, who were created by God 17th July 4004BC at 2pm." How does the first bloke respond? (A) That's nice, good to know I was wrong. or (B) That's nonsense and you need to equate yourself with the true facts." The argument and debate then begins.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

You wrote (to me) :

« The problem is that on some issues expertise or training is necessary for an opinion to have weight. »

And (to Josephus) :

« … the problem is that on some issues expertise training or life experience is necessary for an opinion to have weight »
.

In a democracy, every vote counts as one. No vote counts (or “weighs”) any more than any other vote. Each vote is deemed to be the expression of the opinion of each person eligible to vote.

Like religion, our political orientation is often inherited as part of our culture. According to a Scientific American article, a study published in 2014 in “Behavior Genetics” found that “the development of political attitudes depends, on average, about 60 percent on the environment in which we grow up and live and 40 percent on our genes” :

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-genes-of-left-and-right/

Forming an opinion on issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, LGBT rights, medically assisted procreation, surrogacy, euthanasia, the death penalty, covid vaccination, global warming, etc., is not just a question of researching the facts and consulting competent experts. Many people follow the recommendations of their spiritual leaders based on religious doctrine. Politically oriented people like the millions of followers of “Donald the Dictator” do whatever their political ideology dictates, irrespective of facts and expert opinion.

Democracy respects people’s religious beliefs and political freedoms and opinions. Authoritarian regimes such as Putin’s Russia, Xi Jinping’s China, Viktor Orbán’s Hungary, MBS’s Saudi Arabia, Erdogan’s Turkey, etc, (there are about 50 authoritarian regimes in the world today) do not. The citizens of all those countries must toe the line, either religiously or politically, or both.

If we cherish our (relative) freedom, we must defend our democracy and respect everybody’s point of view on an equal basis, knowing that, in the final count, it is the overall majority view that prevails.

Be that as it may.

Authoritarian rulers live in the delusion that they know what is best for their people.

I prefer democracy with all its imperfections.

.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

Allow me to add that democracy embraces every opinion indiscriminately, even if they are crazy, illogical, and ill-informed. Who is to decide if they are crazy, illogical, and ill-informed ? The people in power and their representatives ?

The people in power could use that as an excuse to silence and eliminate their political opponents. Perhaps lock them up in a lunatic asylum and silence them permanently with drugs.

A country that allows its people to freely express their crazy, illogical, and ill-informed opinions could be a sign that it is a good, healthy democracy.

I’m willing to bet that the probability that the majority of the population of any such country (Australia, for example) are crazy, illogical, and ill-informed is negligible.

Anyway, that’s my opinion.

.

Gentlemen,

Let me again attempt to explain what I was trying
to say:

Opinions can be misinformed.

Facts to some people are not important (to some only
volume and nastiness matters). That's why my suggestion
(and it was only a suggestion) to try being informed instead
of just opinionated. It was only a suggestion - a sort of
novel idea.

I realize why would one choose to actually learn something
when all around us we see people in top positions who don't
give a damn about truth, facts, accountability, morals,
ethics, or even kindness. But we should not sink to that
pathetic level.

It would be better if all of us tried to do our best to be
informed instead of just opinionated.

And that of course is only my informed opinion.

I meant well.

Dear Banjo,

I found an interesting article in Britannica:

" Perhaps the safest generalization that can be made
is that public opinion does not influence the details
of most government policies but it does set limits
within which policy makers must operate. That is,
public officials will usually seek to satisfy a
widespread demand, or at least take it into account in
their deliberations and they will usually try to avoid
decisions that they believe will be widely unpopular."

There's more at the following link:

http://www.britannica.com/topic/public-opinion/Public-opinion-and-government

Hi Foxy,

I've put foreword the rock solid evidence that the earth is flat, it was all in the tea leaves! Do you want to argue with that? So we have agreement on that one, great. What about the Moon of green cheese? Agree again, even more great. Its so good to have agreement.

p/s That's how the Usual Suspects want us to react to their nonsense notions on a whole range of subjects. The day I start agreeing with Hassy and Indy is the day they should take me out and shoot me.

Hi Paul,

I still haven't learned how to stop being defensive.
I can't keep quiet about
an injustice or a mistake and I still have this
feeling that I need to explain myself to others.
I guess it's part of my upbringing. My parents taught
me to always try to see the good in others and to stay
positive. But sometimes it's not always easy.

"I've put foreword the rock solid evidence that the earth is flat, it was all in the tea leaves! Do you want to argue with that?"

No, not really.
Not because I disagree with you;
I don't like entering arguments that go around in circles.
But I will say I think the idea's pretty stupid.

Lets also not forget that although everyone has the
right to freedom of expression. And this right includes
the freedom to hold opinions - but this right does
carry with it duties and responsibilities and may be
subject to restrictions and penalties as are prescribed
by law and are necessary in a democratic society in
interest of things like - national security, territorial
disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals,
for the protection of the reputation and rights of others,
and so on.

We do have freedom of expression but we also have a duty
to behave responsibly and to respect other people's
rights. Authorities can restrict your freedom of
expression if you express views that encourage racial or
religious hatred.

- Words are a sword and a shield -
You can use them to attack others with;
And you can use them to defend yourself, or others with.

Because words can cause harm;
One needs to wield them wisely.

There's no reason why one shouldn't tell the truth or speak freely,
One shouldn't use words to deliberately inflict too much harm to people who aren't able to take it.

Making fun of others is fair and reasonable in the game of ideas.
If someone says something stupid, others have a right and obligation to tell them so.
Humility comes from being humiliated.

But we shouldn't set out to humiliate or inflict harm on others,
- Unless doing so is necessary to highlight our own point of view -

I think your last line AC, could be a Lexical ambiguity.

It appears to undo all that preceded it.

Dan

.

Dear Foxy,

.

Many thanks for that Britannica Encyclopedia article.

I find it interesting from an historical point of view but largely centred on the assessment of public opinion through opinion polls and market opinion research.

It completely ignores the following :

The 2018 Trust and Democracy in Australia survey found that only 41% of voters were satisfied with democracy. Federal government is trusted by just 31% of the population while state and local governments perform little better with just over a third of people trusting them. Ministers and MPs (whether federal or state) rate at just 21% while more than 60% of Australians believe that the honesty and integrity of politicians are exceptionally low.

Trust is lowest in political parties (16%) and web-based media (20%).

The situation is remarkably similar in the US. The 2018 American Institutional Confidence Poll found that only 40% of respondents say they are "somewhat" or "very" satisfied with "how democracy is working in the United States". Political parties and congress come at the bottom of the list of the 20 US institutions in which respondents declare they have confidence.

The Pew Research Centre's 2018 Liberal Democracy's Crisis of Confidence report indicates that a survey was conducted in 2017 in 38 nations on five different approaches to governing: representative democracy, direct democracy, rule by experts, military rule, and rule by a strong leader who "can make decisions without interference from parliament or the courts".

The findings were eloquent. A median of 66% across the 38 countries believed that "a system where citizens, not elected officials, vote directly on major national issues to decide what becomes law" would be a very or somewhat good way to govern their country.

The authors of the Pew Research concluded:

People generally like representative democracy in theory, but many are frustrated with it in practise. In surveys, many say that their vote does not give them an adequate voice in national politics, that elected officials do not care what people like them think.

Not a word about any of this in the Britannica Encyclopedia article.

.

Hi Foxy,

The only advice I can give regarding this Forum is firstly never apologise and never explain, I think I said that before. Secondly regardless of any demands resulting from the first principle then apply the "armadillo" principle, which is self explanatory, and it also covers the first principle extremely well. I think I said that before. The problem is when you start explaining yourself to certain fruits on the forum, and we have several, the next thing you know you're in a conversation with a deranged chimpanzee, which is not a good conversation to be having at anytime in life. The chimp will send you crackers! Do you recall the now long aholed poster ALTRAV, a perfect example of what I am talking about.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

Here is an interesting passage on public opinion from a book entitled “Multitude” (link at end) :

« This notion of public opinion quickly divides in modern political thought according to two opposing views: a utopian vision of the perfect representation of the will of the people in government and an apocalyptic vision of manipulated mob rule. Consider, for example, two texts published in 1895: James Bryce's American Commonwealth and Gustave Le Bon's Psychologie des foules (The Crowd). Bryce, a Scottish scholar and politician who, like Tocqueville before him, celebrates U.S. democracy, sees public opinion as an essential mechanism of democratic representation. The rule of public opinion could be achieved, Bryce writes, "if the will of the majority of citizens were to become ascertainable at all times, and without need of its passing through a body of representatives, possibly without the need of voting machinery at all .... this informal but direct control of the multitude would dwarf, if it did not supersede, the importance of formal but occasional deliverances made at the elections of representatives. Bryce imagines a political system in which the will of all individuals is completely and immediately represented in government, a system that he thought nineteenth-century U.S. politics made possible.

« Le Bon, in contrast, sees in the public expressions of the masses not many rational individual voices but one indifferent and irrational voice. In the crowd, according to Le Bon, "the heterogeneous is swamped by the homogeneous and the unconscious qualities obtain the upper hand. Crowds are fundamentally irrational and susceptible to external influence; they naturally and necessarily follow a leader whose control maintains their unity through contagion and repetition. In fact, panic might be thought of as the primary emotion of the crowd. The Greek god Pan, from whose name the term derives, leads the masses and drives them insane: innocent people are lynched by mobs, markets collapse, currencies crumble, wars begin. Public opinion is so dangerous according to this second, apocalyptic vision, then, because it tends to be both unified and susceptible to manipulation.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

« In the field of media studies … we find once again the old, bifurcated view of public opinion as either rational individual expression or mass social manipulation. The utopian view is promoted chiefly by the mainstream media itself: the media present objective information that allows citizens to form their own opinions, which in turn are reflected back to them faithfully by the media's opinion polls.

« The scholarly field of media studies tends instead toward the apocalyptic view. Scholars highlight the manipulative effect of opinion polls. There is, of course, something strangely circular in the notion that opinion polls tell us what we think. At the very least, opinion polls « have a centripetal psychological effect, encouraging all to conform to the view of the majority. Many on both the left and the right charge that the media and their opinion polls are biased and serve to manipulate and even fabricate public opinion.

« Once again, public opinion seems to be trapped between the naive utopianism of objective information and rational individual expression and the cynical apocalypticism of mass social control. »

http://ia800204.us.archive.org/11/items/ruidolibrebibliografia/Hardt&Negri_Multitude.pdf

.

Hi Diver Dan,
I think you're right, the last line was a bit ambiguous;
- But I can't seem to find the right words to fix it.

I maybe should've tried to explain that we shouldn't EVER set out to humiliate or inflict harm on others with our words, end of story;
But that if during the course of a discussion, (or a response to someones foolish actions) there's a need to make fun of them in order to effectively put ones opinion across, then that's fair play.

So I'm saying that I recognise I shouldn't run around using my words as a sword to attack people for no reason, because I know that my words can cause harm;

Also, when I do use words in a manner that seems to attack others, (usually it's because I'm actually defending some position) I have to be responsible in recognising that not all peoples skin is as thick as others.
Some people can take it while others are more timid and can really take comments to heart.

I don't always get it right, but I try to be mindful of it.

Anyhow, that's kind of what I was trying to say.

The WA Labor Governments believe a majority of opinion is the only one allowed in Public buildings. All other are to be silenced.
Fron a letter I receiived:

Freedom of religion and belief remains woefully unprotected in this country – despite promises from our political leaders.
But if we did need any reminding, the WA Government has made it VERY clear.
It has been reported by media this week that, only 48 hours after its crushing victory in March, the McGowan Labor Government issued a shocking edict.
State-funded facilities are banned from hosting events “where the content of the event does not represent the views of the West Australian government or the vast majority of Western Australians”.
These are taxpayer-funded venues. And you’ll be banned from using them if your views run contrary to those of the government.
You’d expect this sort of treatment in China, Cuba or North Korea, but in an Australian state?
It takes the idea of ‘cancel culture’ to a whole new level.
And it’s not only the Australian Christian Lobby (which tried to make a booking) that’s fallen foul of this totalitarian ruling.
A prohibition on bookings from organisations “identifying with countries whose political status is unclear or in dispute” seems squarely aimed at stifling critics of the Communist Chinese government.
Apparently Taiwanese, Hong Kongers, Uighurs and Tibetans need not apply.
These happenings underline the abject failure of our Federal Parliament to legislatively protect our basic freedoms.
We're moving beyond individuals coming under fire for their beliefs (think Israel Folau, Archbishop Julian Porteous and Senator Claire Chandler to name but a few).
We're now talking entire groups who will be cancelled for their beliefs.
WA is the latest state to treat freedom of religion and belief with contempt – and until we have some meaningful action at a federal level, nothing will change. end quote.

Because the majority Party in WA voted Labor it could mean a party that condemns communism like the Liberal Party could ultimately be denied use of public buildings in WA.

Gentlemen,

I appreciate all of your opinions and posts.
This discussion has gone for far longer than
I expected. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
For me I've nothing further to add. This discussion
has now run its course.

I look forward to our next discussion.

Take care and stay safe.

The fight for freedom of expression is just beginning, as Marxism believes it is the only opinion that should be heard in public.

Josephus,

Before I leave - kindly remember that although
we have freedom of expression we also have a
duty to behave responsibly and to respect other
people's right.

Public authorities may restrict our freedom of
expression if they can show their action is lawful,
necessary and proportional to:

1) Protect national security and public safety.
2) Prevent disorder or crime.
3) Protect health or morals.
4) Protect the rights and reputations of other people.

An authority may be allowed to restrict your freedom
of expression if you express views that encourage racial
or religious hatred, and so on.

We do have certain rights in a democratic society but there are
other human rights that also need protection. Everyone has
the right to freedom of expression. But this right as
stated earlier carries with it duties and responsibilities
and may be subject to restrictions and penalties as are
prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society.

Foxy what you have posted is not the freedoms of a Democratic society, but the view of a Totalitarian society where the only view held is the Government view. You have been duped into believing the majority is right.

From Foxy:
"An authority may be allowed to restrict your freedom
of expression if you express views that encourage racial
or religious hatred, and so on."

The fact that cultural [race] or religious views views have not been protected and defined a hate law is merely based on public harmony. For instance: If you are talking in a Public Building about child brides or genital mutilation in Australia, it could be considered hate speech under both race and religion in the meaning of social harmony. No one would be able to speak in opposition to such practises.

It ultimately means we become under totalitarian control, and the opponents of Turkey or Cuba have no rights to opposing views of the Government.

Josephus,

I did explain that in our society public authorities
may restrict our freedom of expression if they can show
their action is lawful and necessary and proportionate
to:

1) protect national security, public safety
2) prevent disorder and crime
3) protect health or morals
4) protect the rights and reputations of other people
5) protect against racial or religious hatred.

In our democratic society laws protect our society, and
ensure our rights as citizens against abuses by other
people, by organisations, and by the government itself.
We have laws to help provide for our general safety.

Surely you can see why this is necessary.

Foxy on Point 5 it has not been defined or protected, and in the case of WA Government though over 40% of people hold to marriage is between a man and a woman; the WA Government deem it not acceptable for a person who holds that view to speak in a Public owned venue. That the only view allowed is marriage has many variants. Which is a Marxist view to destroy the family as God ordained. We know you are happy to accept all combinations of sexual relations as marriage.

Josephus,

We have a duty to behave responsibly and to respect
other people's rights. We do have certain rights
but there are also other human rights that also need
protection. I can see that you want to argue. I don't.
We are poles apart in our thinking and I see not point
in continuing this conversation with you. I shan't be
responding to you any further.

I thought so: you would fit very well into the Chinese Communist Party. Majority opinion is that held by the Government, the only opinion allowed as it is the democratic opinion - majority rule.

Josephus,

I don't have to go to China to fit into
the Chinese Communist Party.
There's plenty of them here in Australia.

However to paraphrase former US President -
John F. Kennedy:

I believe in a country where religious intolerance
will someday end ...
Where every person has the same right to attend
Or not attend the Church of his/her choice.

BTW: Denying equal rights to another group of human beings
based on your own religious beliefs is still called BIGOTRY!

I am happy to be called a bigot, when My view denies a person with multible wives to become a member of my Church, or has among them a child bride.

cont'd ...

We should not attack others
For having different beliefs than us
We can not force anyone
To support or believe what we do
However we can all be respectful
Of each other
And mind our own business.

It's Okay to be an atheist
It's okay to be Christian
It's okay to be Jewish
It's okay to be X,Y, or Z ...
It's not okay to shame
Other people for their beliefs.

What makes you think that a person whose religious
beliefs are different to yours will want to be a
part of your Church. No more than you would want to
be a part of theirs. But neither of you are entitled
to force your beliefs on any one else.

And as stated earlier - in this country people are
free to follow whatever religion they choose - as
long as it does not harm anyone else or breaks any
of our laws. I believe that multiple wives and
child-brides are illegal in this country.

Foxy said: "I believe that multiple wives and
child-brides are illegal in this country".

No they are not registered with the Govbernment, they exist privately. Mormons have multiple wives, sanctioned by the elders, and Muslims have both, not registered with the Government. One registered and the others as single mothers.

Both are religions I would discriminate against unless they converted.

Josephus,

Good for you. That is your right to do.
As there's is to ignore you.

Let us not forget the multiple wives among Indigenous Australians.
I remember the case of the bloke in the NT who was getting marriage allowance for four wives when the powers that be woke up and cancelled three of them.
They simply went on the single mothers’ pension and all were happy again, especially as it meant that more money was coming in.

Muslims and Mormons in Australia can practice the locally unlawful multiple marriages and the taxpayer foots the bill.

Is Mise,

Not only Muslims and Mormons.

There's been many cases of white Christian men
doing precisely the same thing as women's mags
have reported over the years. So what's the point?
We're all responsible for our actions - hidden or
not.

Women's magazines would report on mormons as Christians as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday saints to the journalists would be considered Christian.

Dear Josephus,

Perhaps you could explore Buddism to convert to.

"This link between evangelical Christianity and child marriage actually has been explored recently in the wake of stories of failed Senate candidate Roy Moore’s proclivities. Evangelical communities still push for child marriages between girls in their “middle teens” and men in the mid-twenties or older. According to these groups, younger girls make better spouses because they are blank slates and can be more easily “molded” to serve their future husbands better. What is even more troubling in these communities is that the predominant narrative is that it is the young girl who is pursuing the older man, which means that the pregnant 15-year-old is the one who “sinned” by overcoming the resistance of the adult man who had sex with her."
http://www.salon.com/2018/03/11/banning-child-marriage-in-america-an-uphill-fight-against-evangelical-pressure/

Foxy,

Yes, but multiple marriages at the same time are not permitted in Christianity, a Christian who marries while his wife is alive commits bigamy which besides being a civil crime for him is also a religious violation, not so for the tribal Aboriginal, the Muslim or the Mormon; therein lies the difference.

SR, I personally believe a child becomes an adult on maturity. Maturity may mean 16 for girls and 18 for boys, it depends on the individual. Though marriage must depend on their union together to establish a home and raise a family with security. With the social pressures of today marriage is pushed to the late 20s and 30's.

When I talk about child brides they are still children.

Is Mise,

As you well know not everyone obeys the rules
set down by their religions so finger-pointing
is a waste of time and achieves nothing productive.
The "My God is better than yours," has always divided
us.

Foxy,

Off beam again, the Aboriginal was living up to his tribal laws and the Muslim and the Mormon who have multiple wives are living up to theirs, albeit at the taxpayers’ expense usually.

My good Muslim mate in India has three wives (his first wife has died) but he is a millionaire + and can afford the luxury.

So what’s your point?

Hi Issy,

Don't know about your Indian mate, but there are many Mormons in my family, on the wife's side, the Mormons got in post 1976 when they allowed people of colour to join. None have more than one wife as far as I know. Early Christians often had a second wife. The custom of the time was if your brother died, then it was upon you to take his wife and any children into your family. It was acceptable for that wife to bear children to you.

When in Sydney a favourite niece (Mormon) got me one Sunday to go to the Mormon Temple for a service, some American bishop was in town. The service was not out of the ordinary, but on our meeting he did grab the taonga around my neck and asked "what's this", I explained but he didn't seem to impressed.

Speaking with the niece about vaccination, she's of the opinion she will only get it if its Gods will. Maybe the Bishop needs to open his mouth a bit more. I understand the Jehovah Witnesses oppose vaccination as being ungodly.

.

Josephus wrote :

« The WA Labor Governments believe a majority of opinion is the only one allowed in Public buildings. All others are to be silenced.

Freedom of religion and belief remains woefully unprotected in this country – despite promises from our political leaders … We're moving beyond individuals coming under fire for their beliefs (think Israel Folau, Archbishop Julian Porteous and Senator Claire Chandler to name but a few). We're now talking entire groups who will be cancelled for their beliefs.

WA is the latest state to treat freedom of religion and belief with contempt ... »
.

A search on the internet reveals that in June, the Perth Theatre Trust refused the Australian Christian Lobby’s request to hire the Albany Entertainment Centre and Perth Concert Hall for its ‘The Truth of It’ live show on the grounds that the show’s content would have been contrary to its venue hire policies. The ACL event, which purported to tackle “thorny issues” with a biblical perspective, was a politically motivated event and didn’t represent the views of the WA government or the majority of its people.

However, the Perth Theatre Trust’s chairman later declared that the Trust’s hiring policies were currently under review and the refusal has been rescinded.

University of Queensland freedom of speech expert Professor Katharine Gelber said she could see what the trust was trying to do with the policy, but it was the “wrong wording entirely” and the government needed to beef up laws in other areas to stop discrimination. The policy should allow them to prohibit hosting events contrary to anti-discrimination laws, which the ACL event would likely fall under [an allusion to LGBTQIA laws].

http://www.watoday.com.au/national/wa-government-s-venue-hire-policy-the-wrong-lever-to-stop-discrimination-free-speech-scholar-says-20210714-p589s2.html
.

The problem is not so much “treating freedom of religion and belief with contempt” as it is an attempt to instrumentalise religion as a justification for discrimination based on race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation, etc.

That form of religion is what Freud called obsessional neurosis.

In my opinion, religion is like a drug : a little stimulates; too much enslaves; an overdose dehumanises.

.

Josephus,

You're against abortion and anti choice for women.
Are you against capital punishment? Do you condone
bombing of abortion clinics? Do you participate
standing outside abortion clinics with placards?
Did you condone the attacks on the Capital building
in Washington? Where do you stand on just a few of
these issues?

Dear Banjo and Paul,

Thanks once again for your posts.

Our society has many issues that need our attention.

Here's a few thoughts that I raised on another discussion
that might be appropriate here as well:

" It isn't always easy to try to fit in
When even your name you just want to bin
When you're not a Smith or even a Jones
And saying your name makes some people groan

It's even worse if you're Chinese
You do get blamed for each disease
Heaven help you and that's a fact
If you happen to be Black

If if you have a different God
You're considered quite weird and rather odd
Or if your love doesn't fit the norm
You may regret you were ever born

We've all heard of females and the glass ceiling
Trying to break it will leave many reeling
There's also the disabled and the aged
The homeless, the drug addicts, and disengaged

Where are the leaders who should simply dare
To show all of us that they do really care
Policies and programs put in place
Is something we could all embrace

Then of course there's our native people
Who some describe as being feeble
Who's to blame for this dilemma?
The White Man's Law and his Systema?

Frankly though it's not too late
We can make changes and navigate
Righting the past in our Constitution
Would correct the history of total exclusion

Future generations Yellow, Black, Brown, and White
Will then grow up with dignity and pride
Able to take things in their stride
That's the way surrounded by sea
This beautiful big brown land is meant to be."

Paul,

I don’t think that it was early Christians but it was Old Testament law.
That was Oman’s sin that he refused to get his dead brother’s wife pregnant in his brother’s name thus keeping any inheritance for his own offspring.

On an famously ‘spilled his seed upon the ground’ which has been the erroneous foundation for the Church’s ban on contraception.

Dear Josephus,

And here lies the rub doesn't it.

You have gone from: “I am happy to be called a bigot, when My view denies a person with multible wives to become a member of my Church, or has among them a child bride.”

To:

“I personally believe a child becomes an adult on maturity. Maturity may mean 16 for girls and 18 for boys, it depends on the individual.”

Or perhaps it means 15? Or 14? Or even younger if pregnant?

Most of us see 18 as the appropriate minimum. Why don't you?

Moves to stop child marriages in the States most afflicted by this scourge are constantly being blocked by Christian groups. Why do you think that is?

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/current/nation/christian-family-groups-trying-block-child-marriage-law/

So get off your high horse mate, you certainly don't get to preach to anyone on this topic.

Hi Issy,

Some "laws" would be reasonable for the times, taking in a dead brothers family, what could they do without you, hop on down to 'Centrelink'. Not eating pork, well to do so could easily result in death, yours.

Christ was not a Christian, it appears he had no issues with scripture itself, but had disagreements with the religious hierarchy of the time. The brother of Christ, James remained a leader within Judaism, like Christ still disagreeing until his assignation by Temple rivals around 62AD.

What we have to understand, other peoples don't/didn't adhere to modern Judeo-Christian concepts of family, marriage etc, and its wrong to be critical of them for that. Often practices have developed not from religion but from necessity, and then been incorporated into religion.

SR, how many 14 - 15 year olds do you know that are capable of establishing a home and raising a family? That is the criterion of maturity.

Are you against capital punishment?
Yes!
Do you condone bombing of abortion clinics?
NO!
I support clinics for education and support of pregnant women.

Do you participate standing outside abortion clinics with placards?
No!

Did you condone the attacks on the Capital building in Washington?
No!

Nor do I condone the extended violence looting and burning in USA or SA.

Paul,

Of course Christ was not a Christian, Christians are, by definition, followers of Christ.

But shew me where early Christians had more than one wife.

Josephus,

I'm so glad to hear that and Thank You for responding
to all of my questions.

Take care. Stay safe. And God Bless.

So Josephus,

You're not adverse to a 12 year old girl being married off to a 50 year old man of the church, providing she can cook and clean, and keep house, bearing the babies goes without saying, your "criterion of maturity". That's what you and other fudo Christians advocate. Wow! Sounds rather perverted.

Taken from the web:

In Christianity, Jesus is the Son of God and in many
mainstream Christian denominations he is God the Son,
the second Person in the Trinity.

He is believed to be the Jewish messiah who is
prophesied in the Hebrew Bible which is called the
Old Testament in Christianity. Jesus was raised as a Jew.
His real name was YESHUA (Hebrew) which translates to
English as Joshua.

For your information an estimated 50,000 (possibly more)
Evangelical Christians practice Christian polygamy in the
West based on the belief that the Bible glorifies this
form of marriage which they justify by citing the fact that
many biblical prophets had multiple wives including -
David, Abraham, Jacob and Solomon.

Foxy,

Wow!! 50,ooo or more, out of 2.382 billion, that’s a mighty impressive figure and you say that Jesus was Jew, you astound me with your knowledge; care to give a reference?

It would be considered in many quarters that those 50,000 or more were not Christians at all, Christ is credited with saying that he brought a New Testament.

Is Mise,

You can Google this information:

"Polygamy in Christianity" - ( available on Wikipedia).

"Jesus"- (also available on Wikipedia).

And elsewhere on the web.

Seek and you shall find.

Foxy,

You can Google this information, 50,000 is 0. 0021% of 2.382 billion, I’ll even give you 0.003% which is an extra 20,000.

As I said really impressive figures.

Is Mise,

I shall give this the consideration that it
deserves.

Thank You for being so honest and caring.
Reminds me of some of the Irish priests we
grew up with.

They were probably Mormons, I worked for a Mormon who had two women he considered wives. There was a certain amount of jealousy between the two, and only one lived with him and his family. The other was mormon but had no husband other than him whom he supported and visited regularly.

Persons becoming Christian from other cultures often had several wives to whom they were responsible. However in Christianity the Church teaching is monogamy.

Just a bit off topic...

Anyone heard of the "Betoota Pub" ?

Apparently it's 170 kilometres east of Birdsville
and a 17 hour drive west of Brisbane.

It's supposed to be really something. My younger
brother and his wife are caravaning around the country
at the moment and thoroughly enjoying themselves. They
left prior to all the lockdowns in NSW. They are also
planning to attend something called the Birdsville
Big Red Bash (Music Festival).

Being in Melbourne at the moment is quite depressing.

Foxy,

Being in Melbourne at any time can be depressing.

Is Mise,

Not when you have your loved ones nearby and
can see them. But if in lockdown you can't.

Foxy

Glad that you recognise the utter insignificance of the 50,000+ that you quoted.

Is Mise,

There's only the insignificance of a mind that
refuses to grasp the implications.

Over 100 million Muslims (about 15%) support terrorism against infidels.

OMG, say the woke, that's just a same fraction of the total Muslim adherents. How dare you condemn a whole religion based on the actions of a same minority.

0.003% of Christians are (perhaps) polygamous.

OMG say the woke, we need to condemn the whole religion based on this large minority.

Do these people ever stop to consider their hypocrisy.

Foxy,

You’d know, it’s a your mind.

Is Mise,

The sad thing is - you don't have a clue!

Foxy,

Of course I do, I’m saintly and wise, just like the Irish priests that you mention.

Is Mise,

I see - so you will always have something to say
and nothing to contribute. As I said - clueless!

Foxy,

You brought in the Irish priests, I thought that I was contributing to a conversation with you.

Speaking of opinions.
Opinions should never become policy without testing to see if there is any validity.

Example, it would seem that it was someone’s opinion that the markings fo lane lines on our roads were not wide enough, so now thousands if not millions of litres of extra paint is being used to paint wider lines, even though the existing. Line width had been good enough for the past hundred years.

Even if some justification can be found for the wider lines on the roadways there can be no good reason for painting wider demarkation lines for parking spaces.

Here is Martin discussing the Totalitarian Government of Western Australia, and their support of the Chinese Communist Party.
http://www.facebook.com/ACLobby/videos/4138976596185699

I believe Foxy's views align with the Western Australian Government, on her points which is not democratic freedom of speech but totalitarian.

Either through forgetfullness or ignorance
many Australians don't appear to realise
free speech is not a legal right they hold.

In fact Australians are subject to a variety of laws
restricting free speech- including defamation law,
hate speech law, sexual harassment law, and laws against
threatening others.

While desirable in theory truly free speech would open up
vulnerable people to intimidation and attack.

Thought you were totalitarian:
Foxy said, "Australians don't appear to realise
free speech is not a legal right they hold.

In fact Australians are subject to a variety of laws
restricting free speech-"

Who defines what opinions one can hold in Australia?
Look at WA and Vic for this answer.

Josephus,

I thought you were ignorant.

Thank You for confirming it.

I just watched a piece from ABC...
http://youtu.be/Df1Fnw2M6f4
Bunch of paid mouthpieces pushing the hive mind beliefs.
I don't want to hear peoples 'scripted leftist hive-mind virtue signalling crap'
Trying to brainwash everyone with their sick agendas
Why don't you tell me what YOU really think mate?
- Not what you're paid to say.

All these people on TV they're all getting paid to talk utter shite.

Who gives a crap if people have their own opinions?
'How dare she say immigrants are like cockroaches?'
- So what if she does?

The worlds becoming increasingly totalitarian.
It's as though they forgot that people are well their own people;
- And are going to have their own opinions on things.
2021 It's almost a crime to have your own opinion.

What a horrible disgusting worlds its become;
- Trying to act all pure and wholesome.

- Fake as McDonalds cheese -

Hi AC,

Unfortunately we all too often see opinions impressed
upon huge groups of people (usually through the media)
these days from sources with agendas. However, most
people are not that gullible. After all opinions are
a mark of human thought and reasoning and ideally are
formed by each individual as the product of their own
thought with influence coming from experience, research,
and interaction with others. So chin up - things are not
all that bad.

Dear Armchair Critic,

Mate you are one confused puppy aren't you.

You said: “Bunch of paid mouthpieces pushing the hive mind beliefs.” Fine, as the story was about Katie Holmes that description fitted her perfectly. But them you went on with:
“I don't want to hear peoples 'scripted leftist hive-mind virtue signalling crap'”

I'm sorry, but in what world don't you get the rank hypocrisy you have just displayed. So her views are the only ones worth broadcasting?

Media Watch is well researched with the bulk of the content being completely factually based.

DO you think Holmes should have been deported or not noting of course she wasn't being deported for her views but rather her behaviour.

They deported Katie Holmes? Damn, and I really thought I was in with a chance this time. If only I'd know she was in the country.

Methinks you're getting your Katie Hopkins confused with your Katie Holmes. Which is like confusing Hilary with Melanie.

Who's Katie Hopkins?

And who cares?

Now Katie Holmes - That's a good story (anytime)!

Hey did you hear that Katie may be thinking of
moving to Oz. Apparently she loved it here when
she last visited. Maybe our properties may tempt
her? Especially the beachside ones in Byron.,
Better than New York.

Left reports: Katie Hopkins blasts Australia’s leaders for ‘imprisoning’ people amid lockdowns Katie Hopkins’ war with Australian authorities has escalated as the commentator blasted the country’s leaders for “crucifying” everyone in lockdown.
Katie Hopkins fined by NSW police and deported from Australia after visa cancelled
Far-right commentator who entered country with support of NSW government to appear on Big Brother fined $1,000 for not wearing a mask. She has over 1 million twitter followers.

Hey SteeleRedux,

Personally I think none of them should be brought into the country for a stupid TV show.
Secondly shes a guest in our country and should respect our rules.
But just because she says something, doesn't mean she actually did it.
Did you see the part that where channel 7 said "We strongly condemn her irresponsible and reckless comments in hotel quarantine".

- Well there's no mention of her actually doing it.

Wouldn't she be charged and arrested if she did breach Covid rules?

Who cares what she says to her social media followers.
Just because people say things in music or social media doesn't mean they're actually going to do it in real life.

Next they segway over to their real gripe.

They say "Hopkins is after all, notoriously racist."
- They make a point about her 'hateful views' and then move to a clip where she states "I'm known as the biggest bitch in Britain"

They back to the host
"She has a long history of hateful comments about migrants, asylum seekers and minorities"

So what?
What if I disparage migrants, asylum seekers and minorities?
Are you going to deport me and revoke my citizenship?
Many of them deserve the disparaging.
They come for centrelink benefits.
Have you forgot about Africans gangs running amok in Melbourne.
And anytime a foreigner is called out legitimately, well then we're 'racist';
As well as all this other white privilege and critical race theory bs.

More importantly;
Does she have a long history of hateful comments about Australians?
Does she generally take the piss out of everything?
It seems so, that's actually more of an Australian trait than the host, who himself is acting like a whingeing pom.

Then they quote her using the term 'Final solution'
But you're not allowed to use that term, it's an anti-semitic trope.
- Like she's actually building ovens to put people in.
- Yeah right whatever

'Colleagues cheers of her departure'

Those colleagues were probably leftist nutcases, but you see hive-mind ideology, making a point that the colleagues didn't like her.

So what?

Its all bs.

I'm getting tired of the world being so anal about everything.
Who gives a crap if someone has different opinions to you.
That used to considered a good thing.

Sick and tired of all this virtue signalling crap.
When I grew up just about everyone and everything had aspects of racism.

Remember Kiwi jokes, Irish jokes;
Now apparently that's racist.

Sick of what this country is turning into.
The want to demonise everyone and everything that doesn't fall into line with the 'new australia' - complete with thought police.

WELL IM SICK OF IT

And look at this crap:
http://www.flightradar24.com/-30.9,107.39/4
How many international and domestic flights can you count going into locked-down cities?
Can you count them?
Why does our whole nation have to be held ransom for the 1% catching planes?
Apparently there's a pandemic for all of us.
But not for schoolkids, 'chosen businesses' or people catching planes.

Kudos AC.

When asked why he was so certain Vietnam would win the war without the firepower the Americans had, Ho Chi Minh basically said "We are strong, they are a bunch of soft-cocks." Me thinks the way some are going on about suffering such "hardship" now, Ho was right, soft-cocks one and all.

I'm so glad that I live in Victoria where our
Premier has done the right things by us all
along! NSW can certainly learn from Victoria.

It's not surprising to see Foxy standing up for Commie Dan Andrews who was apparently supported into power by the Labor Far Left Power Faction. At least she seems to be consistently supporting Communist principles- we know where see stands- and if there is a war- we know where she stands. Hopefully she is just as consistent when she is the target of communist (low resolution- Jordan Peterson) policies.

The following link is an interesting read:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed/news-corp-slammed-for-unbalanced-reporting-on-victorian-premier-as-poll-shows-majority-supports-him

Well we know of Dan's love affair with the CCP Belt and Road program. Gladys let us down by allowing Covid strains out of lockdown bu unvaccinated couriers. At least Gladys does not want to involve the Communists in the development of NSW.

This follows from Foxy's link...

Unfortunately the Newspoll result appears to be behind a pay wall.

http://theconversation.com/coalitions-lead-increases-in-newspoll-biden-maintains-clear-lead-over-trump-142978

History of Newspoll...

http://duckduckgo.com/?q=coalitions-lead-increases-in-newspoll-biden-maintains-clear-lead-over-trump&ia=web

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouGov#Galaxy_Research

Here's my link again about Daniel Andrews and how
the majority of Victorians support him and how
unbalanced the Murdoch Press really is. News Corp is
slammed for unbalanced reporting on the Victorian Premier:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed/news-corp-slammed-for-unbalanced-reporting-on-victorian-premier-as-poll-shows-majority-supports-him

Voters need to be informed and engaged and steer clear from
political groups that are not committed to democratic
processes or have racially motivated agendas.

Politicians sharing power in their own party, or in other parties,
is dangerous. Politicians of the center right and center left may
see each other as historical opponents but they should be allied
in fighting extremists on either side.

In our troubled times and the rising of political extremism
around the world we can learn from how Hitler rose to power.
That period holds important lessons on the rise of Nazism in
Germany and how similar excesses can be prevented in the
future.

There's more at the following link:

http://www.theconversation.com/understanding-how-hitler-became-german-helps-us-deal-with-modern-day-extremists-118516

http://www.theconversation.com/understanding-how-hitler-became-german-helps-us-deal-with-modern-day-extremists-118516

The article that Foxy provided is interesting- but perhaps not in the way she'd desire- the title and premise of the article implies that those that use similar political tactics are the same as the "Cliche Hitler Demon"- while I'm pretty certain this isn't true.

I'm sure that many political organizations use similar tactics- in fact the Communists seem to be experts- the study of which the person of Hitler probably came up with the original idea.

Whilst on the topic of anniversaries of politicians and regimes the Centennial Anniversary of the Russian Communist Revolution and the following Communist deaths that resulted in 100 Million people has recently passed- Communists everywhere perhaps pleased with their accomplishments.

Democracy isn't perfect and many monarchies are relatively peaceful and nurture society. Often combining elements of monarchy and Locke Liberal Representative Democracy.

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

Communism isn't democratic nor trial by social media feature of current socialistic woke politically correct trends that undermine society and governing.

Given Foxy's mention- what specifically did Hitler do badly (many have an opinion on this) in contrast to other regimes recently and historically. A lot has been said about "the actions" of Hitler against for example the Jewish diaspora- some comparison has been made with the actions of the Jewish diaspora in Judea and elsewhere in recent and modern times.

The Samurai Culture of Japan singled out as cruel but it seems to be self consistent. It came to an end between 1854 and 1890. It's been said that samurai killed their families before battle to prevent enemy torture- overtones Masada overrun by Romans- but different cultures proceed at different rates

Maybe the Han Chinese should be held responsible for the mass civilian slaughter of the warring states period.

In one thousand years these events seen with different eyes- if we learn the lessons- all have lessons- maybe we'll still be here.

Economic warfare perhaps the most effective.

History is cultural conflict.

It seems to be valid to use physical violence as a last resort to our differences. It seems to me- anti-racists believe that social engineering the ethnicity and phenotypes of a nation is valid- this seems to be racist in it's own way- and they believe that this principle should be executed dictatorially on a global scale.

This is called by some as a "browning" or "evening out" of the people of the world so that everyone is the same- they perhaps argue that this will prevent wars and conflict- they argue for the destruction of national and ethnic culture- tabula rasa (blank slate theory). The people that promote this think they know more than the sum knowledge of written history- they're wrong.

Blank Slate Theorists- (usually Communists) are more bigoted than everyone- they want to destroy everyone's culture except theirs- often in the name of Intersectionism but really in the name of destruction power and death (as the Russian born Ayn Rand said).

It concerns me that some people should be persecuted because of what they think rather than what they do.

Every culture needs their own nation.

Today there are so many different cultures
within each nation for a variety of reasons.
Take Australia as an example - it has over
300 different ethnic groups, 100 religions
in its cultural melting pot.

Then just in the city of London in the UK
there's 270 different nationals and 300
languages.

As individuals there's much we can learn from
each other's culture. For example if we open ourselves
to humbly learning about a different world
view we can grow in our understanding of ourselves
and be enriched by another way of thinking about the world.

Foxy seems to support "selective breeding" in Western nations. Ironic in a different context that the west were the ones to fight it in Germany and elsewhere. As she's said she wants to melt "in the melting pot" the British Australian's and the British themselves from the world. Get her before she gets you I suppose.

Perhaps Britain and Australia and the US should have stayed home during the world wars and conserved their power and locked their doors when the walking wounded came around.

Stupid us. No good deed goes unpunished.

Things will be worse when they breed us out.

While the British and American influences have
played a major role in defining the shape of
Australia that we know today a number of other
influences have contributed to the development of
the Australian identity.

As migrants arrived in Australia over the decades they
introduced new stories, traditions and perspectives to
Australian culture. The traditional concepts of an
Australia as a white British colony, or a land of
struggling bush-dwellers, no longer seemed to fit with
the diverse new reality of society.

As Indigenous people were finally acknowledged as the
original owners of the land, the role of Indigenous values
in the construction of a true Australian identity had become
apparent.

As such, the Indigenous and migrant influence has
intervened in the American and British effect on Australian
culture.

As Australian society adapted to changing cultural
influences across the dacades, whether they be British,
American, Indigenous, Asian or European, the national
identity continually evolved in response.

In the face of globalisation, however the future of
Australia's unique national identity was increasingly
challenged by the development of a global culture.

Of course over time migrants tend to disperse into the
wider Australian community, leaving their unique cultural
influence behind, examples include the Germans in the
Barossa Valley of South Australia, Vietnamese in
Cabramatta and Springvale (Melbourne) and the Middle-
Eastern influence in Auburn (Iraquis and Lebanese).

The cultural richness covers the wide variety of food,
leisure pursuits, arts, visual aspects like streetscapes,
and cultural traditions.

Who the heck wants to go back to watery roasts, bangers
and mash, and the primitiveness and cultural backwater
that Australia once was.

Foxy, Roast meats and vegs and gourmey bangers and mash are exactly the same orotein as any other nations meals.

Josephus,

You miss the point. Australia was a cultural backwater
with very little choices in food and culture prior to
the arrival of immigrants who demanded choices that
they were used to like - delis, Christmas decorations
made out of glass instead of balloons and paper streamers.
Australia was enriched by the choices that the immigrants
demanded. And has not looked back since. Variety of food,
leisure pursuits, the arts, everything changed. for the better.

Foxy what you are claiming as better is the tinsel and flavouring. Examine the product of Australia and see what we have given to the world. What is on your place that is not Australian product.

Josephus,

Once again you misunderstand me. All I am trying to say is
that today we have a number of other influences that have
also contributed to the development of the Australian
identity. As migrants arrived in Australia over the decades
they introduced new stories, traditions and perspectives to
Australian culture. The traditional concept of an
Australia as a white British colony, or a land of struggling
bush-dwellers no longer fits with the diverse new reality
of our society today.

As Australian society adapted to changing cultural
influences across the decades, whether they were British
to start, followed by American influences, Indigenous,
Asian or European the national identity continually
evolved in response.

In the face of globalisation, the future of Australia's
unique national identity is increasingly challenged by
the development of a global culture.

Over time migrants do disperse into the wider Australian
community leaving their unique cultural influence behind.
Examples include the Germans in the Barossa Valley of
South Australia, the Vietnamese in Cabramatta and
Springvale (Melbourne) and the Middle-Eastern influence
in Auburn.

The cultural richness today in this country covers a
very wide variety of not only food and leisure pursuits,
but the arts, visual aspects like streetscapes, and other
cultural traditions.

See you on another discussion. This one for me has run its
course.

Have a nice day.

British people are somewhat Germanic certainly much much closer than Vietnamese.

At least Vietnamese are more responsible as far as population control than the Chinese, India, and Africa. Still I think it's better to fix the problems in Vietnam rather than them be forced to come here away from their ancestral roots- just as British Australian's in the late 1700's and 1800's created a piece of stability and civilization in the south of the earth.

Every person has a limit to how much change and exposure to other cultures they can experience before they feel alienated.

Obviously when there are "issues" in a foreign nation and people find themselves in Australia they will experience alienation- but this is not the fault of the British Australian culture. The Australian Government has a responsibility to protect the interest of the Australian people- perhaps it has given away what it had no right to give away in the form of mass immigration- which is effectively an alien invasion.

Humans are territorial animals- some are more territorial than others- should they be forced to conform?

For thousands of years pieces of land were considered the property of different tribes- there were wars to take other tribes land- new technology was developed such as agriculture, industrialism, city states, nations, etc. After the world wars the world was in shock over the destruction.

It's only recently that widely disparate cultures have come in regular contact through transport innovations. Technology has often moved faster than social systems and can often have undesirable results. It's interesting that The Unabomber warned of the enslavement that often occurs through technology.

It's been less than 200 years since the west started having regular direct contact with the far east