Society/Culture Q&A 2016

[Blommerz]

Calm down, Blommerz. You're getting hysterical, and I don't want you to lose control of your emotions when you call your University and ask them why your gender studies didn't cover some of the basics.

Once you've had a lie down and a cool glass of water, you can peruse this further reading and show them how they let you down.

You realise that Van Badham writes for the Guardian, right? And you think an article from the same journalistic *newspaper* is such as to constitute "evidence"? Tell me, do you study anything academically?

 

[Blommerz]

Well I was having a play on his words, but if you must. How would you define these other terms that are provided in that thesaurus link from good ol' bloomsy- misanthrope( hater of mankind?) anti-feminist ( opposed to feminist ideals?) male chauvinist ( thinks he is superior to women?).
None of them are actually mean the same thing as misogyny do they? (hater of women)
All a becoming a bit of a yawn though, isn't it.

The Thesaurus lists synonyms for the words. I fail to recognise your point? If sexism is a synonym for misogyny, then how can you say that no one mentioned misogyny given that they mentioned female sexism? The two are completely synonymous.

Of course, the fact that you haven't answered my question in the thread, and only sought to answer DemonTim's, is quite telling of just how disingenuous you truly are being.

 

[romeohwho]

You realise that a thesaurus lists synonyms AND related concepts, yes?
You're just playing on his words, but you've come to defend the point made?

Jolly good, so you think Price hates all mankind, as well as feeling he is superior to women.
No probs with that then. Thanks Demo for sorting that.

 

[Blommerz]

Jolly good, so you think Price is hates all mankind, as well as feeling he is superior to women.
No probs with that then. Thanks Demo for sorting that.

Your argument is completely moot, given that we are arguing about the definition of the term sexist in its context on this discussion forum. Those using the word were evidently using it to denote female-specific sexism.

But given you've already admitted that you haven't read through the forum postings, you probably wouldn't know the context.

Maybe you should actually try reading the forum before engaging in debate. It'll save you from looking uneducated, myopic, and shallow-minded in future. Assuming, of course, that you actually use the brain that I'm sure is in that noggin' of yours.

 

[DemonTim]

Jolly good, so you think Price hates all mankind, as well as feeling he is superior to women.
No probs with that then. Thanks Demo for sorting that.

So you don't understand what a thesaurus is then? Great!
Standard for your posts
Provide no decent support for your premise, back it with no evidence and find a made up conclusion

It's the hallmarks of a regressive in a discussion

 

[romeohwho]

So you don't understand what a thesaurus is then? Great!
Standard for your posts
Provide no decent support for your premise, back it with no evidence and find a made up conclusion

It's the hallmarks of a regressive in a discussion

Lol timmy-Thought the point re the thesaurus is its all therefore about the context-and in this context, Price's application of the word hysterical was a negative one intended to demean the other person's worth. The audience response suggested they get it, why can't you?

 

[DemonTim]

Lol timmy-Thought the point re the thesaurus is its all therefore about the context-and in this context, Price's application of the word hysterical was a negative one intended to demean the other person's worth. The audience response suggested they get it, why can't you?

I've admitted it was negative...
Are you responding to the right person? I haven't mentioned context in relation to the thesaurus. I pulled you up on a stupid claim that the thesaurus was overreaching, which was an attempt to discredit blommerz argument about sexism and misogyny

 

[Blommerz]

Lol timmy-Thought the point re the thesaurus is its all therefore about the context-and in this context, Price's application of the word hysterical was a negative one intended to demean the other person's worth. The audience response suggested they get it, why can't you?

What? Diligently ignoring me? Lumping my responses into the "too hard basket"? Let's face it, you simply aren't up to standard for this debate. Come back after you've read the thread.

 

[james Dean]

Tony Jones is a s**t host, I can't stand Pauline Hansom but if you invite her on to your show, let her answer the questions given to her without interrupting her every 5 seconds saying 'oh but what if this happened, and what would you do if that happened'.

 

[Maggie5]

Tony Jones is a s**t host, I can't stand Pauline Hansom but if you invite her on to your show, let her answer the questions given to her without interrupting her every 5 seconds saying 'oh but what if this happened, and what would you do if that happened'.

He does that to other guests as well and anyway, she wasn't really answering many of the questions she was just repeating content on her web site and rambling. Watch it again.

 

[PonsfordMagpie]

Tony Jones is a s**t host.

"We'll take that as a comment"

 

[JamesJoe]

It now suddenly seems that 'good Bloke' Muslim Father Khaled Elomar isn't really your average Muslim father after all.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...n/news-story/aa99506920fc2247941288b5e68fa869

This has again raised questions over how Q and A actually vets the questioners before they come on the show and whether there needs to be some sort of review or change to this process.

Elomar said that it is people like Hanson who are creating hate towards Islam however it seems that the views in the article show that Elomar is hateful towards Jewish peoples, Israel and west. This demonstrates clearly that there is a basis for Hanson's positions on Islam and secondly that the ABC is incompetent for not engaging in proper due dilligence to check that Elomar was an appropriate questioner. Maybe the ABC did do its checks but a Q and A staff member still thought that it was OK to bring him on?

There is a clear need for the ABC to ensure that a detailed and robust screening process is engaged in to ensure they know who they are inviting onto the show and to prevent the ABC from being found out that the moderate they have invited on is really an extremist.

 

[grouse mate]

Anyone who thinks they dont invite people like this on are dreaming. The show is a joke.

 

[Maggie5]

What a shame that The Australian doesn't spend as much time on reporting the real news, weren't they they ones that outed Duncan Storrar?

 

[james Dean]

Elomar said that it is people like Hanson who are creating hate towards Islam however it seems that the views in the article show that Elomar is hateful towards Jewish peoples, Israel and west. This demonstrates clearly that there is a basis for Hanson's positions on Islam and secondly that the ABC is incompetent for not engaging in proper due dilligence to check that Elomar was an appropriate questioner. Maybe the ABC did do its checks but a Q and A staff member still thought that it was OK to bring him on?

There is a clear need for the ABC to ensure that a detailed and robust screening process is engaged in to ensure they know who they are inviting onto the show and to prevent the ABC from being found out that the moderate they have invited on is really an extremist.

No it doesn't, the question/comment made by Elomar is still a valid one.. There are many Muslim families out there who aren't vehemently anti-semetic and they could legitimately ask Pauline the same question.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

It now suddenly seems that 'good Bloke' Muslim Father Khaled Elomar isn't really your average Muslim father after all.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...n/news-story/aa99506920fc2247941288b5e68fa869

This has again raised questions over how Q and A actually vets the questioners before they come on the show and whether there needs to be some sort of review or change to this process.

Elomar said that it is people like Hanson who are creating hate towards Islam however it seems that the views in the article show that Elomar is hateful towards Jewish peoples, Israel and west. This demonstrates clearly that there is a basis for Hanson's positions on Islam and secondly that the ABC is incompetent for not engaging in proper due dilligence to check that Elomar was an appropriate questioner. Maybe the ABC did do its checks but a Q and A staff member still thought that it was OK to bring him on?

There is a clear need for the ABC to ensure that a detailed and robust screening process is engaged in to ensure they know who they are inviting onto the show and to prevent the ABC from being found out that the moderate they have invited on is really an extremist.

What is "an appropriate questioner"? I thought the Australian was an advocate for free speech? Isn't that why they publish letters from people suggesting the only solution is to intern Muslims? That's an extremist view, yet here they're complaining about someone stating a non-extreme view but uses swear words on his FB. So? That doesn't make sense. And James Ashby complaining about how much of the show was dedicated to Islam? I thought right-wingers complained that we 'weren't allowed' to talk about Islam, and now they're complaining that it was talked about too much?

The article is a beat-up, as News Corp often produce. But you are posting it here like it means something, so please feel free to justify the contradictions...

 

[JamesJoe]

What is "an appropriate questioner"? I thought the Australian was an advocate for free speech? Isn't that why they publish letters from people suggesting the only solution is to intern Muslims? That's an extremist view, yet here they're complaining about someone stating a non-extreme view but uses swear words on his FB. So? That doesn't make sense. And James Ashby complaining about how much of the show was dedicated to Islam? I thought right-wingers complained that we 'weren't allowed' to talk about Islam, and now they're complaining that it was talked about too much?

The article is a beat-up, as News Corp often produce. But you are posting it here like it means something, so please feel free to justify the contradictions...

Nice wilful ignorance here or maybe it is stupidity. Ashby and Hanson complain about how much of the show was dedicated to discussing Islam because they were told by the program that it would only be a small part. I think it is a fairly extreme view to blame Hanson for the terrorist attacks in Australia like Elomar did.

 

[Jakko]

I think it is a fairly extreme view to blame Hanson for the terrorist attacks in Australia like Elomar did.

I didn't see the episode so I'm not sure if that's true.

If he really did say or insinuate that, then we are talking about terrorism just because of what a cringeworthy niche polly says? This person is a charming moderate ABC compliant voice, and people are expected not to worry?

 

[Maggie5]

I didn't see the episode so I'm not sure if that's true.

If he really did say or insinuate that, then we are talking about terrorism just because of what a cringeworthy niche polly says? This person is a charming moderate ABC compliant voice, and people are expected not to worry?

Saw the episode and you are correct in thinking it is not true.

 

[JamesJoe]

Saw the episode and you are correct in thinking it is not true.

Nah he did.

 

[Maggie5]

Nah he did.

Video clip?

 

[Bomberboyokay]

 

[BORK]

Can't un-see.

 

[Scotland]

LOLZ.

This Canavan bloke is pretty unlikable so far.

 

[Mofra]

This Canavan bloke is pretty unlikable so far.

Seems just like your average FNQer.

Singer did well, handled questions with his usual basis in logic and reason. Agree or disagree with him he certainly does provide an interesting perspective, even if his neo-utilitarianism often grates against the universality of the virtue ethicist push for a recognizable 'social good'.