Politics Hypocrisy of The Right.

Remove this Banner Ad

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
18,789
19,437
AFL Club
Sydney
'The Truth through the eyes of Number37' - you should make a Netflix series.

It would be compelling viewing - a real insight into the psychologically unhinged.
Surprise surprise bogan doesn't look at the truth through their own eyes.

Wave your flag, oi oi oi
We've seen that movie. It was filmed at Cronulla.
 

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
18,789
19,437
AFL Club
Sydney
Then why did you say the following?

Can we comment on the treatment of women, or can't we?

... which is why you're copping sh*t.

You made a claim you then refuse to defend, and proceed to insult everyone who disputes that claim. Might I suggest a cup of tea and a lie down?
You left out the bit that renders your argument complete garbage.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Sweet Jesus

Brownlow Medallist
Dec 20, 2014
25,750
21,157
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
I'll ask you again.
Who is the bad guy?

The person hiring a hitman, or the hitman?
You seem to think this one stupid question addresses all the problems with your statement. It doesn't.

The West collaborated with the mujahideen against the Soviets. So what? What argument do you think that makes? It shows that the West has been compromised in its choice of allies over the years. We all know that. It doesn't begin to demonstrate that the Taliban is preferable to Australian governance. This is just a dumb talking point you recite because you don't have a real argument. You're woefully incapable of supporting anything you've said.

The West collaborated with Stalin to fight the Nazis. Does that mean Stalinist Russia was preferable to the West?

The US supported Saddam Hussein against Iran. Does that mean Saddam's Baathist regime was preferable to the West?

This is a nonsensical standard.

You've made a stupid statement about the Taliban being preferable to Australian governance. And now you've got one equally stupid talking point that you think makes your case. It doesn't. It simply underlines your confusion and the fact you can't think in a straight line. Are you too dumb to understand how ridiculous you sound?
 

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
18,789
19,437
AFL Club
Sydney
You seem to think this one stupid question addresses all the problems with your statement. It doesn't.

The West collaborated with the mujahideen against the Soviets. So what? What argument do you think that makes? It shows that the West has been compromised in its choice of allies over the years. We all know that. It doesn't begin to demonstrate that the Taliban is preferable to Australian governance. This is just a dumb talking point you recite because you don't have a real argument. You're woefully incapable of supporting anything you've said.

The West collaborated with Stalin to fight the Nazis. Does that mean Stalinist Russia was preferable to the West?

The US supported Saddam Hussein against Iran. Does that mean Saddam's Baathist regime was preferable to the West?

This is a nonsensical standard.

You've made a stupid statement about the Taliban being preferable to Australian governance. And now you've got one equally stupid talking point that you think makes your case. It doesn't. It simply underlines your confusion and the fact you can't think in a straight line. Are you too dumb to understand how ridiculous you sound?
Why don't you just answer the question?

You don't want to answer the question because the answer further exposes your dogshit.
 

Sweet Jesus

Brownlow Medallist
Dec 20, 2014
25,750
21,157
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Why don't you just answer the question?

You don't want to answer the question because the answer further exposes your dogshit.
I have addressed your stupid, irrelevant question.

I've explained to you why it's a nonsensical standard that doesn't begin to make your case. That's the answer.

And, as usual, you have no coherent response.

You can't make your own argument. Do you run into this problem in real life as well? Do you walk around saying stupid things you can't defend? People must regard you as a complete imbecile.

You're on par with the dumbest Trump fans who can't explain any of their positions. They just download certain opinions and have no answers when challenged. You're in the same basket as those folks in terms of your complete inability to form an argument.
 

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
18,789
19,437
AFL Club
Sydney
I have addressed your stupid, irrelevant question.

I've explained to you why it's a nonsensical standard that doesn't begin to make your case. That's the answer.

And, as usual, you have no coherent response.

You can't make your own argument. Do you run into this problem in real life as well? Do you walk around saying stupid things you can't defend? People must regard you as a complete imbecile.
The Taliban is objectively bad rah rah rah.

We used the Taliban to advance our interests.

What does that make us?

Absolute best case, we are every bit as bad they are.
Reality,we are worse, because we have bogans like you parrotting pathetic excuses in an attempt to justify our behaviour.
 

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
18,789
19,437
AFL Club
Sydney
I have addressed your stupid, irrelevant question.

I've explained to you why it's a nonsensical standard that doesn't begin to make your case. That's the answer.

And, as usual, you have no coherent response.

You can't make your own argument. Do you run into this problem in real life as well? Do you walk around saying stupid things you can't defend? People must regard you as a complete imbecile.

You're on par with the dumbest Trump fans who can't explain any of their positions. They just download certain opinions and have no answers when challenged. You're in the same basket as those folks in terms of your complete inability to form an argument.
Here's another one for you.
They're religious rah rah rah
We're secular.
BS
Which secular society observes religious holidays? None.
What's that thing they walk into Parliament house that represents the power of God? Do secular societies get their power to legislate from God? No.

Who do our parliamentarians swear allegiance to? The Queen. Who does the Queen swear allegiance to? God.
The overwhelming majority of our laws have their foundation in religion.

We are not secular we are every bit as religious as the Taliban, we just like to pretend that we're not because some bullshit excuse.
 

Sweet Jesus

Brownlow Medallist
Dec 20, 2014
25,750
21,157
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
The Taliban is objectively bad rah rah rah.

We used the Taliban to advance our interests.

What does that make us?
What exactly was the Australian involvement in Afghanistan during the Soviet-Afghan war?

Did Australia even support the mujahideen? The Australian government condemned the Soviet invasion but what was the material support for the mujahideen?

Either way, Western collaboration with the mujahidden demonstrates only that the West has been compromised in its choice of allies over the years. No kidding.

How does this demonstrate that the Taliban is preferable to Australian governance? It doesn't.

The West collaborated with Stalin too. Does that make the West worse than Stalin?

You have no coherent response to the obvious holes in your argument.

Absolute best case, we are every bit as bad they are.
Reality,we are worse, because we have bogans like you parrotting pathetic excuses in an attempt to justify our behaviour.
This is nonsense. You've failed repeatedly to make any case.

Would you rather live under the Taliban than the Australian federal government?

If you despise Australia so deeply, why don't you leave and live elsewhere?
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Sweet Jesus

Brownlow Medallist
Dec 20, 2014
25,750
21,157
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
We are not secular we are every bit as religious as the Taliban, we just like to pretend that we're not because some bullshit excuse.
Your statements are increasingly ridiculous. You've got no idea what you're talking about.

Australia has separation of church and state. We have no state religion. And within Australia we have freedom of religion, as well as a diverse society with many different faiths as well as non-believers.

You think that's no different from the Taliban, whose very reason for being is the establishment of a state religion and its strict enforcement?

Do you know that your statements are all nonsensical? And you have such a massive chip on your shoulder that it simply doesn't matter? Or are you so blinded by ideology that you actually believe this claptrap?
 

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
18,789
19,437
AFL Club
Sydney
You're being genuinely absurd.

You've danced around Sweet Jesus before, much more adroitly than this, but this time you said something absurd and you're gesticulating furiously.

Like a man drowning.
I'll spell it out for you.
Your skin in this game is that you are anti-religious.

Unfortunately for you, you've mistaken what I have said as support for a theocratic govt....because you're blinded by your prejudice against religion.
Let's be clear, my negative opinion about aspects of our country is conveniently twisted into support for the Taliban.
...and that just gets repeated over and over and over without ever addressing what I actually said.
...in case you haven't worked it out, I don't care whether you resort to ad-homs that's your choice, I can assure you that it doesn't in any way disprove my arguments.

-----

If you want to have a go at the actual discussion...


If the Taliban are objectively bad then there isn't any need to compare their treatment of women to anyone elses in order to support that argument.
That they are objectively bad should stand by itself, it doesn't need anyone to construct this whole other argument....which is what you & the RWFWs have attempted to do.

My argument that our treatment of women is bad does not require the Taliban's treatment of women to be worse.
It is also objectively true. If you want to present an argument that our treatment of women isn't objectively bad, then go right ahead, make your argument.

When you put, on the one hand objectively bad treatment of women against, on the other hand, objectively bad treatment of women...
Is there some great big leap of logic or does the logic not add up that bad treatment of women is the same as bad treatment of women??
If it doesn't add up then present an argument that demonstrates how the logic doesn't add up.
Rahh rahhh rahhh Taliban isn't an argument. You might as well wave a flag and chant oi oi oi.
 

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
18,789
19,437
AFL Club
Sydney
You've not said anything that renders anything I've said complete garbage.

Calm down, mate.
As I said, you conveniently left out a piece of what I said, to draw your conclusion based on part of what I said...when you include all of what I said, then that argument you tried to make is complete garbage.
 

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
18,789
19,437
AFL Club
Sydney
Your statements are increasingly ridiculous. You've got no idea what you're talking about.

Australia has separation of church and state. We have no state religion. And within Australia we have freedom of religion, as well as a diverse society with many different faiths as well as non-believers.

You think that's no different from the Taliban, whose very reason for being is the establishment of a state religion and its strict enforcement?

Do you know that your statements are all nonsensical? And you have such a massive chip on your shoulder that it simply doesn't matter? Or are you so blinded by ideology that you actually believe this claptrap?
Let's deal with facts.
All your other rahrahrah dogshit is just that, dogshit.


When Howard changed the Marriage Act in 2004 this is what the AG said in the 2nd reading speech.

One purpose of the amendments defining marriage is to reflect the understanding of marriage held by the vast majority of Australians .
It is time that those words form the formal definition of marriage in the Marriage Act.
The bill will achieve that result.



What was the amendment?

"Marriage is defined as a union between and man & woman"


Why was it amended?

Because there were 2 cases before the courts of same sex couples who were married in other jurisdictions who wanted their marriages to be recognised under Australian law so that they could adopt children.
So it was amended to specifically stop the recognition of same sex marriages.
They rushed through the amendments in 2 or 3 days, so desperate were they to stop the recognition of same sex marriages.



"The government is fundamentally opposed to same-sex couples adopting children,'' Mr Ruddock said in a statement.




Let's see if you can rewrite history by smearing dogshit everywhere, again.
Tell us how that had nothing to do with religion.
 
Last edited:

Michael Corleone

Senior List
Sep 30, 2021
168
246
AFL Club
Fremantle
Let's deal with facts.
All your other rahrahrah dogshit is just that, dogshit.


When Howard changed the Marriage Act in 2004 this is what the AG said in the 2nd reading speech.

One purpose of the amendments defining marriage is to reflect the understanding of marriage held by the vast majority of Australians .
It is time that those words form the formal definition of marriage in the Marriage Act.
The bill will achieve that result.



What was the amendment?

"Marriage is defined as a union between and man & woman"


Why was it amended?

Because there were 2 cases before the courts of same sex couples who were married in other jurisdictions who wanted their marriages to be recognised under Australian law so that they could adopt children.
So it was amended to specifically stop the recognition of same sex marriages.
They rushed through the amendments in 2 or 3 days, so desperate were they to stop the recognition of same sex marriages.



"The government is fundamentally opposed to same-sex couples adopting children,'' Mr Ruddock said in a statement.




Let's see if you can rewrite history by smearing dogshit everywhere, again.
Tell us how that had nothing to do with religion.
Damn did Howard and Ruddock recently take Kingsford Smith Airport?
 

Carringbush2010

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
12,983
8,008
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
The problem with Number37 's thinking is the inclusion of 'we' and 'our' treatment of women, gays, heck any minority group you can think of.

Like every Australian is responsible for the ills of this country in regards to any minority group. I'd say that is offensive, very offensive.

Umm no, the ills of this country in regards to minority groups are not popular - they are only supported by far right wing dick heads. seems this poster views that as the status quo, as in the far right are running the country.

That is so far removed from reality it's not funny, if it were true then the far right would have all and sundry minority groups banished to a sub class.

So the argument that any and every other society (or so alluded to) is better than our own is valid in this posters mind, the naivety is astounding.

There is no known universe that mistreatment of minority groups in this country is seen as 'popular' or 'preferred' by the majority.

I'd would like to suggest that this poster take a trip to these so called preferred societies in their treatment of minority groups so the epiphany is realized.

But I'm not so cruel to send such an incoherent individual (that labelling is not out of disrespect by the way, just how I view the poster given the posts submitted) to such places like Afghanistan.
 

Gethelred

Brownlow Medallist
May 1, 2016
18,936
39,498
AFL Club
Carlton
As I said, you conveniently left out a piece of what I said, to draw your conclusion based on part of what I said...when you include all of what I said, then that argument you tried to make is complete garbage.
You're not making nearly as much sense as you think you are. It's why I'm telling you to calm down.
I'll spell it out for you.
Your skin in this game is that you are anti-religious.

Unfortunately for you, you've mistaken what I have said as support for a theocratic govt....because you're blinded by your prejudice against religion.
This has nothing to do with my opinions on religion, and everything to do with how the Taliban treat women.

This is why you're copping sh*t here. You're reaching beyond what people are saying into why you think they're saying it, and you're wildly off target.
Let's be clear, my negative opinion about aspects of our country is conveniently twisted into support for the Taliban.
...and that just gets repeated over and over and over without ever addressing what I actually said.
Who's said you support the Taliban?

You said that our government is worse. You have been asked to explain why, but your answer - "Who is more at fault, the person who hires the assassin or the assassin?" - is not an answer at all.

We - Australia - didn't supply the Muhajadeen. I - personally - wasn't alive when that happened, and my parents wouldn't have supported it either. I'd be interested to see how you extrapolate contemporary Australian personal responsibility for decisions I did not make and formed no part in on another day when you're posting rationally, but this is a prolonged breakdown on your end.
...in case you haven't worked it out, I don't care whether you resort to ad-homs that's your choice, I can assure you that it doesn't in any way disprove my arguments.
Says the dude who was leaving "Clean up after your pet" signs as a reply to posts asking you to explain yourself.

If you want to have a go at the actual discussion...
That's such incredible obfuscation.

You're not having a go at the actual discussion. Pull your head in.
If the Taliban are objectively bad then there isn't any need to compare their treatment of women to anyone elses in order to support that argument.
That they are objectively bad should stand by itself, it doesn't need anyone to construct this whole other argument....which is what you & the RWFWs have attempted to do.
You constructed the original argument, by stating that we are worse. We asked you to explain it, and you've done nothing other than avoid doing so at extreme length.
My argument that our treatment of women is bad does not require the Taliban's treatment of women to be worse.
It is also objectively true. If you want to present an argument that our treatment of women isn't objectively bad, then go right ahead, make your argument.
Your statement, as stated in your very post, the one under scrutiny, was that our treatment of women was worse than the Taliban.

If you want to present that argument, you can do it any time.

When you put, on the one hand objectively bad treatment of women against, on the other hand, objectively bad treatment of women...
Is there some great big leap of logic or does the logic not add up that bad treatment of women is the same as bad treatment of women??
Matter of degree does not exist?

If we're going to argue that, then Bob Hawke is as bad as Pol Pot; after all, 'both were objectively bad to indigenous people'. The current British attitude to Australia - a colony - is exactly the same as the Spanish attitude to South and Central America in the 1700's. The current pope is just as evil as Innocent IV.

Alternatively: the current government is no worse than Keating's, Hawke's or Whitlam's. After all, they all had corruption, no?

:drunk:
If it doesn't add up then present an argument that demonstrates how the logic doesn't add up.
Rahh rahhh rahhh Taliban isn't an argument. You might as well wave a flag and chant oi oi oi.
'Make an argument why my claim asserted without facts or reasoning is incorrect.'

Dude, stop it. You're embarrassing yourself.
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad