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
This has nothing to do with my opinions on religion, and everything to do with how the Taliban treat women.
You're just here for the good old fashioned square up.
All you've done is latch onto the dogshit because it allows you to pretend that you're not here for the good old fashioned square up.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
18,789
19,437
AFL Club
Sydney
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.
LOL.
Rah rah rah it is because it is unfortunately isn't as convincing as you think it is.
I'll cop as much sh*t as you & the others are willing to dish out.
If you think that dishing out all the sh*t in any way is a counter argument to what I have said, then you are mistaken.
You actually have to present a counter argument.
 

Gethelred

Brownlow Medallist
May 1, 2016
18,936
39,498
AFL Club
Carlton
LOL.
Rah rah rah it is because it is unfortunately isn't as convincing as you think it is.
I'll cop as much sh*t as you & the others are willing to dish out.
If you think that dishing out all the sh*t in any way is a counter argument to what I have said, then you are mistaken.
You actually have to present a counter argument.
A statement made without evidence or reasoning may be dismissed without evidence or reasoning.

You've not made an argument. You made a statement, and you've not only neglected to support it but you've actively derided anyone who's asked you to do so.

... which is why you feel like you're under attack. Which is why you're behaving like you're under attack. You're so chomping at the bit to respond, you're just repeat posting.

Seriously. Calm the fu** down. Have a think. Start answering the posts in here on the words contained within them, instead of imagining demons in the spaces between words.
 

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
18,789
19,437
AFL Club
Sydney
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.
That is not even the question that I posed. Why is it that you reworded my question?

Didn't you say something earlier about objective truths?
I would have thought that to get to an objective truth you would go through a series of subjective assessments. There are a million subjective assessments that could be made treatment of women/religion/political system/history to name a few. Applying a single subjective assessment (treatment of women) then claiming it as objective is simply dishonest. Which tells me that you're not really interested in objective truths, it is no more than an attempt to attach some intellectual honesty to an otherwise dishonest argument.

In case you are still confused, it is possible to provide very clear examples, indisputable examples, of a single subjective assessment which shows that we are worse than the Taliban. We used the Taliban to fight the war against the Russians. For our interests (many & varied) we funded, aided, abetted, encouraged, lauded their war against the Russians. If we accept that the Taliban are objectively bad, as is your claim, then they were objectively bad now, yesterday, last week, last year, last decade and importantly, when we used them to further our interests.

So far.... we have treatment of women, Taliban 1, Australia 1. Using objectively bad people to further your own interests. Australia 1, Taliban 1 (Probably more like Australia 2, Taliban 1)

By my reckoning the score is at best 2-2, at this point.

You are/were welcome to chuck in a few other subjective assessments and we can throw it on the pile so that we can build that objective assessment.

If you're not willing to no probs, unfortunately declaring victory for oi oi oi based on the assessments so far, is not supported by the evidence.


It is in the nature of the dogshit smearer to pretend/assume enough of the other subjective assessments will fall in the favour of oi oi oi. He is not willing to actually undertake any of those other assessments instead he substitutes his prejudice and thinks thats enough. It isn't enough.

You too, can substitute your prejudices for any, or all of the other actual assessments.
I don't buy that crap because if it so bleedingly obvious then it should be very straightforward for you to rack up the score for oi oi oi.
I suspect that dogshit smearer has never actually undertaken that process, even for his own benefit..
 

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
18,789
19,437
AFL Club
Sydney
Says the dude who was leaving "Clean up after your pet" signs as a reply to posts asking you to explain yourself.
Example number 5365999 of you reading sh*t into my posts that isn't there.
My ad-homs don't disprove someone else's arguments just as much everyone elses.
That's f'n obvious, unless, like the dogshit smearer, you think that double is a standard.
We can reduce the discussion to ad-homs, or some other dogshit, that's easy, that's what the dogshit smearer loves to do, it seems to me that you're quite content to hitch your wagon to that show. Usually you are very capable of an actual discussion.
 

Gethelred

Brownlow Medallist
May 1, 2016
18,936
39,498
AFL Club
Carlton
That is not even the question that I posed. Why is it that you reworded my question?
Because that was from memory. Having looked, your question posed was this:
Who is the bad guy? The person hiring a hitman, or the hitman?
... and I fail to see the difference being meaningful.
Didn't you say something earlier about objective truths?
No. I said that a claim can be assessed objectively.

Seeing as the rest of this was to do with your little misreading, snip!
In case you are still confused, it is possible to provide very clear examples, indisputable examples, of a single subjective assessment which shows that we are worse than the Taliban. We used the Taliban to fight the war against the Russians. For our interests (many & varied) we funded, aided, abetted, encouraged, lauded their war against the Russians. If we accept that the Taliban are objectively bad, as is your claim, then they were objectively bad now, yesterday, last week, last year, last decade and importantly, when we used them to further our interests.

So far.... we have treatment of women, Taliban 1, Australia 1. Using objectively bad people to further your own interests. Australia 1, Taliban 1 (Probably more like Australia 2, Taliban 1)

By my reckoning the score is at best 2-2, at this point.
Legitimately, what is the point of arguing with you at the moment? You are genuinely ignoring my posts in order to go on tangential rants.

Again. I was not born when the USA supported the Muhajadeen, and Australia is not the USA. When you are sober and in full possession of your faculties, I would be interested in reading your response to this point, but until then I'm not holding my breath.

You are/were welcome to chuck in a few other subjective assessments and we can throw it on the pile so that we can build that objective assessment.

If you're not willing to no probs, unfortunately declaring victory for oi oi oi based on the assessments so far, is not supported by the evidence.
You've not asserted anything of merit at any point here. You're going on long winded jargonistic rants that make little sense.

Seriously, you're channelling JoondalupJ for sheer ability to concoct up nonsense.
It is in the nature of the dogshit smearer to pretend/assume enough of the other subjective assessments will fall in the favour of oi oi oi. He is not willing to actually undertake any of those other assessments instead he substitutes his prejudice and thinks thats enough. It isn't enough.
This does not make sense.
You too, can substitute your prejudices for any, or all of the other actual assessments.
I don't buy that crap because if it so bleedingly obvious then it should be very straightforward for you to rack up the score for oi oi oi.
I suspect that dogshit smearer has never actually undertaken that process, even for his own benefit..
Neither does this.

Don't think we're getting anywhere here.
 

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
18,789
19,437
AFL Club
Sydney
That's such incredible obfuscation.

You're not having a go at the actual discussion. Pull your head in.
It's quite clear that I have upset some people because I dared question ozi ozi ozi oi oi oi.

If you're able to, let's see you dispute any of the facts that I have used in my arguments.
rah rah rah flag wave ozi ozi ozi oi oi oi, doesn't cut it.
 

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
18,789
19,437
AFL Club
Sydney
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.

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.
Even after I have quoted that particular part of the thread, you're still here misrepresenting what I said, just as the dogshit smearer did.

Explicitly in reply to a question the dogshit smearer posed about my question who is the bad guy, the hitman or the person hiring the hitman....you're going to take my answer to that question and pretend it was my answer to a different question. Worse than that, you completely ignore my answer to the question with regards to the treatment of women.
That's how the dogshit smearer operates, you want to hitch your wagon to that, go for it.
I have to ask myself why someone who otherwise doesn't engage in that kind of dogshit smearing, is doing so now and I've already told you the answer that I came up with. You may not like the answer, but all that you have said subsequently supports the answer that I settled on.
 

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
18,789
19,437
AFL Club
Sydney
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:
Does Bob Hawke being as bad as Pol Pot disprove the argument?
The simple answer is, no.

It is a little bizarre how it doesn't make you think, could our PM have been as bad as Pol Pot?
Is there an argument that our PM could be as bad as some other bad person? Does that make us bad people?
It is something to think about.

I also referenced our conduct in relation to East Timor.
Do you think it is possible that our purpose for getting involved in East Timor was to get access to the Sunrise gas fields, as opposed to helping the East Timorese?
Implicit in what Downer said in his evidence is that we made a deal with East Timor, that deal was that we would help them gain independence, for a slice of the Sunrise gas fields pie. After getting what they wanted the East Timorese renegged on that deal. The internal machinations of East Timorese politics clearly show that the person that made that deal with Australia was replaced by someone with other ideas.
The witness K trial is about protecting the image that Australia the good guy helping poor helpless East Timor, when the reality is we were just there for the money.
Relevance? We do a lot of shitty things. Just because our shitty things aren't the exact same things as the shitty things the Taliban does, doesn't make us better. What it does is muddy the waters a little, maybe we're not automatically better than the Taliban?

For me, it is at the very least something worth considering.
You can stick with your assumption that we are automatically better, if you want, nobody is stopping you.
 

Sweet Jesus

Brownlow Medallist
Dec 20, 2014
25,750
21,157
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
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.
None of this makes the case that Australia is not a secular country.

It certainly doesn't make the case that it is on par with the Taliban when it comes to enforcing religious dogma.

Gay marriage is now legal in Australia. Did you miss that?

Stop staying stupid things, if you can.
 
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
Let's deal with facts.
Indeed.

The premise of your argument is that Australia supported the mujahideen during the Afghan-Soviet war, so the Australian government is therefore worse than the Taliban.

It's obviously ludicrous.

But I'm wondering, how exactly was Australia involved in that conflict? What was the precise nature of this support for the mujahideen?

Are you disputing that we used the Taliban to further our own interests?
Explain how.

What did the Australian government do that makes them as bad as the Taliban?
 
Last edited:

Taylor

Community Leader
Jul 16, 2009
56,294
64,878
Perth
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.
Are we handing an opinion to the realm of religion when it doesn't suit a more modern narrative?

I understand that conservative opinions are usually coming from people with religious views, but unless we are arguing that the only way a moral argument can be made is to come from a religious base, we can't dump ideas into a convenient box.
 

Sweet Jesus

Brownlow Medallist
Dec 20, 2014
25,750
21,157
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
LOL.
Rah rah rah it is because it is unfortunately isn't as convincing as you think it is.
I'll cop as much sh*t as you & the others are willing to dish out.
If you think that dishing out all the sh*t in any way is a counter argument to what I have said, then you are mistaken.
You actually have to present a counter argument.
This is a spectacularly incoherent meltdown.

Why do you have such a massive chip on your shoulder about the Australian government? What's the origin of that? Is it because of unjust treatment of indigenous Australians? And from that you've concluded that Australia is basically as bad as the Taliban?
 
Last edited:

deanc

Premiership Player
Jun 13, 2014
3,409
4,275
Waverley
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Tasmania
This is a spectacularly incoherent meltdown.

Why do you have such a massive chip on your shoulder about the Australian government? What's the origin of that? Is it because of unjust treatment of indigenous Australians? And from that you've concluded that Australia is basically as bad as the Taliban?
Special thread this one. respectfully most of this sounds like a lot of 'Riff Raff' to me:
I never shot nobody
Don't even carry a gun
I ain't done nothing wrong
Just having fun!...

 
Last edited:

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
18,789
19,437
AFL Club
Sydney
Are we handing an opinion to the realm of religion when it doesn't suit a more modern narrative?

I understand that conservative opinions are usually coming from people with religious views, but unless we are arguing that the only way a moral argument can be made is to come from a religious base, we can't dump ideas into a convenient box.
True but the definition of marriage as a union between man & woman is found nowhere else but in religion.
There's only 1 box to choose from in this particular case.
 

Sweet Jesus

Brownlow Medallist
Dec 20, 2014
25,750
21,157
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
True but the definition of marriage as a union between man & woman is found nowhere else but in religion.
It's not explicitly religious.

It is the traditional definition of marriage, which has since been expanded to allow for same-sex partnerships. So what is your complaint?

Australia previously did not recognise same-sex marriage and this proves the country is no more secular than the Taliban?

Your arguments are idiotic.
 

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
18,789
19,437
AFL Club
Sydney
This is a spectacularly incoherent meltdown.

Why do you have such a massive chip on your shoulder about the Australian government? What's the origin of that? Is it because of unjust treatment of indigenous Australians? And from that you've concluded that Australia is basically as bad as the Taliban?

"it's incoherent" isn't an argument. Try again.
I've got a big chip on my shoulder is just an ad-hom, again, not an argument.

Neither of those 2 things in any way disprove what I said because they are not arguments against what I said.
Come up with an actual argument stop smearing dogshit everywhere.
 

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
18,789
19,437
AFL Club
Sydney
It's not explicitly religious.

It is the traditional definition of marriage, which has since been expanded to allow for same-sex partnerships. So what is your complaint?

Australia previously did not recognise same-sex marriage and this proves the country is no more secular than the Taliban?

Your arguments are idiotic.
Dogshit.
Try again.
Try an actual argument.
Just once.
 

Sweet Jesus

Brownlow Medallist
Dec 20, 2014
25,750
21,157
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
"it's incoherent" isn't an argument.
No. It's an observation.

I've got a big chip on my shoulder is just an ad-hom, again, not an argument.
Agreed. It's another observation, which you don't dispute.

Neither of those 2 things in any way disprove what I said because they are not arguments against what I said.
Come up with an actual argument stop smearing dogshit everywhere.
You simply ignore all the arguments against your dumbshit position because you don't have the cognitive wherewithal to respond to them.
 

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
18,789
19,437
AFL Club
Sydney
No. It's an observation.

Agreed. It's another observation, which you don't dispute.

You simply ignore all the arguments against your dumbshit position because you don't have the cognitive wherewithal to respond to them.
Isn't it clear? I don't give a sh*t what you call me, call me whatever you want.
Try presenting an actual argument.
Just once leave the dogshit.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad