I’m not playing any game; I think the two situations are very clearly parallel.hoddo said:Weevil, I'm not going to play your little game. You telegraphed what you're up too far too obviously.
What your attempting here is what is known in the political world as "push-polling". That's a process where you ask people a series of carefully planned yes/no questions on semi-related subjects. Each question appears to have an obvious answer. When the final question comes, (the one the poll is really about), the person being questioned is forced to either give the answer the pollster wants, or contradict their earlier answers.
Let's save some time.
You want to ask a series of questions that will result in me saying that Men shouldn't hit women because men are more powerful than women...White Australians are more powerful than Aboriginal Australians...(and, after a few more questions no doubt)...It's acceptable to discriminate in favour of Aborigines. You're talking demographics instead of individuals.
I will agree that as demographics men are stronger than women and White Australians are more powerful than Aborigines. Only a fool would disagree with that.
The situation of many of the individual people belonging to those demographics is very different.Tell me weevil, how would you place these three Australians in order of power (as individuals)....
a) Cathy Freeman with her million dollar home and the ear of any media outlet.
b) Kerry Packer with his $multi-millions and multi-media empire.
c) The homeless white guy who lives on the street, sleeping on a doorstep under a sheet of newspaper.
Pretty obviously the order is b - a - c which proves that the power and need of the individual is not necessarily tied to their demographic.
I'm all for providing assistance to all people based on their level of need as individuals. With such a disproportionately high number of Aborigines being in great need they will gain most from that assistance, but individual non-Aborigines in need wouldn't be locked out the way they are when need is assessed according to demographics.
I’m simply asking you questions to try to see how you justify your opinions. I now have a better understanding of where you are coming from.
I can flat out insist you are wrong about everything, and you can do the same to me if you would prefer?
...In an ideal world I think what you are saying would be very reasonable. The problem is that this is not an ideal world and in reality it would be incredibly impractical.
Obviously there are always individuals who go against their demographic trends. There are very, very, very, very rare cases of spousal abuse where it is the wife who is violent towards the husband.
But the facts are that in the massive majority of cases it is the other way around.
Many wives may indeed hit their husbands but virtually every time they do not have the power to make it really hurt.
There are thousands of shelters for battered woman all over the country.
Do we have to build the exact same number of shelters for men as well? Just to make sure everything is perfectly fair for both sides?
Or do we close all the shelters for females because if men don’t have them then woman shouldn’t?
...Or do you want to pay for millions of comities everywhere to continuously decide over every single aspect of ever single case on an individual basis?







