pɐǝɹɥʇ lɐᴉɔᴉɟɟoun ǝɥʇ - ɐᴉlɐɹʇsn∀

[Com Fox]

Except that it is a problem because the government isn't going to change 18C without changing the HRC. The whole point of changing 18C in the first place is to justify changing the HRC to get rid of it.

Then why complain about changing 18C if they aren't going to do it without changing the HRC?

Also, I don't see any evidence to support the reason for changing 18C is to justify changing HRC, I hear speculation but that's completely empty.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Then why complain about changing 18C if they aren't going to do it without changing the HRC?

Because the HRC changes make the 18C changes.

Even if it weren't for the HRC changes, the proposed changes to 18C are bad because there is no evidence of community consultation. Nobody from any demographic that has been subject to discrimination has actually been consulted about changing 18C. It's a group of rich, white conservative male politicians who think that protecting their ability to say what they like without fear of consequence is more important than protecting the marginalised minorities who are subject to discrimination and would otherwise have no voice to be beard.

 

[Com Fox]

Nobody from any demographic that has been subject to discrimination has actually been consulted about changing 18C. It's a group of rich, white conservative male politicians who think that protecting their ability to say what they like without fear of consequence is more important than protecting the marginalised minorities who are subject to discrimination and would otherwise have no voice to be beard.

Again, the laws isn't changed so discrimination is allowed. If you just ignore what they guys as a group are for one second and look at what they as individuals are doing, it isn't that bad. It balances freedom of speech with discrimination more than what we have before.

There needs to be a balance as while people need to be protected from discrimination, people also need to have their ideas and expressions protected. You say that the people involved never witness any discrimination massively marginalizing them because they're white males, however if you look at America massive debate on free speech with people whose thoughts are deemed toxic being shut down regardless of why they are saying anything. We need to avoid this, we shouldn't have to have riots because a "dangerous" man is speaking or someone's opinion doesn't fit well with someone's feeling.

To be honest, I find it massively hypocritical shunning down ideas and proposals done because "they're White Males, they never face oppression". You're oppressing them right now saying what they're doing is irrelevant just because of what they are AND NOT what they're trying to do. We need to stop looking at people like they're in a group and start treating people and their ideas like individual values and not associating them with any sort of group but at the same time, we need to treat people like proper human beings.

Looking at 18C as an idea, it attempts to balance out the freedom of individual ideas and still doesn't allow minoritys to not be treated like human beings.

Of course this wouldn't work if changes to the HRC completely kills it but you have yet to show me any evidence:

Also, I don't see any evidence to support the reason for changing 18C is to justify changing HRC, I hear speculation but that's completely empty.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

It balances freedom of speech with discrimination more than what we have before.

No, it doesn't. It gives more freedom of speech to some whilst removing the protections put in place for the people who need it. Conservatives love freedom of speech provided that they're the only ones who get a voice.

 

[Com Fox]

No, it doesn't. It gives more freedom of speech to some whilst removing the protections put in place for the people who need it. Conservatives love freedom of speech provided that they're the only ones who get a voice.

Not remove, replace. Replaced so real acts of discrimination are still in place but takes out anything that can be massively dependent by the recepiant and HRC even if it isn't proper discrimination. Harass is not as loose defined as the words it replaced.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Don't be so naïve.

 

[Com Fox]

Don't be so naïve.

Anyway, I'm still waiting on evidence I asked for a few posts ago that you didn't pay attention to twice:

Also, I don't see any evidence to support the reason for changing 18C is to justify changing HRC, I hear speculation but that's completely empty.

 

[Imari]

Anyway, I'm still waiting on evidence I asked for a few posts ago that you didn't pay attention to twice:

Welcome to a discussion with prisonermonkeys. Don't expect any evidence, that would be counterproductive to the sense of dread that he's trying to inspire about the scary and evil government.

At best you'll get another few pages of him throwing around buzzwords and running in circles, before buggering off to find a new target to bamboozle. It's somewhat of a pattern. Rational sharing and discussion of ideas is not on the table.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

At best you'll get another few pages of him throwing around buzzwords and running in circles

Honestly, at this point, it's not worth participating any further. I must have explained the relationship between 18C and the Human Rights Commission a dozen times, and I am still not sure if RESHIRAM5 understands it. It's one section of one article of one Act. He seems to think that it's as simple as changing one word and is apparently oblivious to the way there are seventeen other articles to the Act, each with multiple sections.

 

[Com Fox]

Honestly, at this point, it's not worth participating any further. I must have explained the relationship between 18C and the Human Rights Commission a dozen times, and I am still not sure if RESHIRAM5 understands it. It's one section of one article of one Act. He seems to think that it's as simple as changing one word and is apparently oblivious to the way there are seventeen other articles to the Act, each with multiple sections.

I know that there is multiple articles of the act, like how 18D refers to exceptions like art. Also, it seems that it's that simple since currently from what I know, the only proposed change is 18C. You've yet to provide any evidence on any intentions of using this to change the HRC or any of the other articles in the act.

I think you're and @Imari are right though on this being a waste of time to argue, we're not getting anywhere an we've spent almost 2 pages on this.

 

[Imari]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-22/march-for-science-australians-join-worldwide-movement/8463800

I just happened to run across this. Which is all well and good, until about halfway down:

Among those throwing their support behind the March for Science is Luke Briscoe, chief executive of Indigi Lab, which works to get more recognition for Indigenous science.

WTF is indigenous science? Science is science. We don't have European science or Chinese Science or American Science. This strikes me as more unnecessary divisions, and that's before we even get into the idea that I'm not entirely sure that indigenous "science" is actually science. It sounds a lot more like anthropology or history, things that are important but not generally considered sciences in their own right.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

WTF is indigenous science?

I think it's more about encouraging indigenous people to get into the sciences, rather than being a scientific discipline focusing on indigenous people or practices.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

I don't want to be quick to judge, but....... (from top google result)

1. The indigenous scientist is an integral part of the research process and there is a defined process for ensuring this integrity.
2. All of nature is considered to be intelligent and alive, thus an active research partner.
3. The purpose of indigenous science is to maintain balance.
4. Compared to western time/space notions, indigenous science collapses time and space with the result that our fields of inquiry and participation extend into and overlap with past and present.
5. Indigenous science is concerned with relationships, we try to understand and complete our relationships with all living things.
6. Indigenous science is holistic, drawing on all the Sense, including the spiritual and psychic.
7. The end point of an indigenous scientific process is a known and recognized place. This point of balance, referred to by my own tribe as the Great Peace, is both peaceful and electrifyingly alive. In the joy of exact balance, creativity occurs, which is why we can think of our way of knowing as a life science.
8. When we reach the moment/place of balance we do not believe that we have transcended—we say that we are normal! Always we remain embodied in the natural world.
9. Humor is a critical ingredient of all truth seeking, even in the most powerful rituals. This is true because humor balances gravity.

I have no idea what any of that means.

I'm not entirely sure that indigenous "science" is actually science.

If that is the case then the division surely would be warranted, no? The problem there would be "science" being snuck into the name, rather than not lumping it in with legitimate science.

 

[Imari]

If that is the case then the division surely would be warranted, no? The problem there would be "science" being snuck into the name, rather than not lumping it in with legitimate science.

Good link. It's pseudoscience. The giveaway is the following:

Like Western science, indigenous science relies upon direct observation for forecasting and generating predictions. There are cultural tests to ensure validity. Individuals are trained in various specializations—for example herbalism, weather observations, mental health and time keeping. Unlike Western science, the data from indigenous science are not used to control the forces of nature; instead, tell us the ways and the means of accommodating nature.

All science is about learning. It's not about control or accommodation, those are things people do with the knowledge afterwards and may or may not involve scientists at all.

As a scientist I'm all for encouraging people of any race, culture or whatever from getting into it. We need more people who understand and can use the scientific method. But I do hate it when groups like this appropriate the term and label themselves as scientists.

For all I know exposing bright children to claptrap and telling them it's science may actually turn them away from a career in the sciences.

 

[Dotini]

I don't want to be quick to judge, but....... (from top google result)

• The indigenous scientist is an integral part of the research process and there is a defined process for ensuring this integrity.

• All of nature is considered to be intelligent and alive, thus an active research partner.

• The purpose of indigenous science is to maintain balance.

• Compared to western time/space notions, indigenous science collapses time and space with the result that our fields of inquiry and participation extend into and overlap with past and present.

• Indigenous science is concerned with relationships, we try to understand and complete our relationships with all living things.

• Indigenous science is holistic, drawing on all the Sense, including the spiritual and psychic.

• The end point of an indigenous scientific process is a known and recognized place. This point of balance, referred to by my own tribe as the Great Peace, is both peaceful and electrifyingly alive. In the joy of exact balance, creativity occurs, which is why we can think of our way of knowing as a life science.

• When we reach the moment/place of balance we do not believe that we have transcended—we say that we are normal! Always we remain embodied in the natural world.

• Humor is a critical ingredient of all truth seeking, even in the most powerful rituals. This is true because humor balances gravity.

I have no idea what any of that means.

I adore item #2 , All of nature is considered to be intelligent and alive. Compare with animism, pantheism, hylozoism and Panpsychism!

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Ugh.

 

[mustafur]

So this is happening and the catholic school lobby is fuming: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...l-rebellion-over-schools-20170619-gwu3nf.html


I highlighted the important part that really has any interest to me:
"Sources who attended the meeting said some parents, concerned about massive fee rises, were in tears and said they would have to send their children to a public school if the changes passed."

 

[NW48]

were in tears and said they would have to send their children to a public school if the changes passed.

Snowflakes. No other word for it.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Snowflakes. No other word for it.

I've worked both public and private. There's really not much of a difference between them. You're nor guaranteed a better education by attending a private school.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I've worked both public and private. There's really not much of a difference between them. You're nor guaranteed a better education by attending a private school.

Your anecdotal and suspect opinion aside, there are many reasons to prefer a private school vs. a public school that have nothing to do with grades and learning the curriculum. That aside, this is a pretty obvious attempt to defund the Catholic school system. If outcomes truly are simliar between the systems why are they moving funding away from the Catholic system?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

That aside, this is a pretty obvious attempt to defund the Catholic school system. If outcomes truly are simliar between the systems why are they moving funding away from the Catholic system?

For the past thirty years, the private education sector has been heavily subsidised by the federal government. The idea was to make private education accessible and affordable to everyone. It worked, but the system is out-dated - the schools still get paid, but under the terms of the original deal, which uses economic data from thirty years ago. Since the average family is better off now than they were then, the government is paying a massive subsidy.

The new model is needs-based funding. Individual schools get paid based on their performance with under-achieving schools getting more money. This applies to every school, not just the public ones, and the money is paid directly to them. Under the current system, the money is paid to the diocese, who distribute it to their schools as they see fit. This has led to the suggestion that diocese are giving their funding to the best-performing schools, although I haven't seen any convincing data to go with it. The individual schools offering the most resistance are the ones in regions where educational outcomes are low; they won't so much lose money as see the state schools get more funding, but because they're a business they'll still be better off.

Don't get me wrong, the Catholic system is very good. They're run as a business first, and they're extraordinarily well-off. If a new school is being built, chances are it's a Catholic school, and in some towns they have a virtual monopoly on education. But they're a lot like Ferrari - they get paid simply for showing up, and now they're complaining that the gravy train is making a few more stops along the line.

I do have issues with the proposed funding model. Needs-based funding is the way to go, but this system is a cheap imitation of the previous proposal. The current government scuppered the proposal when in opposition, but now that they're in government they've revived it, watered it down and are now pretending it is something new.

 

[mustafur]

Am I the only one who doesn't like this, it's basically confirming fear around the city for what. It's not like terrorists can target the infinite selection of other areas that don't have bollards, this does more harm then good.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...s/news-story/994839ca97a4e19947b5d5801c512cb8

 

[Johnnypenso]

Am I the only one who doesn't like this, it's basically confirming fear around the city for what. It's not like terrorists can target the infinite selection of other areas that don't have bollards, this does more harm then good.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...s/news-story/994839ca97a4e19947b5d5801c512cb8

Never underestimate the power of government to waste money in order to show they are doing something.

 

[Imari]

It's not like terrorists can target the infinite selection of other areas that don't have bollards, this does more harm then good.

Then again, there's not many places where you'll get the density of pedestrians that are available at Southern Cross or Flinders. I think it's probably not worth what it cost them to do it, but it's far from completely useless.

 

[mustafur]

Then again, there's not many places where you'll get the density of pedestrians that are available at Southern Cross or Flinders. I think it's probably not worth what it cost them to do it, but it's far from completely useless.

The point is it's a slippery slope, what if terrorists change their tactics does the government constantly have to find new ways to protect the masses in a way like this.

What happened to not letting the Terrorists win, this makes it look like they are winning.

 

[Imari]

What happened to not letting the Terrorists win, this makes it look like they are winning.

You're arguing against a point I haven't made. I didn't say it was a good idea. I specifically said I think it's probably not worth what it cost them to do it.

But yes, it turns out that the way that our society as designed is very vulnerable to terrorism. You can accept that, or you can do something about it. What you shouldn't do is worry about it but still not do anything.

Personally, I'm of the accepting type. I'm well aware that statistically my odds of being killed or wounded by a terrorist is slightly less than by me falling over in the shower. It's significantly less than from me driving to work every day in a metal box at high speed. But what others do is not my call, and if they want to make it more difficult to attack certain vulnerable parts of our infrastructure then I can understand where they're coming from, even if I wouldn't do the same.

 

[mustafur]

You're arguing against a point I haven't made. I didn't say it was a good idea. I specifically said I think it's probably not worth what it cost them to do it.

But yes, it turns out that the way that our society as designed is very vulnerable to terrorism. You can accept that, or you can do something about it. What you shouldn't do is worry about it but still not do anything.

Personally, I'm of the accepting type. I'm well aware that statistically my odds of being killed or wounded by a terrorist is slightly less than by me falling over in the shower. It's significantly less than from me driving to work every day in a metal box at high speed. But what others do is not my call, and if they want to make it more difficult to attack certain vulnerable parts of our infrastructure then I can understand where they're coming from, even if I wouldn't do the same.

I wasn't really making an argument on you with that point it was more a comment towards the government that put it there, but it's hard to read that on the net.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Looks like Abbott is getting ready to try and unseat Turnbull:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-01/tony-abbott-liberal-party-conservative-call-to-arms/8670196

This quote made me laugh:

"The great thing about the Liberal Party is we have always respected our leaders."

How, exactly, is repeatedly undermining the leader of the party respecting him?

Part of me wants to see Abbott retake the Prime Ministership because if he does, he's going to get absolutely flattened in the next election. He clearly doesn't understand that the only reason why Turnbull wasn't crucified in the last election was because he wasn't Abbott.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Well, this is terrifying:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-18/home-affairs-peter-dutton-given-more-power/8719368

 

[mustafur]

Another Election could be looming with up to 20 MPs about to lose their jobs as the Dual citizenship saga continues.

TBH it's making out political system look full of amateurs, what kind of clowns do we have in our parliament that don't realise they have more then 1 citizenship?