OUT: Abbott IN: Turnbull

[Dee Fan 3,247]

I didn't and won't watch it... the cheap shot with the names telegraphed the intent, so no point.

Oh, and do you seriously believe you have the right to hide behind the name of one of our club's great champions?

You still here; not sure why.

Why don't you go off and find someone you can call a racist.

[hardtack 10,627]

You still here; not sure why.

Why don't you go off and find someone you can call a racist.

Seems you're the only one here that is hung up on that epithet.

[P-man 13,366]

Good, does that mean you'll stop annoying me now?

I'm not sure how many ways I can tell you that I don't really care. Block me, that will make you feel much better.

lol

Honestly, it's like debating with a teenage girl.

"I don't care! Leave me alone!"

Learn to acknowledge points raised by others, Rob. You'll look alot less silly.

I won't put you on ignore mate. You're too entertaining. You can put me on there if I'm annoying you by having the gall to respond to a post of yours and meeting your request for facts and sources.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

lol

Honestly, it's like debating with a teenage girl.

"I don't care! Leave me alone!"

Learn to acknowledge points raised by others, Rob. You'll look alot less silly.

I won't put you on ignore mate. You're too entertaining. You can put me on there if I'm annoying you by having the gall to respond to a post of yours and meeting your request for facts and sources.

I tell you what; in future when you make a statement provide your source as well, that way I won't have to ask a question when I have no interest in the answer and you will feel much better and happy you've proven your point.

[P-man 13,366]

I tell you what; in future when you make a statement provide your source as well, that way I won't have to ask a question when I have no interest in the answer and you will feel much better and happy you've proven your point.

Deal, if you abstain from making requests that require me to go and hunt down things to back up something that I already know to be true, and you know to be true, and that you apparently have no interest in. It wastes both of our time, and I know how much you hate having your time wasted..

Edited February 3, 2014 by P-man

[DemonFrog 1,356]

In the left corner (as Rob would never been seen in that corner) is the challenger P-man and in the right corner is the famous Mr RobbieF.

The crowd is expecting a big match today between these two heavy weights.

One fighter is the master of fact and figures, while the other has achieved the highest skill level in denial and ignorance. Who will wear down the other to become this thread's champion?

[Guest]

No need to get nasty.

You'll forgive me if ICGAF what you think if me, won't you?

Well quite clearly you do. If you didn't care at all, you wouldn't have responded.

Yes the Intellects always look down upon those without two university degrees, in much the same way the accuse the left of looking down on the refugees; sort of like second class citizens. Intellectual snobbery at its best, you've got two haven't you;I think I recall you telling all of us somewhere along the line.

BTW, Not all of us have lived in a dictatorship and I guess most wouldn't want to, but to each his own.

The problem is that those advocating these harsh border protection apologies point to the 'polls' when justifying why they are correct in pursuing these policies. We also see in the same breath that a lot of the people who are backing these policies then getting basic facts wrong concerning the situation (i.e. will bring it up again but will refer to the poll which showed roughly 60% of Australians believe that most asylum seekers who arrive by boat aren't genuine refugees when over 90% of them are).

Never mind the facts. You know those pesky ones you aren't interested in? If everyone is on your side, then you are correct. In reality that is the logical fallacy 'argumentum ad numerum' if large numbers of people believe something then it must be true. Kind of like 'eat s**t, a trillion flies can't be wrong'. Therefore that ignorance gains equal standing to actual knowledge on the subject. That's what that quote was referring to. I'm sorry that I touched a nerve there, Robbie.

[Guest]

In the left corner (as Rob would never been seen in that corner) is the challenger P-man and in the right corner is the famous Mr RobbieF.

The crowd is expecting a big match today between these two heavy weights.

One fighter is the master of fact and figures, while the other has achieved the highest skill level in denial and ignorance. Who will wear down the other to become this thread's champion?

I'm guessing in a real boxing match, Robbie would just lay down his gloves, say he is bored and not bother to fight back while P-man pummelled him.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Well quite clearly you do. If you didn't care at all, you wouldn't have responded.

The problem is that those advocating these harsh border protection apologies point to the 'polls' when justifying why they are correct in pursuing these policies. We also see in the same breath that a lot of the people who are backing these policies then getting basic facts wrong concerning the situation (i.e. will bring it up again but will refer to the poll which showed roughly 60% of Australians believe that most asylum seekers who arrive by boat aren't genuine refugees when over 90% of them are).

Never mind the facts. You know those pesky ones you aren't interested in? If everyone is on your side, then you are correct. In reality that is the logical fallacy 'argumentum ad numerum' if large numbers of people believe something then it must be true. Kind of like 'eat s**t, a trillion flies can't be wrong'. Therefore that ignorance gains equal standing to actual knowledge on the subject. That's what that quote was referring to. I'm sorry that I touched a nerve there, Robbie.

Well I'm glad you know this as a fact Colin.

You really seem to enjoy call others ignorant; but hey, don't let your superiority complex get in the way, keep it up.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

I'm guessing in a real boxing match, Robbie would just lay down his gloves, say he is bored and not bother to fight back while P-man pummelled him.

Exactly I'd just lay down and surrender, in fact the pair of you could just bore me to death.

[P-man 13,366]

Exactly I'd just lay down and surrender, in fact the pair of you could just bore me to death.

A win is a win, Roberto.

[dee-luded 2,959]

She's a greens senator.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01yNq8BJ2JA&list=UUsvZxvUY9C_eHxfbyjtnCjA&index=1

This ones even better, and she represents the Greens, wow indeed.

agreed on S,H-Y... I'd put her on a Par with Sophie mirrorballs. in fact maybe we can organise a swap with Malaysia. a 2 of these for 10 deal, would be about right.

[dee-luded 2,959]

I am happy to stand by my comments. It's a cheap shot. And by the way my name is not hoody, I am The Hood, arch criminal, master of disguise and the nemesis of certain International Rescue organisations!

So, your a near-east spy?

[Dee Fan 3,247]

A win is a win, Roberto.

Only if you care enough and you're keeping score. But if it feels good go for it.

[Guest]

Well I'm glad you know this as a fact Colin.

You really seem to enjoy call others ignorant; but hey, don't let your superiority complex get in the way, keep it up.

I will address your second point first. There is a huge difference between ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is merely not knowing about or being aware about a particular concept or phenomenon. There is unintentional ignorance for example, I am ignorant of quantum physics (so I would endeavour not to shoot my mouth off about it). I believe that most of the thinking surrounding asylum seekers comes from this unintentional ignorance.

There is also wilful ignorance in which people go out of their way to not find out about what they claim to know about and when they are presented with facts to the contrary, they ignore them. Unfortunately in this case, the wilfully ignorant are the ones who are the most self righteous and strident in their views (the very people I was referring to and won't apologize about).

As for your first bit, just give me a moment.

BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA!

Are you disguising yourself as some kind of brilliant left wing satirist? You want facts or implying that what I am saying isn't true? Well, I would find you the article in which that was said but let me guess.... it's will be too boring for you? What do you do in your spare time Rob? Sleep with lingerie models and race F1 cars? I wouldn't want to drag you away from that!

It's like watching that scene from the wizard of Oz when Dorothy smacks the cowardly lion on the nose. Except you go all blase and uninterested to hide the fact as Jerry Seinfeld says you 'got nuthin' (As was noted before, it's a tactic Andrew Bolt uses on his blog. He is more than happy to tear into you if you have a pithy argument but when you have facts and volume to debunk his nonsense, he finds your response too wordy and couldn't be bothered discussing any further).

Edited February 4, 2014 by Colin B. Flaubert

[DemonFrog 1,356]

There a big left hook followed by a few little jabs.

But wait, his opponent is now off the ropes and is swing hay maker after hay maker.

This match is neck and neck!

Who will be crowned King of the Thread at the end of this final round?

[Dee Fan 3,247]

I will address your second point first. There is a huge difference between ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is merely not knowing about or being aware about a particular concept or phenomenon. There is unintentional ignorance for example, I am ignorant of quantum physics (so I would endeavour not to shoot my mouth off about it). I believe that most of the thinking surrounding asylum seekers comes from this unintentional ignorance.

There is also wilful ignorance in which people go out of their way to not find out about what they claim to know about and when they are presented with facts to the contrary, they ignore them. Unfortunately in this case, the wilfully ignorant are the ones who are the most self righteous and strident in their views (the very people I was referring to and won't apologize about).

As for your first bit, just give me a moment.

BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA!

Are you disguising yourself as some kind of brilliant left wing satirist? You want facts or implying that what I am saying isn't true? Well, I would find you the article in which that was said but let me guess.... it's will be too boring for you? What do you do in your spare time Rob? Sleep with lingerie models and race F1 cars? I wouldn't want to drag you away from that!

It's like watching that scene from the wizard of Oz when Dorothy smacks the cowardly lion on the nose. Except you go all blase and uninterested to hide the fact as Jerry Seinfeld says you 'got nuthin' (As was noted before, it's a tactic Andrew Bolt uses on his blog. He is more than happy to tear into you if you have a pithy argument but when you have facts and volume to debunk his nonsense, he finds your response too wordy and couldn't be bothered discussing any further).

This where you get it wrong Colin, I said "you know this for a fact", I didn't ask for proof, I didn't ask you to dig up some article from the refugees collective, I merely said what i said.

Now you can read in to that whatever you want and respond with a 15 paragraph diatribe, but that's up to you.

unfortunately anyone that disagrees with you is, in your opinion, ignorant/stupid and that's your superiority complex at work. Now I have a life outside Demonland and I have some very pressing issues going on in my life at the moment, none of which are your business, and one of those in particular is taking up the majority of my time.

If I was truly interested in this I would take the time to respond but the fact is I don't really care; I came on here for a bit of relief but I can see that that won't be happening.

[Guest]

This where you get it wrong Colin, I said "you know this for a fact", I didn't ask for proof, I didn't ask you to dig up some article from the refugees collective, I merely said what i said.

Now you can read in to that whatever you want and respond with a 15 paragraph diatribe, but that's up to you.

unfortunately anyone that disagrees with you is, in your opinion, ignorant/stupid and that's your superiority complex at work. Now I have a life outside Demonland and I have some very pressing issues going on in my life at the moment, none of which are your business, and one of those in particular is taking up the majority of my time.

If I was truly interested in this I would take the time to respond but the fact is I don't really care; I came on here for a bit of relief but I can see that that won't be happening.

I must admit Robbie. I got this all wrong.

For years, I have moved in elitist, egghead, bookworm circles where we sneer at the plebians for their sheer stupidity (or ignorance, I always get the two mixed up) and I must admit I have gotten this debating thing all wrong. I was always taught that you should do your research and base your analysis on the numbers/facts/information that you are shown. That stuff is for chardonnay sipping snobs. You have taught me a morally unimpeachable way of debating that makes you invulnerable to criticism.

1) First give your opinion. Do it in absolutist terms. At this point, you will need to wait for a response to move to stage 2.

2) Upon receiving dissenting response, grill your opponent for the veracity of their claims in the hope that they have no proof to back up what they say. If they don't, you may rip their argument to pieces. If they do, it's time to advance to step 3.

3) It's time for you to invoke the spirit of Homer J. Simpson and state to your opponent that:

It needn't matter how valid a point your opponent has or that you have provided no evidence to back up your viewpoint. They are just an insufferable bore. In fact, their whole point of existing on this board is to amuse you. Not unlike a cabaret singer or comedian. Any argument of theirs that you don't like and any criticism that doesn't sit comfortably, you need to use this line.

All posters out there....

If you get caught in bed with another woman by your wife.

If you go to work drunk and defecate on your boss' desk.

If you are filmed stealing money from churches and spending the money on crack and hookers.

Tell your inquisitor that you find them boring.

It works for Robbie!

P.S. Even though you claim you find your opponent boring, you must reply to absolutely EVERYTHING they say. Despite the fact you are very bored by it all.

Edited February 4, 2014 by Colin B. Flaubert

[Earl Hood 6,101]

So, your a near-east spy?

Good heavens DL Is that Scott Morrison on the right? In my report in post 301 of the Carbon Tax thread on my failed mission to Canberra in January to talk sense to Morrison, I saw such a strange device in Morrisons office.

[Biffen 12,947]

What's wrong with stealing from churches and spending it on crack and hookers?someone has to beat the clergy to its part from this, your argument is flawless Col.

[Guest]

What's wrong with stealing from churches and spending it on crack and hookers?someone has to beat the clergy to its part from this, your argument is flawless Col.

That advice may help you stay alive at the Gatwick for one more week, Biff. Treasure it with your life as it may depend on it.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

I must admit Robbie. I got this all wrong.

For years, I have moved in elitist, egghead, bookworm circles where we sneer at the plebians for their sheer stupidity (or ignorance, I always get the two mixed up) and I must admit I have gotten this debating thing all wrong. I was always taught that you should do your research and base your analysis on the numbers/facts/information that you are shown. That stuff is for chardonnay sipping snobs. You have taught me a morally unimpeachable way of debating that makes you invulnerable to criticism.

1) First give your opinion. Do it in absolutist terms. At this point, you will need to wait for a response to move to stage 2.

2) Upon receiving dissenting response, grill your opponent for the veracity of their claims in the hope that they have no proof to back up what they say. If they don't, you may rip their argument to pieces. If they do, it's time to advance to step 3.

3) It's time for you to invoke the spirit of Homer J. Simpson and state to your opponent that:

It needn't matter how valid a point your opponent has or that you have provided no evidence to back up your viewpoint. They are just an insufferable bore. In fact, their whole point of existing on this board is to amuse you. Not unlike a cabaret singer or comedian. Any argument of theirs that you don't like and any criticism that doesn't sit comfortably, you need to use this line.

All posters out there....

If you get caught in bed with another women by your wife.

If you go to work drunk and defecate on your boss' desk.

If you are filmed stealing money from churches and spending the money on crack and hookers.

Tell your inquisitor that you find them boring.

It works for Robbie!

P.S. Even though you claim you find your opponent boring, you must reply to absolutely EVERYTHING they say. Despite the fact you are very bored by it all.

You seem to have a comprehension problem Homer, if you can't understand what I said then don't shoot the messenger.

i did say you'd come back with a diatribe, only part I got wrong was the length.

[Guest]

You seem to have a comprehension problem Homer, if you can't understand what I said then don't shoot the messenger.

i did say you'd come back with a diatribe, only part I got wrong was the length.

Would you say it was boring?

[Dee Fan 3,247]

You seem to be hung up on the phrase 'totalitarian regime'. I am not saying that the entirety of the Abbott Government is totalitarian (and as I said earlier, having lived in a country ruled by a dictatorship, we aren't even close to that) but this policy smacks of something a banana republic dictatorship would pull. Unprecedented secrecy and a complete disregard for human rights. Heightened rhetoric sometimes is called for. I was just as concerned with other policies pursued by the Labor party so this isn't merely an Abbott thing (i.e. the PNG solution).

That I assume is an opinion or some sort of editorial so I guess it's not a question.

Thanks for the info from the ABC website via the YouTube. Unfortunately, sometimes people actually read what is said when you recommend sites to others. If you actually look at the site, you will notice for starters that it clearly states there is definitely a media blackout on commenting on reporting upon boat arrivals, detention centers and incidents at sea. The only people who will find this are the people who actually go looking for it. This lack of accessible information for all the government's constituents is worrying to say the least.

This also appears to be an opinion unless there is a question there somewhere.

Reading between the lines, there appears to be a set of numbers here that the coalition didn't like as it wouldn't allow them to live up to their 'promise' (up till December the numbers had reached 1106 in 3 months with two incidents in which nearly 200 people each were recorded to have made the journey) so they, as I have said before, moved the goal posts to suit their own purposes.

They implemented policies that took time to come to fruition, I don't think anyone but a complete fool would have thought that the boats would stop overnight; did you?

The underlying logic (stated earlier by yourself Robbie) that seems to be that this policy will somehow stop people making the journey by boat in fear of the consequences of them being intercepted.

By underlying logic do you meant the fact that the majority of the boats have stopped?

The magic 6 weeks arrival period mooted by the coalition is presented there but we hear from Scott Morrison himself that it is government policy 'and practice' to remove these boats beyond our territorial waters. When pressed further on this, he refused to mention the number of times this has happened. Indonesian sources have said that the number of turn arounds is in the ball park of 5 to 10. When pressed again on this during the Senate inquiry, Morrison again has refused to mention how many boats have entered Australian waters and as stated in this article, stuck to a tightly managed definition of 'arrival'. There was no mention of boats who had headed out to make the journey but gone turned back. According to the policy goals mentioned earlier, this seems like a deliberate attempt to distort these numbers via omission.

Distortion by omission; how so? They said they would turn the boats around and they have, they also said they wouldn't comment on operational matters in this and they won't; what is the problem there?

Based on all of this, it would appear that from late December/January onwards, the policy definition 'rules' were changed to justify this barbarism.

Totalitarism, Barbarism, you do have a problem. Please point out the brutality are they beating the boat people . That once again is an opinion and not a question.

Let's now look at it another way and you do raise a good point about the RAC/Newscorp article and it's claims of asylum seekers dying in the jungle. Let's say it was merely a claim and not the truth. If the Abbott government wanted to actually discredit misinformation campaigns such as this, wouldn't they go out of their way to be transparent? The same applies to the asylum seekers/burns story.

if there was any truth to the rumour the ABC, The AGE and every left wing media outlet in the country would be on to it; are they? Why should the Government comment on even bs article in the press particularly after they said they wouldn't.

It can also be applied to the 5/10 times mark listed earlier. Get the facts out there and the truth will set you free. Instead, we see an immigration minister stonewall. The website mentioned that the government would not comment about incidents at see and they are definitely keeping up that end of the bargain.

See Above.

Oh and as for Andrew Bolt. The reason why we don't take him seriously is because he makes statements regarding why we shouldn't have more women in parliament as they are more likely to be into new age lifestyles which leads to witchcraft. There is also his rank hypocrisy in constantly slagging off the ABC when he has received quite a bit of income from them and a platform to spread his nonsense over the years (Insiders, the show he hosted with Jon Faine on 774, the time when he stormed the 774 studio to have a go at Stephen Mayne despite the fact that he already had the opportunity to berate him over the callback line). Or this little incident.

P.S. Put frankly, the debate about whether the boats are stopping is a false one. I have been over this previously but as I don't want to go over that in detail again, I'll refer you to my previous posts. I gotta get up at 5 tomorrow morning so it's time for bed now.

That is just a blatant lie and you know it the number of boats setting off is much less and getting each day.

Well now i've read that I feel much better, I thought the sheer size of it daunting but as read through I realised that no matter how much fluff you put in it's still fluff.

Your arrogance is overwhelming, fortunately the rest of your "stuff" isn't.

Thanks for the read Homer.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Would you say it was boring?

As bat shyte. When all else fails, attack the other poster, that makes the other morons on the site all excited and as they cheer you get more emboldened and produce another useless diatribe.

Lot of words but little substance, do a bit of digging and all you get out of your posts is your inflated opinion of yourself and your view on what is happening, some of it has no relevance the rest is just the standard left wing take.

Nah Homer you're a fraud; just keep on repeating what you read in the various rags the left love. The cheer squad love you.

I guess you can't tell the rest of us which totalitarian country you were in; it's probably top secret and you'd have to kill us all if you did.