Grr-owl

Coupl'a corrections from a strine pedant. "Berfday" is speld "berfd-e-e." And you can't say, "You've brought disgrace to this family," it's "You've brung disgrace to this family."

Mr bother play U19's and 2's for the D's. At Victoria Park they would station people around the boundary to abuse the opposition.

Eh.... I'm not too bothered. Imagine if we hadn't recruited Brown and it was Weid who was injured: We'd be going into another season with a dodgy forward line that'd just got dodgier. Now it ups the ante on the others to shine so they keep their place once the Brownster is back and fighting fit and pluggin' 'em....

I hear Dave Sorenson's daughter is a chip off the old block... Something' to watch out for!

Boyz, use a VPN to locate your net address outside Aus, then take an international membership at MFC which gives you access to the WatchAFL app at a minor discount and you get every game, plus Fox Footy shows, no ads during play and all the sauce.... Not exactly right, but not exactly wrong either....

Any chance the report contains evidence? Not saying it does; not saying doesn't; I haven't read it yet. But if the conclusions are validly drawn from credible evidence, they're probably legitimate. Legitimate enough. Regardless of political point of view, certainly of identity, then it should be taken seriously, and death with.

Even if the author is biased, the racism could still exist. The report should be judged by the evidence, not the identity of the author. If the conclusions are credibly drawn from the evidence, the report is right. If the conclusions are erroneously drawn from the evidence, it is bollocks.

Yeah, well said. The author's identity may bias the outcome; then again it may not. In any case, what matters is the evidence. Take identity out of it, all previous tweets and tv appearances, everything, and answer the question: What conclusions can be drawn from the evidence?

I suggest we, as in Demonlanders, do something unusual as a group these days: Not fling insults. Instead, why not have a reasonable discussion re the evidence? I'm going to read the report first, and then comment. And while I'm reading, I'm going to analyze myself for biases either for or against the author, the club (especially the club) and the personalities within it, and people in general. Given some time and little compassion I reckon I should be able to come to a reasonable conclusion about the thing, based on the evidence...

Champ. Captain next season...?

At the same age, I was comparable to Cyril, too. I was the same age.

I saw an article on BBC News in which women who'd met their partners online were asked what had prompted them to go on a second date. The most popular answer was, "He DIDN'T send me a picture of his d*ck." Boys, wake up....

Cheesy, D., this is probably the most sensible post I have ever read.

.

Engage with the argument. You said, "Ask any black person..." Well, those people are black. What, not Black enough for you? Not REALLY black??? I can't be sure, obviously, as I don't know you, but there's some evidence that you have an idea in your head of what it means to be black; possibly the same as BLM define it. Okay, fair enough; a lot of people share that definition. But I don't. It's a definition that ascribes meaning (identity) to skin color, and is therefore ignorant. Skin color doesn't indicate anything about a person except their skin color. It certainly doesn't indicate anything about political allegiance or philosophical outlook or views on abortion or religion or, well, anything. I have directed you to interesting people who have got over the whole binary thinking thing, dividing people into groups based on race or gender or sexual preference etc, but you haven't caught on. This is a shame as society could do with some healing, some uniting, and we could do a little of that here on Demonland it'd be a good thing.

Yeah, man, you're right. And every day I hate my own wife and kids for not being White, and all my students for the last twenty years and almost everyone I'm surrounded by on a daily basis, the guys I play sport with and everyone in my neighbourhood, most of my colleagues, all because they aren't White. Yeah, man, you got me pinned. Your thinking is very limited, Deiter.

Again, as I have tried to make my position clear before, the crime of one person does not cancel out the crime of another. It's the crime that matters, not the identity of the criminal. In this case, Trump is a criminal and so is Uday. From my point of view, it isn't a competition between one side and another to see which is the worst. Once again, you demonstrate the binary thinking that you otherwise rail against. So, to be clear: I absolutely agree with you that the US has done and does deplorable things. It is, indeed, a farcical nation. But that in no way means that the deplorable actions of other countries are in some way mitigated. No comment re Mahdi Obeidi's book? On re-reading my comment, I can see I wasn't quite clear: Dr Mahdi Obeidi was the guy who ran the Iraqi nuclear weapons program. He buried the critical equipment and info under a tree in his back yard. If he and the stuff under his tree had been handed to the inspectors, the situation may have been avoided. Don't take my word for it, read the book. Any black person? No problem. Here are some you might like to listen to: Thomas Chatterton Williams Coleman Hughes Ayaan Hirsi Ali Glenn Loury John McWhorter. John and Glenn appear together regularly on the Glenn Show, Glenn's podcast. Here's an example: And then, if you want to make a leap that very few are yet to make but which must eventually be made if we are to have a post-racial society, ask yourself why you and so many others think race is important. Another insult? Why not make an argument? Calling people names in place of an argument went out after primary school... There's a good reason I don't use my name, and you should be able to guess what that is, given my sensitivities to totalitarianism.

You don't post in good faith, D. Your post was insulting. If you were joking, it would have been a good idea to clarify that with an emoji. I wrote that the war was an ill-conceived fiasco. As for Uday, I can't see how it is possible for anyone to miss the point. You are at least somewhat mistaken about the lies and the propaganda. Try reading this: https://www.amazon.com/Bomb-My-Garden-Secrets-Mastermind/dp/0471741272 As the story unfolds, the author deals with why the US and allies remained convinced that WMD were still in development. It was Saddam's responsibility. For Dr Mahdi and his family, it was a matter of life and death. I remain confident that the form of government that provides the best hope for humanity is liberal democracy. You're not convinced of that. That's okay with me. Otherwise, I'm pretty much done here, Deiter.

I'm beginning to suspect I'm being trolled.... Quoting Ferguson or linking to him does not mean I agree with him, though I am often interested to hear what he has to say. His learning and experience give him insight that allows him to make predictions that often turn out to be prescient. His China angle is particularly interesting to me, as I have skin in the game re human rights and the CCP. You might have picked up on that about me, and twigged to that as the pivot of my interest, rather than lumping me in with "the neo-imperialist gang." Apparently, "it is the mark of en educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting it," a quote wrongly attributed to Aristotle, thus proving its value. Aristotle did say, however, that women had less teeth than men. Proof, again, of the value of the quote, and that it's not wise to throw the baby out with the bathwater. In other words, you don't have to agree with everything a person says to find value in something they say. Personal insults don't make you look good, D. Considering Ferguson's academic achievements and credibility, calling him smug and railing against his failure to mention govt spending on weapons of mass destruction in a discussion on the pandemic makes you look limited, as if he is supposed to bring that subject into every conversation as you do. And then implying that this reflects on me is simplistic and small-minded. Should I insult you back? Perhaps I should say, "You haven't got a full grip on anything; certainly not your mind, though possibly your c@*k." As for support for the Iraq War, Christopher Hitchens, who disagreed with Ferguson in public and more so in private, so I hear, agreed with him on that. Seems people can have intelligent discussions about complicated subjects without taking one political line or another. Insert fake Aristotle quote here, again. You might like to reflect on the behavior of Uday Hussein, who would go to Iraqi weddings and rape the bride. Sometimes he would torture and kill her too. Is that the kind of person who should be running a country? Do you think Iraqi's thought he should be running the country? What kind of father would produce a psychopath such as Uday? I think the war was an ill-considered fiasco myself - eh, if people want to live in a mafia state run by a nepotistic cadre of genocidal psychopaths, let 'em, I say; it's nobody's business but their own - but I can understand why some people with their hands on the levers of power might have thought it was a good idea to turf 'em out on their ear. Okay, cue your reply: A litany of 'what about' historical examples of deplorable western behavior.

Short discussion that raises some pertinent ideas re the pandemic and neoliberalism with Iain Martin and Niall You-know-who from 40:43 here: I can give some informed opinion re certain Asian countries.... ?

Read this one? The Wake-Up Call: Why the pandemic has exposed the weakness of the West - and how to fix it John Micklethwait & Adrian Wooldridge

Try Coleman Hughes's podcast of December 17 with Douglas Murray.

You haven't brought a different perspective at all. Your arguments, though they're really opinions, are based on a few simplistic premises: 1. Western politicians are all bad, all the time. 2. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. 3. Other civilisations are essentially different from and better than the West. It's just the same old self-hating, guilt-ridden, self-flagellation that passes for 'theory' in the humanities these days. It's built on a perverted, fallacious and blinkered understanding of history. While your idea about binary thinking is sound, you omit obvious facts and reveal ignorance when you write things like "the same binary notion of good versus evil as propagated by the Judeo-Christian religions." It isn't just those religions that do it, and the idea doesn't primarily emanate from them. I'd argue that if we're all the same, made from the same flesh and blood, as you say, then the brotherhood of man necessarily includes the multi-billionaires and the poorest of the poor and everyone else, even the politicians you hate and everyone who believes the exact opposite of yourself and every other belief on the spectrum. In other words, YOU don't believe in the brotherhood of man yourself. That's a presumptuous things to write, so I'll admit that I don't know anything much about you, Deiter. Certainly, I'm coming from a position of ignorance when I humbly offer this recommendation: Go get to know the world. You may have already done so but reached opposite conclusions to me, or you may not be in a position to do so -- I don't know -- so it could be dumb for me to say it, but there are many opportunities out there. Why not take them? Leave the West, take on the challenge of living in societies which are organized around different principles to the western societies you are so down on. At least you'll gain perspective. Twenty years ago I could have written your post myself, but time and experience have chipped away at the glass house that I had built around myself, and now it lies shattered at my feet. Nowhere is better than the West. That's the truth. Some countries have have positive features than others - better healthcare, better education, other stuff, you name it - but in combination, the countries that belong to Western civilisation offer the average human far more opportunity to live a meaningful, socially mobile life than others. Just imagine being born into poverty as a female in ruralest Pakistan? What chance? What hope? For me, in my position, with my experience, this about sums it all up: Every human civilisation is schitt, but the West is the least schitt in the history of civilisation. And as long as I can reasonably be assured that there's little risk of being dragged out of my bed at night and tortured for expressing a critical opinion, and I can reliably believe that there are others around me willing to fight against such tendencies in humans, I'm good.

The shift will come. And western dynamism will ensure we move on into another, the next, a subsequent imperfect rendering of a progressive society....

Thing is, both of you express simplistic ideas. You fail to engage with the argument, and that is frustrating for those of us who post in good faith assuming that, in some way, you might be interested in learning something.