Bluey's Dad
-
Posts
2,821 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Everything posted by Bluey's Dad
-
I dunno Jara. I thought of myself as pretty conservative until I came on here a few years back and discovered that I was a pinko hippy.
-
WELCOME TO THE MELBOURNE FOOTBALL CLUB - MICHAEL HIBBERD
Bluey's Dad replied to KC from Casey's topic in Melbourne Demons
Please provide links if you do -
Hibberd has been good revenge for that game. Would love to see a few beltings though.
-
lol hard to argue with that, but I refuse to admit that a Collingwood supporter has taught me anything.
-
Right, so when we can show that there are Muslims who do speak out against terrorism, contrary to your initial position, you then cry 'lip service'. I wish I had the insight into the human mind that you seem to. There a billions of Muslims on this planet. If they all wanted us dead, we'd be dead. I regret posting. Again.
-
Biff, you said you hadn't seen any instances of Australian Muslims condemning terrorism. I provided examples showing that some had. I made no comment other than showing links that disproved your sweeping and inaccurate statement. If your statement that 25% of Muslims agree with terrorism (I assume you meant terrorism since jihad is not the same thing), then 75% don't and you've just shown your own over simplification to be false. If the grand mufti can come out and condemn terrorism and the Muslim community can then be pilloried for condoning it by those who ignore that fact, then there is no room for debate. You simply ignore what doesn't suit your narrative. And as I said, those links only took 20 minutes to find. All I needed was one, but I found 7. I'm sure there are many more examples out there of Muslims condemning terrorism, but figured that my post was more than sufficient. I see that no amount of evidence will sway you in even a minor way, even when it stares you in the face.
-
You aren't looking very hard. Evidence #1: Facebook post on behalf of multiple Australian muslim communities condemning Orlando attacks Evidence #2: Article about the phenomena itself, blames the media for lack of coverage From the article: The truth is, Muslim leaders are speaking out, but their voices are drowned out by sensationalism, such as the comments made by Palmer United Party MP Jacqui Lambie on Insiders last week when she equated sharia law to terrorism. Lambie's comments got a lot more media attention than when the Australian National Imams Council issued a media statement on September 15, that likened Islamic State to a "group of criminals" with nothing Islamic about their murderous actions, and stated: "Since the ISIS group was established we have been very clear about denouncing their lies and betrayal of our faith." FWIW I disagree with the conclusion of the article, but the statements about the Imams Council is relevant to your statement. Evidence #3: University of Melbourne list of Fatwas condemning terrorism The first entry: In March 2010, Sheikh Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, a leading Pakistani cleric, published a 600-page Fatwa on Terrorism and Suicide Bombings, endorsed by Al-Azhar University, which prohibited killing Muslim and non-Muslim civilians and destroying property and places of worship. Evidence #4: Recent ABC article Relevant: Sadly, he said, Muslims share some of the blame. and The vast majority of Muslims reject terrorism. After the 9/11 attacks in 2001 until 2007, Pew Research conducted extensive worldwide studies of attitudes towards terrorism. The research polled thousands of people representing up to 90 per cent of the world's Islamic populations and found that 93 per cent condemned the 9/11 attacks as unjustified. Evidence #5: Grand Mufti of Australia condemns terrorism: The Grand Mufti on 15th September 2014 said about ISIS that: “These criminals are committing crimes against humanity and sins against God.” fact check of above Evidence #6: And, of course, there is Waleed Aly - a man who continually speaks out against terrorism. I know you don't rate him, and I fully admit he can get agitating, but here's a Muslim with a megaphone in prime time TV doing exactly what you claim to have never seen. That took about 20 minutes on google. I'm sure I could find more, but surely that's enough to prove your point wrong? I must admit Biff, every time I think I'm done with this conversation, you find a way to pull me back in.
-
My silence is directly proportional to the amount of traction I think I can get arguing with you. Nil. I'm pretty sure I'm done posting on this sort of stuff. It's just not worth it.
-
I have nothing more to add. I can't make you see what's right in front of you, Biff. Have a good weekend.
-
You're the one that's shifting Biff. You made assertions that were factually incorrect, then attempted to claim that you know it all along. I think I've been quite consistent in my remarks. I suppose those someone who's contradicted themselves so blatantly as you have would have trouble understanding what 'consistent' actually means. I agree that extolling the virtues of Western civilisation doesn't make you racist. However, you seem blinded by those virtues to the point where you can't see any of its flaws or mistakes.
-
You don't see a conflict here Biff? Writing and laws developed by non-Western cultures, but "Humanity has advanced by all measure due to Western civilisation" Please.
-
yeah my point is don't say it's a British or Greek invention when you know that to be factually incorrect.
-
Looks like you've added more to this post. Yeah - record keeping is good. Sure. Not sure why it's relevant, but ok. There's no silver bullet, no. But I think it's worse to simply say that there is no solution and give up rather than at least make an attempt. Some welfare spending is justified IMO. I'm not advocating for giving back large swathes of land here. All I said was that I'm happy for some of my tax dollars to go towards these sorts of programs. It's not motivated out of guilt - I think it's a perfectly reasonable position to take. There are those in this country less fortunate and I, some of them as a result of historical wrongs. They can have my welfare dollar. I doubt those who receive these payments see it as pointless. It is perhaps pointless for those who think as you do.
-
So why assert something that you know is false?
-
"Humane" is subjective, so I won't bother engaging on that. It's something we won't see eye to eye on. Your factual statement regarding the origins of law on the other hand can be disputed. Quick check on wikipedia renders your second statement false: Ancient Egyptian law, dating as far back as 3000 BC, had a civil code that was probably broken into twelve books. It was based on the concept of Ma'at, characterised by tradition, rhetorical speech, social equality and impartiality.[1] By the 22nd century BC, Ur-Nammu, an ancient Sumerian ruler, formulated the first extant law code, consisting of casuistic statements ("if... then..."). Around 1760 BC, King Hammurabi further developed Babylonian law, by codifying and inscribing it in stone. Hammurabi placed several copies of his law code throughout the kingdom of Babylon as stelae, for the entire public to see; this became known as the Codex Hammurabi. from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history So Egypt, then Sumeria, then Babylon. Further digging suggests the earliest codified Greek law is dated to 620 BC. 1000 yeas after the Babylonians, 1600 after the Sumerians and 2400 years after the Egyptians. 2 of those countries are now located in what we now call the middle east, and the other is in Africa. edit - clarity
-
All fair, but I don't think we're at the point where we can completely move on yet. Plus there's the issue of acknowledging actual vs false history. Your statement on the British inventing law for example was factually incorrect. That false assumption may have influenced further opinions, not just yours but those who read your words, which then become entrenched, but cannot be dislodged despite them being predicated on a falsehood. Hopefully society can move on soon as you say, but its a lot easier for us to move on than the descendants of the wronged. "It is a sad fact of evolution" - although I agree that it is, it doesn't mean that we have to continue with it, or that it is morally right. Evolution is a theory that explains how life develops, not how it should act ethically once sentience is attained.
-
I'll see if I can attend to these one by one: I don't know who you're descended from, but I'm pretty sure British and Spanish colonials murdered a bunch of people when they came to new countries. And yeah, those murders are recorded - as invasions and wars. I didn't do it either, but I live in a country that benefited from the wholesale murder and displacement of its indigenous population. So I'm happy for some of my tax dollars to go to the descendants of those who were displaced. I'm not accountable for the actions of colonials hundreds of years ago, but I benefit from their actions and that at least makes me partially responsible for giving back. There is no public policy for destroying cultures - agreed. But there used to be, at least indirectly, when this country was declared "Terra Nullius". Reparations are a good idea within reason. Welfare payments and such. Happy to pay my share. I don't feel guilty either, I just acknowledge the benefit I've received (see above). I think you are ignoring some facts here Biff, despite your claims. But it's easier for us to move on from the facts of history than the descendants of the conquered. I don't see why acknowledging that is an issue. You talk about historical fact, and yes many advances in society and technology are euro-centric. It would be naive however to assume that they ALL were, and discount the impact of other cultures on our own societal and technological development. From memory (history class was a while back), but the first written words I think were found to have come from ancient Mesopotamia - which is now the middle east. The first codified laws (again, history class was a while back) were developed in Babylon under Hammurabi. Again, middle east. Codified laws were not a British invention as you claim. I can't speak for the Chinese, although their growing middle class indicates to me that they are starting to share our ideals, not laugh at them. But who knows.
-
Agreed that the area has been a basket place for a long time, but I reckon discounting western interference is a stretch. I'm not saying it's all the US's fault, or that things would be better or worse without their involvement. I'm just saying you can't invade a country, leave, then observe the subsequent power vacuum and civil war and shrug 'meh, they would have killed each other anyway'. It's irresponsible and frankly we have no idea what would have happened if Saddam had stayed in power. I remember Trump said that Hilary and Obama helped 'create' ISIS by their actions in the region. So I guess he'd disagree with your assessment that the issues there had nothing to do with Western interference. Now, your claims on the West destroying culture - I both agree and disagree with. Recently, I think you're right - the West hasn't gone and destroyed any cultures (ISIS does a good enough job of that on their own, looting and destroying artefacts and such). But the height of colonialism was all about destroying the indigenous cultures the British (and Spanish I suppose) found. One people systematically eliminating another, forcing their religion on another, is nothing to be proud of. Yes, there are the benefits you described above, but it's not as simple as "we brought civilisation to the heathen, now he doesn't have TB". It's more like "we straight up murdered a bunch of people, now their descendants don't have TB". I'm not sure anything is really served by trying to perpetuate the idea of Western superiority. We're all humans. We should all feel pride in our achievements and shame at our failures.
-
Alex Fasolo battling mental demons.
Bluey's Dad replied to John Crow Batty's topic in Melbourne Demons
Interesting on the AFL website for team announcements: "Alex Fasolo (Unavailable)" I would have thought "illness" would be more appropriate. Not a massive issue, but I reckon "unavailable" isn't the right word. -
Yeah but only Cyril has 'special' goals
-
I've posted on this before - I've lived with clinical depression for a few years now. I posted a few times in Mitch threads, it was mostly respectful as you say, with only the occasional exception. This is the best way I've found so far of trying to express it to those who don't have it Honestly most days I'm just happy I can function as a human being and do normal stuff - go to work, pick up the kids from school etc. There was a stretch where I couldn't so much as play with my own kids. I can't speak for Fasolo, but if he's managing to even GET to training, that's a massively positive sign that he can get back on the park. Best of luck to him.
-
I reckon it has to do with the boss as well. A few backs the editor of the Herald Sun was on the radio and was talking about the media coverage of the Essendon saga. He said something like "They [Fairfax] had their story to tell and so did we". I almost ran off the road. I don't think the word 'objectivity' would have entered his mind. The interview got a little awkward after that and moved on.
-
Yup. I guess I'm in the 'I'll take the extra risk for humanitarian reasons camp" when it comes to refugees. I acknowledge you're in the opposite camp though. There seems to be very little space in between. Or maybe that's the way the issue has been presented to us. I dunno. I'm tired.
-
Just had a real quick look at the Margaret Court thing - seems people are upset because the tennis venue is named after her, so I assume that's why there's so much media coverage. Pretty crappy things to say though IMO.
-
Have been slammed with work the last few days so I'm behind on the news, what did she say? But yeah, actual hate speech regardless of source or victim, should be punished. I was sure that was a thing in Aus. One thing I will say with regards to clerics is that religion gets a massive free ride in this country with regard to what they can do (and how they are taxed, but that's another issue). I'm of the opinion that one's religion shouldn't allow you to circumvent the law, but apparently wearing a silly robe and holding an old book gets you privileges others can't obtain.
