- SEE ESSAY BELOW.
I wish I had more time to write a continuum of my hurriedly - written submission on the 18C Law
See links hereunder
http://socialistdystopia.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/from-geoff-seidner-re-amendments-to.html
See links hereunder
http://socialistdystopia.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/from-geoff-seidner-re-amendments-to.html
Geoff Seidner
PATHETIC, OUTRAGEOUS JAMES ALLAN - A PROFESSOR OF LAW!
REFER TO MUNDINE AND KARVELAS ARTICLES AS BELOW.
Karvelas / Mundine:
Warren Mundine article dated April 1 – basis for James Allan’s sickening article prer above link.
http://cognatesocialistdystopia.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/1414-w-mundine-race-act-debate-misses.html
##################################################################################################################################################################
My shorthand ESSAY on the 18C
There are so many articles recently having been written by reasonable people who have as their theme de jour the idea that one should engage in debate with the sort of people who plainly vilify you. And surely are arguably far worse.
I put to the reader that this is an absurdity and an abomination.
'Vilifiers' are by the very nature of what they do and what they vociferously espouse are not your boy - next door type.
Surely, even with their unilateral freedom / speech agenda - reality should eventually eventually stop the use of hopeless, unqualified, unmodified espousal of the various laboured cliches. There are now dozens - from the theater of ideas, marketplace of ideas, the mantle of freedom of speech, sticks and stones, smothering of free exchange of ideas...... and there are far worse / and many more lame lines.
The worst perhaps comes from the lamentable holocaust survivor Frank Furedy [see my earlier entries on my blog as above] who manages to invert the victim and the vilifier via his multi - repeated phrase ''velvet totalitarianism''
Verily - just because someone is a holocaust survivor [AND an extreme bolshie] - does not imply their views are worthy of contemplation!
I say: surely there must be an element of recognition by some of these talented people to enable them to recognize the real fear one would have in this realm?
Never mind my old adage that freedom of speech is a responsibility to be carefully claimed.
But 'it' is far more important than that. If that is possible.
No - it is this: the act of debating say the holocaust's historicity
is simply an obscenity attested to by my parents generation and mainstream historians.
6 million of my people were murdered by the antecedents, appendages and acolytes of these new age defacto Nazis!
That is obvious.
Understand that in a debate the term of reference is agreed to.
That too is obvious.
MID POINT AND OTHER OBSCENITIES
But - to set a new mid - point - ANY debating point of debate for the greatest tragedy / mass - murder in history, is unspeakable!
This mid point is as follows. Yad Vashem is still struggling to find the names of the 6 million who perished. So, is there anyone who wishes to debate that there were only 5,950,000 Jews murdered?
Is the mid point agreed to be agreed to - to be 5, 975,000?
AND in the act of debating the holocaust - THAT is exactly what happens!
An inevitable by - product of allowing this will indubitably, invariably set up the very idea that the fact of the matter is debatable! I suggest that there has never been a greater obscenity than this newly - created 'mid - point' in vulgarism.
This mid point is as follows. Yad Vashem is still struggling to find the names of the 6 million who perished. So, is there anyone who wishes to espouse there were only 5,950,000 Jews murdered?
Is the mid point agreed to as 5, 975,000?
Will the next debate be the above or whether the Nazis should have finished the job? The new Thin edge of the wedge in debating, freedom of speech style!
Heck NO! I withdraw this corollary - this mere cliche - in the sense that it will never come to that, never.
Surely there will always be decent people who will never allow it to descend to hypothesizing about how Hitler could have murdered 10 million? Then there would be no - one to have written this. But the twirps could debate what a victorious Hitler would have done?
May be those same cavalier people who today ignorantly espouse freedom of speech for incipient defacto Nazis on the AXIS of the contextually - untennable 'freedom' of speech moniker, should become aware what the ill - thought consequences will be. It is essentially decreptitudenous and dastardly.
THE AUSTRALIAN AND THE LEAGUE OF RIGHTS
Oh - I make this comment_ people should be wary of getting into proverbial bed with the League of Rights: The Australian has published 3 letters in the last few weeks to the editor by these entities. Beware ye all!
And The Australian has been disgraceful in all ways!
I do a partial cut and paste from their astonishing editorial from early April as here.
Any reading of it - in complete context if you like - is probable indicative how idiotic and obscene The Australian is in chasing their agenda!
OF GARRICK PROFESSORS AND WARREN MUNDINE
One could contemplate the comment from Warren Mundine who was sickeningly lacerated for his article by the Garrick Professor of Law at QLD University:
Warren Mundine: ex below link:
http://socialistdystopia.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/everyone-wins-my-way-on-18c.htmlThere are inevitable problems - but with skilled law - makers - could be made to work.
SO - I say - there must be a form of words that satisfies everyone, as Warren Mundine suggests.
http://cognatesocialistdystopia.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/1414-w-mundine-race-act-debate-misses.html
ERROR BY MUNDINE RE ANDREW BOLT
I do not agree with Mundine's effective attack on Andrew Bolt - which is at least unfortunate and spoils what could have been an otherwise excellent article.
As an unfortunate aside - our Carrick Professor Of Law did not pick up this weakness - being so self absorbed with hate!
WILLFUL BLINDNESS
It is unbecoming for talented conservative writers to cease demonstrating the same willful blindness so readily applied to the left.
And remember - in this strange world where sometimes enemies join forces this:'The enemy of my enemy is my friend' and note the variations that vitiate this! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_enemy_of_my_enemy_is_my_friend
https://www.google.com.au/#q=friend+of+a+friend+meaning+is+our+enemy
HERE IS THE INGLORIOUS EDITORIAL FROM THE AUSTRALIAN:
East St Kilda 3183
Melbourne
GS
##################################################################################################################################################################
My shorthand ESSAY on the 18C
There are so many articles recently having been written by reasonable people who have as their theme de jour the idea that one should engage in debate with the sort of people who plainly vilify you. And surely are arguably far worse.
I put to the reader that this is an absurdity and an abomination.
'Vilifiers' are by the very nature of what they do and what they vociferously espouse are not your boy - next door type.
Surely, even with their unilateral freedom / speech agenda - reality should eventually eventually stop the use of hopeless, unqualified, unmodified espousal of the various laboured cliches. There are now dozens - from the theater of ideas, marketplace of ideas, the mantle of freedom of speech, sticks and stones, smothering of free exchange of ideas...... and there are far worse / and many more lame lines.
The worst perhaps comes from the lamentable holocaust survivor Frank Furedy [see my earlier entries on my blog as above] who manages to invert the victim and the vilifier via his multi - repeated phrase ''velvet totalitarianism''
Verily - just because someone is a holocaust survivor [AND an extreme bolshie] - does not imply their views are worthy of contemplation!
I say: surely there must be an element of recognition by some of these talented people to enable them to recognize the real fear one would have in this realm?
- Who do you debate with?
- What is susceptible to 'debate'?
Never mind my old adage that freedom of speech is a responsibility to be carefully claimed.
But 'it' is far more important than that. If that is possible.
No - it is this: the act of debating say the holocaust's historicity
is simply an obscenity attested to by my parents generation and mainstream historians.
6 million of my people were murdered by the antecedents, appendages and acolytes of these new age defacto Nazis!
That is obvious.
Understand that in a debate the term of reference is agreed to.
That too is obvious.
MID POINT AND OTHER OBSCENITIES
But - to set a new mid - point - ANY debating point of debate for the greatest tragedy / mass - murder in history, is unspeakable!
This mid point is as follows. Yad Vashem is still struggling to find the names of the 6 million who perished. So, is there anyone who wishes to debate that there were only 5,950,000 Jews murdered?
Is the mid point agreed to be agreed to - to be 5, 975,000?
AND in the act of debating the holocaust - THAT is exactly what happens!
An inevitable by - product of allowing this will indubitably, invariably set up the very idea that the fact of the matter is debatable! I suggest that there has never been a greater obscenity than this newly - created 'mid - point' in vulgarism.
This mid point is as follows. Yad Vashem is still struggling to find the names of the 6 million who perished. So, is there anyone who wishes to espouse there were only 5,950,000 Jews murdered?
Is the mid point agreed to as 5, 975,000?
Will the next debate be the above or whether the Nazis should have finished the job? The new Thin edge of the wedge in debating, freedom of speech style!
Heck NO! I withdraw this corollary - this mere cliche - in the sense that it will never come to that, never.
Surely there will always be decent people who will never allow it to descend to hypothesizing about how Hitler could have murdered 10 million? Then there would be no - one to have written this. But the twirps could debate what a victorious Hitler would have done?
May be those same cavalier people who today ignorantly espouse freedom of speech for incipient defacto Nazis on the AXIS of the contextually - untennable 'freedom' of speech moniker, should become aware what the ill - thought consequences will be. It is essentially decreptitudenous and dastardly.
THE AUSTRALIAN AND THE LEAGUE OF RIGHTS
Oh - I make this comment_ people should be wary of getting into proverbial bed with the League of Rights: The Australian has published 3 letters in the last few weeks to the editor by these entities. Beware ye all!
And The Australian has been disgraceful in all ways!
I do a partial cut and paste from their astonishing editorial from early April as here.
Any reading of it - in complete context if you like - is probable indicative how idiotic and obscene The Australian is in chasing their agenda!
OF GARRICK PROFESSORS AND WARREN MUNDINE
One could contemplate the comment from Warren Mundine who was sickeningly lacerated for his article by the Garrick Professor of Law at QLD University:
Warren Mundine: ex below link:
''As it happens, under the new laws people can incite hatred against Jewish people while participating in public discussion of a wide range of subjects. Holocaust deniers will have a wide berth to peddle their misinformation. Evidently, the drafters didn’t manage to find a form of words that would allow Bolt’s comments on the one hand but prevent public hate speech on the other.''
Warren Mundine article dated April 1 – basis for James Allan’s sickening article prer above link.
Or a variation on Mundine's theme ex my recent entry here.Warren Mundine article dated April 1 – basis for James Allan’s sickening article prer above link.
http://socialistdystopia.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/everyone-wins-my-way-on-18c.htmlThere are inevitable problems - but with skilled law - makers - could be made to work.
SO - I say - there must be a form of words that satisfies everyone, as Warren Mundine suggests.
http://cognatesocialistdystopia.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/1414-w-mundine-race-act-debate-misses.html
ERROR BY MUNDINE RE ANDREW BOLT
I do not agree with Mundine's effective attack on Andrew Bolt - which is at least unfortunate and spoils what could have been an otherwise excellent article.
As an unfortunate aside - our Carrick Professor Of Law did not pick up this weakness - being so self absorbed with hate!
WILLFUL BLINDNESS
It is unbecoming for talented conservative writers to cease demonstrating the same willful blindness so readily applied to the left.
And remember - in this strange world where sometimes enemies join forces this:'The enemy of my enemy is my friend' and note the variations that vitiate this! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_enemy_of_my_enemy_is_my_friend
https://www.google.com.au/#q=friend+of+a+friend+meaning+is+our+enemy
- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_enemy_of_my_enemy_is_my_friend
The proverb is sometimes phrased as the enemy of mine enemy is my friend or my ... and the Marxist–Leninist interpretation of Communism in the case of the ...
The enemy of my enemy is my friend - Wikipedia, the free ...
HERE IS THE INGLORIOUS EDITORIAL FROM THE AUSTRALIAN:
MORONIC EDITORIAL Smothering free exchange of ideas a dangerous path
- MORONIC EDITORIAL Smothering free exchange of idea...
- OUTRAGEOUS:::28/3 Jews ‘favoured while other minor...
East St Kilda 3183
Melbourne
- www.torah.org/learning/olas-shabbos/5759/sukkos.html
... themselves from the throes of their own yetzer hara/evil disposition. As Chazal, our Sages, describe it: They had sunken to the 49th level of tumah/impurity.
Olas Shabbos - Sukkos, 5759 - Torah.org
GS
No comments:
Post a Comment