School Official Wants Gays Dead

Posted on Advocate.com October 26, 2010 (USA)

Arkansas school board member Clint McCance believes “queers” and “fags” should kill themselves — that is, if they don’t get AIDS and die first.

By Neal Broverman

CLINT MCCANCE FACEBOOK X390 | ADVOCATE.COM

While schools across the country are taking action against bullying and suicide, a board member of an Arkansas school district is using his Facebook page to encourage “queers” and “fags” to kill themselves.

Clint McCance is a board member in the Midland school district in northern Arkansas. Responding to a call to wear purple last Wednesday to support LGBT youth, McCance wrote the following message on his Facebook page: “Seriously they want me to wear purple because five queers killed themselves. The only way im wearin it for them is if they all commit suicide. I cant believe the people of this world have gotten this stupid. We are honoring the fact that they sinned and killed thereselves because of their sin. REALLY PEOPLE.”

Initially, six people “liked” McCance’s message. He also received supportive comments, though some challenged his statement. A commenter wrote, “Because hatred is always right.” That led McCance to write, “No because being a fag doesn’t give you the right to ruin the rest of our lives. If you get easily offended by being called a fag then dont tell anyone you are a fag. Keep that shit to yourself. I dont care how people decide to live their lives. They dont bother me if they keep it to thereselves. It pisses me off though that we make a special purple fag day for them. I like that fags cant procreate. I also enjoy the fact that they often give each other aids and die. If you arent against it, you might as well be for it.”

McCance was again challenged on his statements — and his Christianity. Wrote one commenter: “YOU NEED TO STOP AND THINK FOR A SEC GREAT YOU BIG CHRISTIAN MAN ! SO KEEP ALL OF YOUR THOUGHTS TO YOUR SELF YOU DONT WANT PPL TALKIN ABOUT YOUR FAMILY SO DONT TALK BOUT OTHERS.”

McCance responded with, “I would disown my kids they were gay. They will not be welcome at my home or in my vicinity. I will absolutely run them off. Of course my kids will know better. My kids will have solid christian beliefs. See it infects everyone.”

It’s not clear if McCance has taken down the thread, since his Facebook page is private — the messages were made available to The Advocate via a forwarded screen capture. The superintendent of the Midland school district was unavailable and a phone call to the principal of the Midland High School was not returned. There was no response to e-mails to the superintendent and to the secretary of the Midland school board.

“Clint McCance has put a face on the hate that devastates our young people,” says Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese. “McCance shouldn’t be allowed near children, let alone managing their education. We call for his immediate resignation from the school board.”

http://www.advocate.com/News/News_Features/Arkansas_School_Board_Member_Thinks_Fags_Should_Die//

238 thoughts on “School Official Wants Gays Dead

  1. It saddens me that someone with such strong convictions have input into young people’s lives. I only hope the School Board and parents actually take action and ensure this man loses his job.

  2. Pingback: World Spinner

  3. Pingback: World Wide News Flash

  4. No, what is truly sad Michele, is that such an aggressive and compulsive industry has grown to market homo-sexuality to young people, and that a severely compromised, hijacked, liberalised education system so often actively now encourages the indulgence in such.
    So many parents now, also under extreme duress to “accept” what their children are doing.
    All part and parcel in the destruction and division of society.
    The ruthless promotion and popularisation of homo-sexuality is one of the key tools employed by those that would destabilise and control society.

    No, it’s not good that anyone dies in the midst of indulging in a vain, vulgar, homo-sexual “lifestyle”, be it by disease, misadventure, or suicide, for their soul will be consigned to Hell.
    Far better that people realise this evil for what it is, and absolutely refrain from pursuing it.

    Society must be brought entirely back onto the right track.


    • So many parents now, also under extreme duress to “accept” what their children are doing.”

      wow acceptance over intolerance?sounds great.

      “All part and parcel in the destruction and division of society.”
      embracing differences and accepting them; understanding them and allowing everyone to live thier own life as long as they do not harm others is a way better way to unite society than to impose sameness on them. yes people should have some core beleifs that are the same ‘eg respect others beleifs, dont murder, dont steal” but otherwise humans are free to dress, beleive and act as they see fit as long as they arenot hurting anyone.
      how are gay people by being gay hurting you?

      “No, it’s not good that anyone dies in the midst of indulging in a vain, vulgar, homo-sexual “lifestyle”, ”
      homosexuality isnt a lifestyle, and for those who want to experiment why not? how is it ‘vain’ whats vain about loving anotherperson;or wnating to experiment and experience different things and hopefully that way not turn into a narrowminded retard?
      vulgar?
      love isnt vulgar.

      “be it by disease, misadventure, or suicide, for their soul will be consigned to Hell.”

      heaven sounds like a place that is absent from 3/4 of people who are loving and kind; and pretty much everyone intersesting. well so be it. ill go to hell then.

      “Far better that people realise this evil for what it is, and absolutely refrain from pursuing it.”
      how is it evil?

      “Society must be brought entirely back onto the right track”
      which is? what time period foryou was the right track?

  5. Any ruthless move to have this man lose his job,
    which is a regular tactic employed now to silence and remove those that oppose the liberal agenda, shall not make homo-sexuality “right” or “good”.

  6. Oh seriously Scott your posts have been long ignored by me because of your inability to post in any coherant way, with arguments that are unworthy of a 10 year old. This latest descent into hate however has forced me to reply.

    No one chooses their height, no one chooses their skin colour, no one chooses their parents, no one chooses the country they were born into, no one chooses their sexual orientation.

    You however choose to be hatefilled, you choose to be a small minded example of everything that is wrong in this world.

    I applaud everyone on thos blog for standing up against all types of hate and i denounce every person that allows hate to continue.

  7. that’s really funny coming from you Scott, because from ealier posts, you seem to have homosexual feelings toward Shockadelic.

    Here’s a great idea by the way, why don’t you do something productive with your time? For instance, gain employment or an active social life.
    Not only do you make yourself look stupid with your opinions, that you can never back up with any evidence (such as statistics, which you have been asked for countless times) but you continue to make yourself look like a giant arse by coming back for more when countless people slam you with actual fact!
    What angers me most about your stupidity, is that you continue to make claims that you are standing up and being counted for, but you are merely a worthless keyboard warrior.

  8. Scott,
    Can you please explain how one becomes homosexual?
    Who do you think has the authority to decide if homosexuality, bisexuality or heterosexuality is “right” or “good” ?
    also explain how would homosexuality (or any sexuality) destabalise society?
    How could anyone encourage anyone to indulge in homosexuality?
    “So many parents now, also under extreme duress to “accept” what their children are doing.”
    Why do you think this children are doing what they’re doing?

    hmmmmmmmmmmmm…..

  9. Perhaps you’re too use to short, terse, simplistic liberal rhetoric being barked out Jorji, but if you make the effort, and pay attention, you’ll find that my posts are entirely coherent, through and through.

    You’re right there…all the way until you get to this mumbo-jumbo about “sexual orientation”.
    Everything you mentioned was either genetic, or unavoidably circumstancial.
    Homo-sexuality is NOT genetic, and is NOT an immutable circumstance!
    It is a choice…it may sometimes be a negatively influenced choice…but is a choice nonetheless.

    I hate what is simply deserving of hate.
    That’s all.
    If people wish to end such righteous hate, then they should stop doing hateful, hateable, things.

    All “arguments” raised in defence, support, or excuse of homo-sexuality would never even enter into the mind of even the most retarded ten year old!

    Let me guess though…that the vicious hatred, the misogyny of those gone ‘gay’ and the misandry of those gone ‘lesbian’ is “okay”?
    That the hate and hatred pursued by leftists and liberals is okay…just as long as it’s aimed at those deemed by political correctness to be “right” to hate?

    The sheer hate, of the left, is despicable…even though it often be clothed under the finery of affected “love” and “tolerance”.

    • Scott you really are truly a horrible person and I wouldn’t ever want to be as nasty as you are. I would hate you if I didn’t pity you so much. In regards to children not thinking about defending gay people, that is completely incorrect. My boys aged 7 and 5 defend what they think is right and I have seen them defend their gay uncle against horrible people like you. I am sure when my daughter is old enough she will defend him to. The funny thing is everyday more and more people are thinking like I do and less people are thinking like you. One day I dream that you will even be an endangered species.

    • no homosexuality is not a choice.and even if it was, whats the problem? it doenst HURT anyone. racism, sexism and homophobia are choices, and those three thingsdo hurt people.

  10. M-Dawg, one becomes homo-sexual by going homo-sexual.
    How does one become a thief? By stealing.
    How does one become a drug user? By taking drugs.
    How does one become a murderer? By murdering someone.

    These even, aren’t always paraded as a lifestyle.
    Homo-sexual acts, even, don’t make one “a” homo-sexual.
    This is not an inherent, immutable identity.
    No, despite what a few decades of liberal propaganda would have you begin to believe, no-one is “born gay”.

    Who do YOU think has the authority now to determine if sexual perversity is “good” or “right”?

    Heterosexuality, the complete union of man and woman is inherently good. God almighty created that, society and morality confirm that.

    It must be said that it is highly ironic that liberals will one moment promote immigration and multi-culturalism, and the next homo-sexuality…when most of the cultures you’re inviting in (rightly!) forbid and condemn such behaviour!
    Often aggressively so.

    How do YOU think that indulgence in homo-sexuality would in any way stabilise society?

    One of the key foundations of all human society is the blessed, balanced, complete, creative, and harmonious union of man and woman.
    That is life, family, society, nation, and culture.

    People cannot “get out of” that and it not destabilise society!

    All the weak ‘arguments’ made to excuse homo-sexuality can be brought down with far more crushing weight against such arrogant depravity…with more to boot!

    • Hi Scott,

      Another productive day? Oh that’s right, you’re an unemployed no-friends loser.

      “M-Dawg, one becomes homo-sexual by going homo-sexual.
      How does one become a thief? By stealing.
      How does one become a drug user? By taking drugs.
      How does one become a murderer? By murdering someone.”

      You’re homosexual as soon as you feel attracted to someone of the same sex. It doesn’t matter if you publicise it or not. It’s a feeling and it’s not a choice. Have you ever spoken to a homosexual? Have you ever spoken to a woman who is turned on by women, and not attracted to men? Have you ever spoken to a man who gets an erection when he sees another naked man? It’s something that is beyond control, and it’s there whether anyone knows about it or not.

      “Homo-sexuality is NOT genetic…”

      Correct. You don’t get homosexuality from your parents.

      “…and is NOT an immutable circumstance!”

      Correct. Some people become gay after spending years being straight, and vice versa.

      “It is a choice…”

      It is a choice to act on homosexual feelings. It is not a choice to have the feelings. You cannot tell yourself to feel happy when a loved one has died. You cannot tell yourself to relax when you’ve been punched in the nose. You cannot tell yourself to feel better if you’re nauseous.

      “I hate what is simply deserving of hate.
      That’s all.
      If people wish to end such righteous hate, then they should stop doing hateful, hateable, things.”

      You are a FUCKHEAD. Every single person in this forum hates your fucking guts because all you do is spout intolerance and hatred. People who feel love towards a person of the same sex are NOT deserving of hate you fucking oxygen thief!

      “All “arguments” raised in defence, support, or excuse of homo-sexuality would never even enter into the mind of even the most retarded ten year old!”

      The retarded 10 year old you refer to is Scott Pengelly.

      “Let me guess though…that the vicious hatred, the misogyny of those gone ‘gay’ and the misandry of those gone ‘lesbian’ is “okay”?”

      You really need some help. Gay men do not hate women. They are not attracted to women sexually. Gay women do not hate men. They are not attracted to men sexually. By your logic, you hate men, Scott, as you are not attracted to them. You’re into naked Asian ladies and there’s nothing wrong with that, but you obviously hate men.

      “No, despite what a few decades of liberal propaganda would have you begin to believe, no-one is “born gay”.”

      You were born straight, correct? But did you feel sexually attracted to girls when you were 3 years old? I doubt it. Did you feel like getting a girlfriend and marrying her when you were 9 years old? I doubt it. Feelings of affection and sexuality develop later in life. And as you said, they are not immutable. But a person does NOT turn gay when they are still attracted to members of the opposite sex. The closest this gets to being a reality is in the instance of bi-sexual people who are attracted to both men and women.

      “Who do YOU think has the authority now to determine if sexual perversity is “good” or “right”?”

      Certainly NOT Scott Pengelly. You fucking cunt rash.

      “Heterosexuality, the complete union of man and woman is inherently good. God almighty created that, society and morality confirm that.”

      What about those few hundred Catholic priests then? You know, the ones who touched little boys inappropriately? The church recognises the union between man and women in the interests of procreation. This is 2010. We are more than animals of necessity. The world is rapidly overpopulating and you’re still denouncing those who feel genuine love because they will most likely never procreate? Get a FUCKING LIFE!

      “It must be said that it is highly ironic that liberals will one moment promote immigration and multi-culturalism, and the next homo-sexuality…when most of the cultures you’re inviting in (rightly!) forbid and condemn such behaviour!
      Often aggressively so.”

      People like YOU forbid and condemn homosexuality! You’ve now found common ground. Kiss and make up, and invite your fellow minded people into Australia if that’s the generalist way you’re going to look at it!

      “How do YOU think that indulgence in homo-sexuality would in any way stabilise society?”

      Nearly one in every two marriages ends in divorce. Over 70% of couples who have been together more than 2 years admit to having cheated or thought seriously about cheating. There is no admirable comparison between straight relationships and gay relationships. Love is love, and if it’s genuine and unconditional, it stabilises society. Just because you will never experience it doesn’t mean you have to project your sexual frustration on the rest of society.

      “One of the key foundations of all human society is the blessed, balanced, complete, creative, and harmonious union of man and woman.”

      Yet how many male/female relationships have you witnessed that are anything but balanced, complete, creative and harmonious?

      “All the weak ‘arguments’ made to excuse homo-sexuality can be brought down with far more crushing weight against such arrogant depravity…with more to boot!”

      You’ve provided NOTHING but your miserable OPINION, as per FUCKING USUAL.

  11. “Funny” as well, that the last piece on this site advocated the dismantling of Western society and the children of the White populations of this society being “educated” on difference.

    Yet, and typically liberally, we now see the rush to promote homo-sexuality.
    Homo, meaning ‘same’.
    Those pursuing such vanity and depravity themselves being hetero-phobic, fearing or loathing difference, in the extreme.

    It’s ‘funny’ how liberals flit around between difference and same, and when one is better than the other.
    Can any of you even make sense of it anymore?

    The contradictions of liberalism are endless.

    • No one’s telling you to become homosexual. Liberal viewpoints suggest that people with different sexual orientations should be treated the same. Comprendez vous?

    • no what we promote is ACCEPTANCE of those who are different. im not gay, im straight but i advocate gay rights becuase i dont mind that they love in a differnt way from me so what?

    • oh god.
      what the liberals that you criticise advocate is acceptance of differences.
      your notion of sameness excludes people.
      when liberals, advocate gay rights they are not saying that gay loveis superior. they are saying it is just as valid. therefore liberal advocation of same sex marriage and gay rights is inclusive whereas your advocation of sameness is exclusive.
      advocates of gay rights and marriage arnt wanting to convert all marraiges into gay marriage and tehreby EXCLUDE straight people like you want tokeep al aussies white and therefore exclude people.
      they want to INCLUDE gays and straights and teach that love is the same.

  12. According to Scott,

    #Some people, just for kicks, *decide* to openly follow a lifestyle which makes them the target of hatemongers such as Scott himself

    # Gay people are depraved

    # Gay men hate women, while Gay women hate men. That’s why they’re gay.

    # Parents don’t willingly accept their kids for what they are. They do so reluctantly, under “duress”.

    Are you out of your effing mind? Even the bloody Catholic Church doesn’t make idiotic arguments like the last two! Why can’t you just STFU and keep your unclean nose out of other peoples’ business? Why should it matter to you who I or anyone else has sex with?
    Homosexuality isn’t something that your sworn enemies, the liberals, created. It is a phenomenon as old as life itself. I don’t see any evidence of societal destruction so far.

  13. What does this have to do with Australia?
    If you’re going to mention every un-liberal event that happens anywhere in the world, your blog’s raison d’etre gets a little muddied.

    While you may disagree with anti-homosexual viewpoints, people should be entitled to have them.
    Just as people can be opposed to Islam, patriarchy, reality TV, legwarmers, chess and Vegemite if they feel like it.
    ‘Liberals’ (what a distortion of a truly beautiful word) will tolerate any opinion, as long as it’s theirs.

    While it is regretable that gay people suicide, they a day just for them? What of all the other youth who suicide? Why not just a Suicide Awareness Day, with gay suicide as one acknowledged factor among many factors?
    More men commit suicide than women. Do we see a Male Suicide Day, with a special ribbon? No, because to ‘liberals’ men are evil oppressors, so who cares if they kill themselves.

    Scott “It’s ‘funny’ how liberals flit around between difference and same, and when one is better than the other. The contradictions of liberalism are endless.”
    Agreed. It’s great to love your own gender. But to love your own race. Urgh!
    However, you are guilty of the same crime, Scott.
    Homosexuality, ‘racism’, and nationalism are all narcissistic. ‘Liberals’ and conservatives alike should either accept them all or reject them all.

    antibogan, there is some evidence that it is actually genetic. Or possibly ‘genetic and/or hormonal’, in which case to do ‘get it’ from your parents.

    Many youths suicide over sexual *confusion*, not because they’re ‘gay’.
    It’s society’s (and both liberals and conservatives are guilty here) insistence on pigeonholing people in neat little labels (along with the perception that orientation is fixed) that leads to this confusion.

    • People are NOT entitled to express opinions which condone or provoke violence/crime against particular groups and individuals.

      The recent gay suicides weren’t a result of internal confusion. They were a result of the relentless abuse and hate directed towards the victims. Confused people don’t just kill themselves. Tormented people can.

      No one’s telling you that you can’t love your own country. But when nationalism translates into hatred of other nations/races/ethnicities, it is condemnable, just as a homosexual who hates the other gender or hates heterosexual people doesn’t deserve any sympathy. I’ve never met such a person, though.

    • there are suicide awareness days. at my school two girls were run over by a car on exam day (TEE) there was a memorial service. in the case of commemorating gayswho commited suicide, they commited suicide becuase they were bulliedabout being gay.
      and there is a suicide and rehab awareness group.
      its called TWLOHA- to write love on her arms. it started out as a girl who tried to help a friend who was going through a suicidal, drug phase. neither of them had enough money for rehab so the friend sold shirts and wristbands to help her friend get through tough times. the bands and shirts had twolha written on them

  14. There’s clear merit in striving to protect your own race, culture, civilisation, and nation…there’s obviously nothing of the like in obsessing over your own gender.

    A nation can be protected by it’s people cherishing and defending it.
    This is not narcissim.

    Obviously, neither gender could be protected by either only obsessing with and having sex with, itself.
    Homo-sexuality is narcissim in extremis.

  15. ‘anti bogan’…drop the personal insults, conjecture, innuendo, and aspersions, and what have you got?

    Nothing.

    How can you try and prop up homo-sexuality be listing the things going wrong with proper relationships?
    The two issues are related. Those who push and promote homo-sexuality are the very same ones that go to great lengths to destabilise and undermine marriage and family.
    The social ills that have grown over the last few decades are part of the same plan.
    The sexes have been driven apart, wrenched apart, with all manner of wedges jammed between them.
    Homo-sexuality is spreading because of this and is causing this.
    This all eminates from the one cunning source.
    Multi-culturalism, homo-sexuality, the disintegration of the family, these are all elements of the plot of those who would ruthlessly control society.
    Liberalism, feminism, the cult of the ego, reckless aspiration, vanity, these all cause what is going wrong, they are what is going wrong!

    Decades of people being told that they don’t need the other gender, the gender is a “social construct”, that men are “evil”, that you can “do whatever you want”, has led to this.

    Many people would rather go ‘gay’ than admit that the genders truly rely on each other!

    How can you presume to defame something good that is being assualted, and celebrate that which is part of the assaullt?
    Do you blame people who have been stolen from for the theft?

    As family and society are assailed and undermined, homo-sexuality is promoted.
    It’s all part of a grim process, with profit and control the agenda.

    Crucial point being, even though it be going wrong often now, there is nothing wrong WITH heterosexuality….whilst homo-sexuality is, and can only ever be, wrong.
    To proclaim something as fucked up as homo-sexuality as being “normal” in a fucked up time is no great thing!

    Marriages may be breaking up, under incredible pressures, that does not mean there is anything wrong WITH marriage!

    Man and Woman are, on every level, from the physical to the spiritual, meant to go together…there is no sane way any person could doubt that.
    Male is not meant to go with male, nor female with female, at all, by any true measure.

    YOU’VE decided to throw your lot in with the agenda that would destroy society…you have no right to claim the devestation wrought by that as any evidence of anything being inherently wrong with the pillars of society!

    • You’re not married, you have no family and women are not interested in you. That’s obvious.

      Most women would run a mile rather than connect themselves to such a bundle of hate, phobias and insecurities.

      So how are you qualified to tell normal people about relationships?

    • “‘anti bogan’…drop the personal insults, conjecture, innuendo, and aspersions, and what have you got?

      Nothing.”

      Are you kidding? All you’ve ever given here is your opinion. You’ve never been able to back up any of your vile claims of sexual and racial inferiority with any sort of evidence. And all the while, you’re a hopeless loser with no life and no achievements, living in a trailer park town.

      “How can you try and prop up homo-sexuality be listing the things going wrong with proper relationships?”

      Until now, you’ve given NO evidence to suggest that homosexuality is ruining our society, other than some shit about heterosexuality being the ‘only way’ according to ‘God’. Awesome argument man.

      “The two issues are related. Those who push and promote homo-sexuality are the very same ones that go to great lengths to destabilise and undermine marriage and family.”

      Again, a wild claim with nothing to support it. Do you realise how many heterosexual married people with children and families support gay marriage?

      “The social ills that have grown over the last few decades are part of the same plan.”

      What ‘plan’ is that Scott? How is society being negatively affected at the hands of people who have feelings for other people of the same sex? What freedoms have we lost Scott? What opportunities do we no longer have access to Scott? How are we discriminated against in favour of the homosexuals Scott?

      “The sexes have been driven apart, wrenched apart, with all manner of wedges jammed between them.”

      Bullshit. Just another opinion you’ve got with nothing to back it up.

      “Multi-culturalism, homo-sexuality, the disintegration of the family, these are all elements of the plot of those who would ruthlessly control society.”

      Tell me Scott. How can a homosexual not be part of a family? And where is the evidence to suggest that homosexuals are planning on ‘controlling society’?

      “Liberalism, feminism, the cult of the ego, reckless aspiration, vanity, these all cause what is going wrong, they are what is going wrong!”

      You scream ‘wrong’, yet offer no examples of anything ways in which our society is now suffering because of homosexuals.

      “Decades of people being told that they don’t need the other gender, the gender is a “social construct”, that men are “evil”, that you can “do whatever you want”, has led to this.”

      You’re confusing gay rights with far leaning feminists who are more fringe players than regular feminists who simply want equality.

      “Many people would rather go ‘gay’ than admit that the genders truly rely on each other!”

      Just because some people are homosexual doesn’t mean that the human race will die out you FUCKING DIPSHIT.

      “How can you presume to defame something good that is being assualted, and celebrate that which is part of the assaullt?
      Do you blame people who have been stolen from for the theft?”

      You make this ‘argument’ on the premise that homosexuality is a bad thing, and once again, this is merely your opinion.

      “As family and society are assailed and undermined, homo-sexuality is promoted.
      It’s all part of a grim process, with profit and control the agenda.”

      You’ve given no examples of how family and society are ‘assailed and undermined’. None at all. You haven’t told us how homosexuality gives profit and control away from heterosexuals. Who even knows what you’re talking about?

      “Crucial point being, even though it be going wrong often now, there is nothing wrong WITH heterosexuality….whilst homo-sexuality is, and can only ever be, wrong.”

      This. Is. Your. OPINION. You fat useless shithead. There’s nothing wrong with heterosexuality, correct, but it is open to the same problems that go with homosexuality, like abusive partners, adultery, perversion, pedophilia, rape, and the list goes on. Heterosexuality is NOT immune from these things, and neither is homosexuality.

      “Marriages may be breaking up, under incredible pressures, that does not mean there is anything wrong WITH marriage!”

      Yet we don’t allow gays to marry. Why?

      “Man and Woman are, on every level, from the physical to the spiritual, meant to go together…there is no sane way any person could doubt that.”

      People are meant to get along. We are meant to love each other. That is the word of your ‘God’. That is the word of your ‘saviour’. You peddle hatred for people who show love towards each other. YOU are the one with the problem.

      “Male is not meant to go with male, nor female with female, at all, by any true measure.”

      Once again, this is simply your opinion. Boy, I’ve never argued with anyone as fucking dense as you. HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU BEEN ASKED TO BACK UP YOUR SHIT WITH SOME FORM OF QUOTATION, SOURCE, EVIDENCE, SUPPORT – ANYTHING??? You are spouting your OPINION that males cannot love each other, and that females cannot love each other. Your OPINION. Your OPINION. Your OPINION.

      “YOU’VE decided to throw your lot in with the agenda that would destroy society…you have no right to claim the devestation wrought by that as any evidence of anything being inherently wrong with the pillars of society!”

      You’re a FAILURE Scott. A nothing. No love, no friendship, no achievement, no aspiration, no independence, just pure hatred stemmed from an unjustified feeling of superiority.

    • what exactly is that youre complaining about? doyou have any idea what society was like in the olden days which espoused your narrowminded views?
      it was horrible.
      if you were not rich, you were screwed.
      if you were not part of certain race you were screwed
      poeple burned witches, practised slavery, had forced marriages and everything else.

  16. Why do liberals always go the easy route of mentioning the Catholic priests (the lefts favoured whipping boys, pardon the pun) who have molested children?
    When there is has been a terrible amount of pederasty commited by Muslims and Hindus…and is still now?

    • “Why do liberals always go the easy route of mentioning the Catholic priests (the lefts favoured whipping boys, pardon the pun) who have molested children?
      When there is has been a terrible amount of pederasty commited by Muslims and Hindus…and is still now?”

      And why do Catholic pedophile apologists go the easy route of reflecting the focus away to those offenders from other faiths? The point wasn’t about faith, it was about how much of a role God was really playing in moral, straight relationships. It was about how Catholic priests have experienced feelings of homosexuality. Geddit?

  17. Natasha, those going ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian’ do not have to express their utter contempt for the other gender (though many do), for their attitude and behaviour illustrates it.

  18. Also, Natasha, I’m summarising all the accumulated knowledge and wisdom that comes down across the ages comprehensively against homo-sexuality.

    Just because a bad thing has been around for a long time (murder’s been around a fair while as well) does not transform it into “good”.
    This arrogance and depravity has never been more rampant either.
    It has always signified the end of civilisations, and has never been more excessive than now.

    Take this as a clear sign, that we must get society back on track.

  19. Of course, one realises that entering into arguments with the left is almost pointless.
    One could say that water is wet, and they will say dry.

    However, we must confront these things whenever and wherever, for such corruption of the mind and spirit is as contagious as it can be of the body.

  20. I’m too angry & shaking in rage to write anything structured.
    If this wasn’t a computer I paid for myself, I’d smash the monitor.
    Thank you TA for writing to Scott, the questions were to make sure what Scott’s perception was?
    ..and as always he doesn’t have a clue & not even a whiff of science had gone past him.
    I don’t know wtf shocky is on about, other than kissing Scott’s arse.
    Few things though……
    Homosexuality is some what genetic, I think they’re yet to specifically identify the gene etc hence there is a chance it could’ve been passed down by the parents & the gene has been recessive in parents but become dominant in the kid…
    ..also establishing that most people are in fact bi-sexual and depending on environmental factors and the balance of sexuality in the genetic makeup one would have a dominant attraction towards a certain sex.

    ******* Going to the Gym. need a punching bag***** :@

  21. No, make no mistake about it M-Dawg…there is no, absolutely NO genetic ’cause’ for homo-sexuality!
    All scientific evidence has confirmed age-old spiritual, moral, and social condemnations of this behaviour.
    There are many false claims and myths bandied about by homo-sexual pressure groups, about alleged “causes” of this behaviour, and an ever elusive ‘gaye gene’, but it is all lies.
    No, there is absolutely no genetic, or otherwise immutable, cause of homo-sexuality.

    And no, that myth also bandied about that proposes that “all people are bisexual” also holds no weight, is an absolute lie.

    There is no biological imperative whatsoever that would drive those of the same gender to have intercourse with each other/themselves

    Emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually as well, man and woman are meant to go together.

    Tragically, the myths and lies about the “causes” of homo-sexuality invented by the left and gay pressure groups, have entered the common consciousness…and repeating of such have led to them being thought of as “truth”.

    No, in no uncertain terms, there is NO genetic or other biological cause of ‘homosexuality’.

    There MAY be environmental factors that lead to homo-sexuality, and what is pushed and promoted by the media does not help! There MAY sometimes be psychological and emotional issues at hand, due to negative influences…these however, should be confronted and remedied, not encouraged and granted licence to.
    For the very most though, those indulging in either form of homo-sexuality are otherwise healthy…with a VERY “healthy” ego!

    Going to beat a punching bag?
    Cripes, if anyone not going with the liberal angle went on about that wouldn’t that have them called a “psycho”????

    Watch out at the gym though!

    Repeat, there are absolutely no genetic “causes” for homo-sexuality.
    Lies and myths to the contrary, will not make that so.
    There is absolutely NO genetic, biological, or inherent ’cause’ of homo-sexuality!

    • Seriously Scott,
      “All scientific evidence has confirmed age-old spiritual, moral, and social condemnations of this behaviour”
      Science doesn’t give a shit about spirituality & with significant overwhelming evidence denounce judeo-christian god, & all monotheistic religions.
      Listen Scott, I’m gonna type in capitals hoping you’d get something & I am fuming with anger to have read through your stupid rants.
      ANY THING YOU SAY ABOUT SCIENCE, PLEASE PROVIDE A REFERENCE.
      SCIENCE IS FACT ESTABLISHED AFTER GOING THROUGH A SCIENTIFIC PROCESS. NOT YOUR FUCKING STUPID OPINION. DON’T USE THE NAME OF SCIENCE IN VAIN.
      YOU ARE A YEAR 10 DROP KICK.. HOW THE FUCK WOULD YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT GENEALOGY? DO YOU EVEN KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE STRUCTURE AND MAKE OF A DNA STRAND?
      SCOTT, THERE ARE THINGS THAT CAN NEVER CO EXIST. INHALATION AND EXHALATION FOR EXAMPLE NO MATTER WHAT EVER FUCK YOU SAY WITH WHAT EVER SIZED FONT AND CAPS LOCK CAN NEVER HAPPEN SIMULTANEOUSLY.
      LIKE THAT YOUR STUPID GOD AND SCIENCE CAN NOT GO HAND IN HAND.
      FOR FUCK’S SAKE SHOW ANY RESEARCH FINDINGS TO SAY THAT THERE IS NO BIOLOGICAL OR ANY GENETIC REASON FOR HOMOSEXUALITY AND IT IS MERELY A CHOICE..ACCORDING TO THAT I COULD JUST CHOSE TO BE A HOMOSEXUAL TOMORROW, JUST LIKE I CAN PICK WHAT T-SHIRT TO WEAR TOMORROW. NO SCOTT, I CAN’T I WILL NOT BE SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO A MAN EVEN IF I WANT TO CHOSE IT, IT SIMPLY WON’T HAPPEN.

      PLEASE GET IT YOU DUMB FUCK!!! YOU ARE AN INCORRIGIBLE TWAT OF A MORON.
      YOU’VE PROVED THAT BEYOND ANY DOUBT.
      DO THE WORLD A FAVOUR…GO EAT SHIT AND DIE SCOTT.
      DON’T FUCKING LABEL ME TO BE A LIBERAL OR A MULTICULTIST OR ANY OTHER BULL SHIT WORDS YOU MAKE UP WHEN YOU GOT NO SUBSTANCE TO BACK YOUR PERCEIVED SUPERIORITY.
      IF YOU WANNA TALK SCIENCE, YOU’VE COME TO THE RIGHT PLACE…LET’S TALK SCIENCE.SCIENCE BY THE WAY NEEDS EVIDENCE AND REFERENCE, IT IS NOT MERE OPINION OF YOU OR ME.

      Apologies to all but Scott, sorry for the Caps and the language. I’m just infuriated & flabbergasted at how stupid one can be and the incorrigible stupidity of Scott.

    • All scientific evidence has confirmed age-old spiritual, moral, and social condemnations of this behaviour.”

      really waht scientific evidence? slavery is age old too doesnt make it right. its nly been unnacceptable in the last few centuries.

  22. There is absolutely NO genetic, biological, or inherent ’cause’ of homo-sexuality!

    Do us a favour. Stick to subjects you know jackshit about, like history and politics, as distinct from those you know absolutely nothing about, like science.

  23. What, are you claiming that science somehow then supports polytheistic cults?

    All spirituality and knowledge eminates from the one source. There is no such things as Judeo-Christian, this phrase only became used in recent decades – for certain purposes – and has no historical usage prior to that.

    Science has always gone hand in hand with Religion, it is no surprise then that those who push and promote homo-sexuality might now so often advocate “atheism” at the same time.

    The ironic things being that even Communism, be it in Soviet Russia or Red China, or elsewhere, which is ostensibly an “atheist” movement and is extremely destructive, strongly forbade homo-sexuality as the anti-social degeneracy that it is.

    Monotheism is the origin and heart of all religion, and the focus of the best of religion.

    The next great irony is that by simultaneously supporting multi-culturalism you may very likely be inviting an Islamic state upon Australia, Dhimmitude for yourself, and good luck then talking to any of your new masters about how much you don’t like Monotheism!

    Trying to deny the cause and meaning of life, just to conceitedly support people who so very conceitedly obsess over their own gender, does not dispel it, nor ‘excuse’ what they are doing.

    People do, and are encouraged to, go homo-sexual at all times now…how often do we hear the boasting by those gone ‘lesbian’ of how they target and “convert straight women”? How often do we hear of ‘gays’ “grooming” boys? How often do we hear of people “discovering” they’re ‘gay’? How often are people encouraged now to be ‘curious’, to ‘explore’?
    This, of course, ALWAYS means people being curious about and exploring homo-sexuality…people always seem to “discover” that they are ‘gay’…people are encouraged to turn ‘gay’…to “come out”…’lesbians’ are always going on about being able to “turn any girl gay” etc etc etc.
    Sexuality is allegedly “fluid”.
    Of course, sexuality is now always deemed to be only “fluid” one way.
    Sexuality is only a construct until we’re talking about homo-sexuality…no, now that’s carved in stone!
    The new popular myth is that anyone could and should turn “gay” (God forbid!), but if the suggestion is ever made otherwise? No, perish the thought! Impossible!

    Trying to deny the fact that each year many people in fact do stop, and cease, being ‘gay or ‘lesbian’.

    It is a bad choice, a bad move, that people can cease.

    You’re also suggesting that people with otherwise perfectly functioning sexual and reproductive systems somehow “naturally” aren’t meant to use them for such…and that there may be a scientific reason for such?
    Nonsense.
    The only scientific reason for such would be as an ailment, an affliction, a mutation, or some such situation.
    Why do people think that science is anti-religion? Or vice versa?
    Science may seem to have no moral compass…and in one manner of speaking it doesn’t…but it also does not excuse anything.
    It can provide information on how things occur, and physically why.

    Again, even in such terms, there is zero scientific cause for homo-sexuality.

    The support and defence of homo-sexuality is also posed in degraded moral terms. It is now seen by some quarters to be “good” and “right” to support homo-sexuality, and to oppose “bad” “homophobia”.
    Even at such a debased level, one cannot avoid such a judgement.

    Satan wishes confusion on the world, and the world and society has now entered a time of extreme confusion, that all religion has warned off, when wrong is painted as right, bad as good, negative as positive.
    We must keep our wits about us.

    Religion and Science, Soul and Intellect, all strongly confirms that homo-sexuality is not good, is not right, is not the way anyone is meant to be, and that we should oppose such arrogance and depravity.

    All world culture stridently forbids and condemns homo-sexuality, which strikes at the heart and foundation of all culture.
    Which is why it is so aggressivly pushed now, and more reason why we should confront and oppose it and what solicits it.

    There is no scientific evidence that provides any natural, inherent, immutable, or verifiable reason for homo-sexuality, no scientific reason why people should be or go homo-sexual.
    Some people now think that science coldly allows any and all things to occur.
    It doesn’t.

    The entirety of knowledge, condemns homo-sexuality.

    You’ve the conceit to mention being “infuriated” and “flabbergasted”? As you push homo-sexuality, and claim some imagined scientificy basis for doing so???

    • Scott, you fucking retard…
      Did you not understand anything?
      Science does not support polytheistic cults you gob shit.
      I said science definitely disproves monotheistic religions because of its vast knowledge in evolution and totally debunking creationism.
      There is not that much information out there nor do I have the knowledge of what polytheistic cults have to say.
      No one but you stupid moronic self thinks this is gonna become some Islamic state, be it white or non white, Islamic or Christian, science is science & facts are facts.
      All the shit that you’ve dribbled are just absolute SHIT!! you talk fucking shit that has no validity what so ever, other than in your empty fucking head…that’s clearly gotten too old without achieving anything.
      Scott, you fucking idiot, how the fuck do you say that genetics has nothing to do with it when you have failed to provide any substantiating evidence?
      And what’s all with the communism bull shit???
      I told you for fuck’s sake don’t try to stick labels on people, me included.
      No one in this world is ‘pushing’ homosexuality…it is not something that can be pushed on to someone. Can you push white skin on to other people you don’t like because they have darker skin?
      If there’s any push in this world it is to protect homosexual people, who are just humans like (I almost said you & me) anyone else from stupid bigots like you. and to have governments recognise their rights and they be granted every right that I enjoy.
      “Science has always gone hand in hand with Religion.”
      What fucking religion is that???
      Scott, Science is an evolving thing, it changes, changes its course as it progresses.
      Your putrid archaic views may have been once seen as science or fact, if it was that was a very very very long time ago.
      Once people believed the earth was flat, you probably still do but the rest of the world with the help of science now understand that is not the case.
      There is more than zero scientific cause for homosexuality, if you can’t find evidence to that claim, DON’T YOU DARE FUCKING SAY THAT AGAIN!
      We have evolved from being animals of primary needs and purpose, hence sexual organs aren’t just for reproduction.
      This makes perfect sense if you understood anything about evolution or how science worked, but you clearly don’t. and it was naive of me to even think a year 10 drop kick like you would have the ability to comprehend or process any scientific or logical information.
      Where in science does it say homosexuality is bad?
      If you can’t substantiate your claims, DON’T FUCKING SAY IT YOU MORON!
      You are a deluded fool who talks of satan & god & what not? What’s next? Easter bunny doesn’t like the Gays? Tooth fairy doesn’t take gay kids’ teeth? Santa doesn’t drink Milk from households with a gay person?
      You are an absolute neanderthal stupid dumb shit, wasting oxygen & space.
      Just go stand in the middle of a free way and hope a truck will take you out.
      World is getting over populated and sustainability and environment are becoming challenges, so where ever we can cut the numbers I think we should. so do us all a favour and vanish from the face of the earth… the money Centrelink’s been paying you for over 30 years could have been spent building a desalination plant, or just a street light.. that’s worth than you pathetic crotch stain.

    • Scott.
      You actually know fuck all about anything. I don’t have time to respond to all of your nonsense, but, considering you consider yourself a bit of a history buff, I wanted to point out you know fuck all about that too.

      “The ironic things being that even Communism, be it in Soviet Russia or Red China, or elsewhere, which is ostensibly an “atheist” movement and is extremely destructive, strongly forbade homo-sexuality as the anti-social degeneracy that it is.”

      Wrong.
      Following the October Revolution of 1917 homosexuality was decriminalised. It was only under Stalin that homosexuality again became illegal. But he was a good bloke, right?

  24. Josh…simple…try and tell me the overwhelming scientific findings or formula that states that any human being is “meant” to have sex with their own gender…

  25. I don’t think Centrelink was in existence as is thirty years ago. I believe then it would have been called Social Security, or such.
    Either way, for me to have been getting any money from such an institution thirty years ago would have made me ten at the time!
    Anyway, enough of that about Centrelink, snap out of that.

    I don’t know why you talk about Centrelink.
    Especially as a) so many career students are supported by it so as to pursue their leftist, liberal, academic pursuits, and b) as SO many of the foreigners you welcome in here are lining up at it’s doors.
    Dinka has recently been added as one of Centrelink’s translation services!

    Off Centrelink though, that’s not the point right now.

    Okay, I merely suggested polytheistic cults seeing as how you so aggressively attacked Monotheism.
    Also, you make the focus of your attention your ‘god’. Science, has often become a cult, a ‘religion’ amongst some.

    You’ll find, once you drop your spitefult front, and investigate further, that through all and the better of human society mind and soul went together, Religion and Science were both pursued and benefitted Man.
    God created Man as a reasonable being, an intellectual, and spiritual, being.

    Ahhhhggh, look, it’s clear you’ve got all the wrong end of the stick, so, okay, here goes…let’s put it to you this way.
    Are you claiming that any aspect of science and scientific research provides a sound, well founded and conclusive cause or reason for homo-sexuality.
    In short, are you claiming that any human beings are “MEANT” to only have sex with their own gender?

    The answer to both of these is no.

    Are you claiming that this is so though?

    • Scott: surely you can’t be that confused about us ‘liberals’. You’ve come along here, and given us nothing but your opinion. And you can’t understand why we are so wrong about everything when you claim to be right about everything.

      If you want to change our minds and come around to your way of thinking, you need to persuade us. Has University taught you how to be convincing? It’s the most basic aspect of an argument – provide third party evidence to support your claims.

      All along our rollercoaster of heated argument, you will acknowledge that only people on my ‘side’ have provided evidence in the form of quotations, research papers, government websites and resources, factual analyses and statistics. When we provide such evidence, our claims become more than just our opinion. It is MY opinion that immigration benefits our country more than it disadvantages. I then provided evidence that suggests that immigration boosts our economy and addresses real issues such as our aging population and our skills shortage. I have provided third party evidence every time I have said that immigration is more benefit than disadvantage. Do you understand how this not only supports my argument, but separates me from merely being an opinionated twat? And the evidence I’ve provided has come from reputable sources – not blog sites owned and operated by people with nothing more than opinions.

      Whenever you speak, you assume that what you’re saying is the unchallenged gospel belief. You say things like:

      1. God hates homo-sexuality, God calls upon people to hate wickedness, and sin.
      2. …it is no genuine progress for us to now have masses of other races filing in from their crowded and often failed nations and cultures, and having a host of incomprehensible languages introduced here.
      3. Yes, what is being done to Australia now, and the rest of the Western world, is a “progress” of sorts…but it is only progress down a very dark dead-end.
      4. No, immigration does not benefit Australia or Australians…
      5. No, Australia was not, was never, buillt on immigration.
      6. There is no evidence to “support” the rank idea that mass immigration is good for, or benfits, Australians, in any way.

      But:

      1. How do you know what God hates? Have you spoken to him? How do you know God exists? Saying things are right because God says so is rich. The existence of God cannot be proven, and it cannot be unproven. So to quote him as a source to back yourself up is just plain stupid.
      2. You say this is not genuine progress, but forget that there are hundreds of thousands of people and thousands of research and statistic based documents that suggest that it is genuine progress. The only way you can say this as undeniable truth is to use third party data to outweigh every opposing piece of data that is in existence to suggest that immigration and multiculturalism IS genuine progress. We get it – it’s your OPINION that it’s not genuine progress, but that’s where it stops.
      3. *As above*
      4. To say that immigration does not benefit Australia or Australians like it is the be-all and end-all truth is laughable. You would be hard pressed to find more than a few thousand people who agree with you here, but that’s not the point. There is so much data, research and statistics that prove immigration to benefit Australia and Australian citizens. There is evidence of where immigration has detriment, but in order for your argument to have any weight, you would need to provide evidence to suggest that the detriment of immigration far outweighs the benefit. And this is something that you haven’t done, nor are able to do. We’ve given you plenty of opportunity to do it, but everything you say comes back to what YOU believe, and that my friend is mere opinion.
      5. Again, the history books and the analyses and the factual recounts and the economic data and the widely acknowledged multiculturalism of this country all indicate that the growth of Australia was at the very least, heavily supported by people who came here from overseas. There is just so much weight to the argument that immigrants have contributed so much to our society you would need to provide an absolute mountain of third party reputable data to suggest that migrants to this country came here and did absolutely nothing, and brought absolutely nothing with them. While it is your OPINION that everything that was ever built, fought for, decided upon, composed of and comprised of (by) white people, it simply does not stand against all the evidence that suggests that the exact opposite.
      6. *See #4*.

      Scott, this is the reason I quote your words back to you when I debate you. I want you to know which specific arguments of yours I am debating. I don’t enter each stage of my debate with another soapbox rant that is totally devoid of any higher order thinking. I don’t come in and say the exact same thing, over and over again without ever providing reputable evidence. I (and other members of TAB) make so many legitimate counter-claims against the things you say, but you toss them aside because you think we make up our opinions because we want to be leftist liberals… or something.

      Racists and sexists hate debating educated people (generalisation) because educated people tend to demand that they back up their arguments with evidence or quotations. Prime example being that every time I say I support immigration, you try to tell me that I hate my country and I hate my fellow white people and that I hate my culture. How do you expect ANYONE to take these vile claims seriously when you can’t even fucking quote me? I love my country, I love people not on the colour of their skin but on their contribution to society, and I am deeply immersed every aspect of what I believe to be Australian culture – something that you’ve refused/ignored to comment on/define since arriving here.

      I really have allowed you a lot of oxygen, Scott. And at the end of most of your opinionated rants, you’ve said something inferring that the ‘time is now’ and that you are ‘standing up for your country’ etc blah blah, yet you do nothing but comment on this blog, and stand in heavily supported opposition. You contribute nothing to society, as you are jobless and void of any achievement or representation. You have spent 40+ years as a succubus on this country, and you have this blinded idea that you are now doing something for this country by coming along here and annoying people who believe in a fair go and equality. Well here’s my opinion – you’re not. And here’s the evidence to back it up – you’re not a member of parliament, you don’t work for any charities, you don’t volunteer for any organisations, you don’t have a wide range of active friends, you don’t pay taxes, you have biased criticisms of those who are different to you and you are uneducated.

      I’m not going to ban you or your mate Shonkyderelict. Because to ban you or censor you would have you both rubbing your hands with glee, screaming that the leftists were stifling real debate, and claiming some kind of intellectual victory. Yet, it’s not real debate unless your bringing more than just your opinions to the table.

      And finally, on the issue of opinions. Yes, I believe that everybody has the right to one. It is when that opinion is voiced in the interests of denigrating people on the basis of their race, religion, sexuality, gender or disability that it moves from being opinion to being unjustified hatred. And that is what most people in Australia vehemently stand against.

    • yes there is scientific evidence that theres nothing unnaturalabout homosexuality – we seem homosexuality in nature, animals and all thorughout history.
      alexander the great was gay.

  26. *sigh!
    I don’t know what centrelink was 30 years ago, I wasn’t even a ‘thought’ of anyone’s mind 30 years ago.
    ***** ignore all ‘Centrelink’ stuff****
    “I don’t know why you talk about Centrelink.
    Especially as a) so many career students are supported by it so as to pursue their leftist, liberal, academic pursuits, and b) as SO many of the foreigners you welcome in here are lining up at it’s doors.
    Dinka has recently been added as one of Centrelink’s translation services!”

    Career students????? better than career nothing 40 year olds ey?
    Let me ask you once again nicely…DON’T FUCKING LABEL PEOPLE..OK!!!! leftist, liberal what ever fuck.. NONE OF THAT…

    “You’ll find, once you drop your spitefult front, and investigate further, that through all and the better of human society mind and soul went together, Religion and Science were both pursued and benefitted Man.
    God created Man as a reasonable being, an intellectual, and spiritual, being.”

    Riiiiight…..
    Easter Bunny created gays as homosexuals, sexually attracted to people of the same sex. & Santa Clause created the clothes for gays to wear.
    Amen!!!
    “Are you claiming that any aspect of science and scientific research provides a sound, well founded and conclusive cause or reason for homo-sexuality.”
    Yes! If you understood how science works? what is conclusive today may not be conclusive tomorrow. so I’m not gonna commit on the ‘conclusive’ part but yes science has well founded sound things to prove that homosexuality isn’t a simple choice like choosing what to eat or wear.

    “In short, are you claiming that any human beings are “MEANT” to only have sex with their own gender?”

    Where the fuck did I or anyone say that??? no one says that other than in your empty head, so there’s nothing to answer there..

    What I am claiming is that homosexuality is not a simple choice like what to have for dinner, and they are normal human beings just like anyone else, and they should be treated like anyone else, they should have the same rights and responsibilities in society and be held accountable for in society just like anyone else.

    ..and you Scott, have the choice to not be a homosexual, be attracted to Asian internet porn models and wank away all your life.. if you oppose gay marriage?? simple solution.. Don’t marry a gay… end of discussion..
    If “god” doesn’t like the way homosexuals live, let “god” tell them that. Not you.

  27. Scotty, I once saw you lash out at a school mate over the perception of the wider student body in HS that you were in fact a homosexual; due to the fact that, and I quote “because I was always impeccably dressed”.

    Dude, how did it feel to be subjected to bullying for something that was entirely out of your control (ie a perception or opinon of you?). Ponder on that one grasshopper.

    • WOW!!! Ronnie,
      ***Hi 5***
      Where were you all this time???
      You went to High Scool with Scott??? OMG!!! :)
      I don’t even know you, but I wanna throw a party for you Ronnie,
      Please provide us amusement with stories from hay days of Scott.
      Ronnie, you made my day! :) I thank you for that..

  28. No I, I didn’t like it, and didn’t deserve it.

    It is not a sin to be impeccably dressed. It is a sin to have sex with your own gender.
    It does not harm society for a man to dress well. It does severaly harm society for men to have sex with men, and women with women.

    I’ve also witnessed the vile, vulgar, and hateful attitudes of the various “gay community” groups up close.

    Very trite attempt at an ‘argument there Ronnie, so, next?….

    Kung Fu was a great show by the way, and shouldv’e taught you better lessons.
    That is, if you even know what you’re ripping off there.

    • No, no Snotty, that wasn’t an attempt at an argument at all. Those above have done a great job of annihilating any semblance of a so-called “argument” that you’ve ever put forth from day dot. I was simply highlighting to the readers (yet again) the walking contradiction that is Scott Pengelly from Melton.

      And on the topic of sins …

      Lust – e.g. spending all night on Facebook, dick in hand, commenting on Asian porn stars pics.
      Vanity – “I am IMPECCABLY dressed”. Enough said.
      A: Sloth Q: What is a 40 year old man, mooching off of mum, watching TV all day?
      Wrath – You’ve defended all of those featured on this website who’ve glorified violence against migrants and homosexuals
      Envy – Those coloureds get so many rights that I don’t! They take the jobs that would’ve been given to ME!

      What was that saying about people in glass houses?

      • Ronnie,
        I’m sorry to bother you. I just can’t stop laughing..
        So was Snottie really the academic he wants us to believe he is?
        Please do tell us stories from high school days.. pretty please…when you have time… Does Snottie attend high school re-unions?
        I guess you guys had coloured kids in high school?? and what was Scott like around them? Did the other kids give Snottie veggies?? OMG!!!!
        This is gonna be so much fun :)
        Thank you.

  29. Tell me HOW they’ve annihilated any argument?!
    TELL me how!
    A crowd of liberals slapping each other on the back about how they ignore the truth, and berate conservatives, does NOT equate to annihilating an argument!

    Tell me HOW any leftist here has annihilated or in any convincing way countered any argument????

    That Australia should remain populated by Australians, does not have to even be “argued” per se, it is self evident truth.
    That homo-sexuality is a sin forbidden by God and condemned by every religion and society does not have to be “argued”…it is fact!

    I’m sometimes contradictory, yes indeed. It’s often hard not to be.
    I’m big enough to be contradictory.
    Why mention my full name and the town in which I live? Hoping that a libertine mob will come and get me?
    Why don’t you all say your full names and locales?
    Why are you neo-communists always ‘naming names’?
    I sometimes am contradictory, yes I am.
    I do not set out to be contradictory though.
    It happens.
    Liberalism though, is by definition and by all acts and evidence, entirely contradictory!
    Liberalism revolves around contradiction!

    On rare occasion, if I’m up late at night working on the computer, I’ll definitely go on Facebook…and sometimes comment on some Asian models and porn-stars.
    AND?
    That’s why Australia has to be run over by the millions of the world???

    I DO dress well! Often impeccably well! No crime in that. Celts have for ever been noted for our ‘vanity’, for our pride in our appearance, even in ancient times.

    “Funny” how we hear calls for Australian men to dress better, but then any that do are called “vain”.
    I’ve always been fashion-forward, style-conscious. I’ll never apologise for being aware, inspired, and creative.
    You’ve got to put something on each day, why not make it something good and interesting?
    I went through too much shit…and looked cool, stylish, and brilliant, when it mattered…to have trumped up twits try and belittle me for it now!

    No, I’m not ‘vain’. I simply care, even worry, for my appearance.

    I’m no sloth.
    I live in my home, I’m glad for it. I do not “mooch off my mum” (and I told you bastards to never again mention my, or anyone else’s, parents). I watch a LOT of TV…but not all day.
    AND?
    What?
    If I lived somewhere else, if I didn’t watch any TV…THEN you’d deign to let Australia stay White???
    What’s your point?

    There’s generations of families, and often different families, living in the one house amongst various ethnic groups you’re inviting in here?
    There’s many foreigners here watching TV.
    White men invented and developed Television, in case you’ve forgotten…and developed all the great architectural and desgn elements that make the nice suburban houses you take for granted here possible.

    What’s your ANGLE though?
    What can anything you describe (even distortedly so) about do to prove that Australia has to be turned multi-racial????
    What’s your POINT?

    Character assasination, or attempts at such, have long been a tool of the left.
    None of it proves you “right” though.
    What is your POINT in saying anything about me?
    The issue is the defence of Australia as a strong, homogenous, advanced, White/British, First World society…against massive, multi-racial, invasion.

    That’s the issue.

    I have never ‘defended’ or ‘glorifed’ any violence.
    (I’m positive that most migrants would hate having themselves and their identity being lowered to the level of a vice such as homo-sexuality!)
    Homo-sexualty is a sin, a vice, it is NOT akin to race or ethnicity!
    I have fully defended the Australian people’s right to speak up for and defend their country and society.
    As I do with for any other people in their own country.
    I strongly oppose homo-sexuality, as any decent person does.
    I do not advocate blanket violence at all.

    Yes, I do envy the “coloureds” coming in and waltzing straight to the top of the society that MY people, culture, and civilisation built here, from the dust up!
    That they themselves, didn’t, and couldn’t have.
    Yes indeed, I’m envious of people taking what they don’t deserve.

    Do you think any of them would allow it in their own country?
    That’s a loaded question, of course, because we’ve got far more, and far greater, that people want to take.

    We owe it to our ancestors, we owe it to ourselves, and we owe to future generations of Australians…to NOT be put in the situation of having to be envious of foreigners in our own country.

    Glass Houses. Great album.

    You liberals, you multicultists, were very fortunate to be born into a great house….it’s YOU that are throwing stones at it!

    I live in a very well made home. In both aspects.
    I’m not throwing stones at it.
    I’m throwing stones entirely at those who deserve them thrown at them.
    I’m throwing stones at those who would see our home broken and shattered like a glass house!

  30. Scott, you make me laugh. We briefly crossed paths back in the mid 90s and you came across as an obnoxious fuckwit back then; I never realised you were a vile hatemonger underneath the ‘look at me’ fashion sense and know it all persona.

    No point arguing with you because it won’t achieve anything. Good to see you’re back in Melton and that your life is clearly going places, what with the time you spend on internet forums getting all worked into a tizzy. Why is it that so few of your friends from those days are Facebook friends now? All I see are on your profile are neo-Nazi wannabes and 15 year Asian girls. An interesting mix.

  31. No. Stones of truth have an affect.
    They do.

    Why do YOU support homo-sexuality?
    How do you think this behaviour aids (pardon the pun), assists, furthers, or benefits society?

    You try and balance the blind support of homo-sexuality AND the push for multi-culturalism???

    • Being a heterosexual man myself, but I respect someone’s choice to be a homosexual, especially when they have to stand up to snide thugs like you (Scott) who think that their choice is sinful, and that they’re better than them. Well i’d like to say something to you and your ilk: Go fuck yourself, fucktard, you fucking fuckbag.

      “Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo.” H.G. Wells

    • @Scott:
      Answer me bitch….. :) too much facts for you to handle???
      You wanted to talk science, Let’s talk science Scott.
      Don’t bring a knife to a gun fight you moron.
      ‘Sin’ – ‘god’ – ‘devil’ – ‘hell’ – ‘heaven’ – ‘easter bunny’
      Not at a Science debate Scott,
      May be you were never good at debating anyways, Ronnie should be able to tell us all about that :)
      Happy wanking! Assole, :)

    • “Why do YOU support homo-sexuality?
      How do you think this behaviour aids (pardon the pun), assists, furthers, or benefits society?”
      because its shows we are all human first, love is love, and theres nothing wrong with it? it eradicated hatred against homosexuality which isnt immoral?

      “You try and balance the blind support of homo-sexuality AND the push for multi-culturalism???”
      of course the majority of people who support homo sexualitywould supportmulti culturalism.
      supporting homosexuality advocated the right for people tolove whoever they want. it does not mean we all have to now love people of the same gender. it advocated including homosexuals.

      supporting multiculturalism is supporting the right for people to practice their culture solong as it harms do one. it does not mean we have to practice their culture. it advocated INCLUSION.

      supporting homosexuality means advocating INCLUSION of gay people and gay love.

  32. I rarely LOL… but
    LOL @ Scott.
    I normally wouldn’t find hatred, ignorant hicks so amusing, as I worry that they will reproduce and the cycle of stupidity will continue, but we all know that you will never find a woman stupid enough for you to deposit your sperm in, so there is nothing to worry about.
    Keep day dreaming over your hot asain babes, you useless piece of white trash!

  33. Gee, fuck, will wonders never cease!
    20+ years I was getting attacked, both verbally and physically, by genuine bogans, who would call me a “faggot” etc, for dressing cool…now, flash forward, and we’ve got way too late for the party neo-liberals calling me a “hick” because I oppose the sin of homo-sexuality.
    Staggering!

    Very typical too – you’re not very original – this often repeated threat directed by leftists/liberals at men who criticise feminism, homo-sexuality, or any of the prevailing liberal dogma…that I/we won’t be able to get a woman if we don’t stop talking so.
    Well, loneliness is tough, and the way that people such as yourself bandy it about as a punishment for thinking, but I would much rather be lonely, than wrong!
    I’d rather be lonely, than bite my tongue on the truth.

    Seeing as how we’re meant to be “equal” now, shouldn’t this power that women hold over men, this threat that they’ll not have us, have been set well aside by now?
    Seems the cake is wanted to be had, and eaten too.

    “White trash”? Is that the acceptably liberal racism we’ve heard about? Reverse racism? The racism that’s “okay”, because it’s politically correct and directed at the “right” target?

    Which White person really DOESN’T rate as “White trash” in the eyes of the psychotically self-loathing liberal?

  34. M-Dawg…will you also direct that ghastly little equation to any Muslims that come here, who stridently oppose, condemn, and punish homo-sexuality?

    Easter bunny is a very nice symbol, a metaphor.

    God, is God, the source.
    There is virtue, and there is sin.
    There is the Devil, the adversary of all humanity.
    You can try and deny this (but why would you want to?), but you cannot alter this.

    • In fact I will Scott, to anyone that ignores the facts and hold some delusional archaic views.
      Difference is though I actually have Muslim friends, many muslim friends, really close friends that I know their families & I’ve been to their houses etc
      While some of them due to their strong childhood indoctrination may believe in a god & sin & think homosexuality is a sin, they keep those ideas to themselves & never have they ever expressed hate or perceived superiority over homosexuals for example
      They themselves with access to wider knowledge & science education some what have debunked god & bull shit, some just do stuff just as a family tradition or what not.they don’t give a hoot about god & their morals are shaped by education & information.
      And you cave man thinks that all muslims fly planes in to building??? the thing is Scott, I know them so well, none of them are anything like what you think or some xenophobic media portrays.
      They are pretty much same as any white kid from the burbs, they enjoy doing the same stuff I do, they are just people with a different skin colour to yours & some are victims of childhood indoctrination.
      All in all they’re nice people,very charitable too.. they love feeding their friends, sharing their culture, food etc.
      You get assoles in every race,nation & culture.
      Best example for this will be you yorself Scott.
      The world outside generally perceive the Aussie as a fair dinkum, battler, beer loving, beach loving, secular,tolerant, easy going, fun loving, sense of humour, sports mad, not very news savvy larikin.
      That right there is exactly what you’re not.
      “God, is God, the source.”
      Really???? So who created the fossils then?
      Scott, I can direct you at a lot of resources from the likes of Dr.Richard Dawkins,Christopher Hitchens etc.. They are Scientists & have clearly illustrated findings,but I doubt your perceived superiority & arrogance would make use of them or your true ability to understand them.
      but if you don’t want them, please ask..
      I repeat: Don’t bring a knife to a gun fight.
      If you wanna talk science come armed with facts and references, else don’t bother.
      **back to wanking you go Snotty** :)

    • do you wear clothes made of polyester because thats a sin according to Leviticus, the same place in the o.testament that says homosexuality is a sin.

      also tell me why homosexuality is wrong. dont say becuase the bible says so. give me an ethical, intelligent argument as to how gay people hurt anyone?
      a well contemplated thought is worth thousands more than something written in a book.

  35. Funny that Rudolf…because the things that you all (as with all liberals and leftists) adhere to and push are dressed upn in a sense of morality and affected moral indignation!

    Isn’t it now seen to be “wrong” to oppose homo-sexuality? Is it not now seen as being “wrong” to oppose immigration? Is one not seen as being a “racist” (or ‘xenophobe’, ‘bigot’ etc), which is deemed to be evil, if they oppose immigration?

    Is it not now “evil” and a “hate crime” to suggest that homo-sexuality is wrong and damaging?

    Are there not heavily liberal laws being instigated now that dictate what is “right” and ‘wrong’?
    Do the the people attending ‘anti-racist’/’anti-fascist’ rallies in Western countries not feel a rush of great (but perverted) moral indignation as they scream “Nazi” etc at any of their countrymen that oppose mass immigration and their own racial destruction?

    Do gay lobbyists and pressure groups not assume some sense of moral indigation?

    Do liberals of all sorts not fall over themselves with gushing their feigned moral indignation?
    Picture Sean Penn at the academy awards, for one.

    Is all political correctness not painted in the colours of morality?
    Some bizarre approximation of morality.

    It is staggering, that firstly to lower the standards of society, to allow these lifestyles, it began to be denied that there even was morality!
    Post-modernism, relativism, liberalism, espoused that there “is no right or wrong”, there “is no inherent morality”.

    Then though, shortly after, the new laws and dogma began to be preached, about what is now ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, about “hate crimes” etc.

    Whilst with one corner of the mouth espousing “freedom”, liberalism and the left have actually instigated EXTREMELY restrictive laws, have invoked a terrible “new” morality!

    Yes indeed, the abundance of moral indignation spewing out of liberals is enough to make you choke.

    Above and beyond this, there IS unfaltering, eternal, timeless, true morality!

  36. M-Dawg…

    In regards me in high school, anyone who know’s me, or know’s of me, know’s that I was quite the academic…maybe even too smart for my own good…and though I wasn’t king of the school or anything I was quite popular enough! Funny, stylish, popular enough.

    In my high school there was TWO “coloured” (coloured?) girls!
    That’s it, and that’s all it ever had to be.
    They were both (literally) sisters, from Rhodesia.
    One, in my class, who I was close friends with, and her younger sister a form below.
    I was very friendly with the first girl, who had arrived in my primary school in grade six, and into high school. She liked my tastes in music.
    There was, I think, three or four Chinese girls in the whole school as well.
    Who’s families had been here some time.
    I was quite friendly with them as well.
    I still have a Christmas card that one gave me in 1985.

    There, that’s IT!

    That’s all it ever had to be or has to be in Australia.
    There was approximately 1,500 students in my school…and of that, a small minority of European ethnics, and as I’ve said, a very tiny handful of Chinese, and literally two “coloured” African girls.
    Nothing that would have appeared to ever possibly harm the overwhelmingly White/British population, because that’s what we are!
    That’s all it was only a short time ago in Australia, and all it EVER has to be!
    A strong, secure, dominant, majority White population…with a tiny ethnic, migrant minority.

    • LOL no, no unfortunately I can’t claim that I have the displeasure of knowing Snotty personally; though having read through many of his rants on this site I do feel like I know him well enough.

      I actually stumbled across said argument on Facebook on a group wall somewhere? I just think his particular situation is quite sad; he gets bullied in HS for his perceived homosexuality – so he in turn hates homosexuals. He loves hot Asian ass but can’t get any, so he hates migrants.

  37. M-Dawg, I shan’t go too deeply into my wealth of experience with Islam, and islam, and the details of such. I will not delve to deeply into my personal experience of The Qu’ran and Islam.
    However…
    I had a few close Muslim friends a decade ago, and regularly visited some of the few Mosques/Masjids that were dotted around Melbourne then.
    Muslims were an ultra-small minority here at that time, and that’s all that the case should be.
    Australia is not an Islamic state.
    No Arab or other Islamic power founded or (has yet) conquered Australia.
    My personal library, which extends to well past one hundred volumes on the various aspects of Islam alone, should vouch for my knowledge.
    I have spoken at Islamic centres, I have been involved in key events back then. My studies of Islam are deep and rich.
    I won’t stand for being doubted or dismissed in such by you at this late date.

    Islam is widely expansionist, not necessarily religiously, but definitely politically.
    Many Muslims now, both here and abroad, would see Australia – and the entire West – brought under Islam.

    It is 100% irrelevant if you have any Muslim, even pseudo-Muslim, friends or not.
    This entire issue is about Australia, the Australian population, and the Australian people’s identity, sovereignty, and future.

    If you are actually saying that your Muslim friends are denying God, then they are in serious trouble, firstly with God…and with their community.
    The most basic tennet, and highest truth, of Islam is “La illaha illallah”…”there is no god but God”!
    Islam, by very definition, means ‘submission to the will of God’.
    If your friends are denying God, then that is a greater sin than even homo-sexuality.

    I cannot stress how serious this is.

    In times gone by, and for the longest time, as a sound Christian nation, Australia was actually far more “Islamic” than it is now.

    Muslims see any non-Islamic regions as fit for conquest and subjugation.
    Muslims still very much see Australia as within the fold of Christendom.
    They still see us as ripe for conquest, with our population to be reduced to dhimmitude.
    If Muslims see an area as having no bona fide religion…as liberals/atheists/secularists push Australia now as…then much worse!

    Australia is not an Islamic state, and we must stridently resist invasion.
    Be it overt, military, invasion…OR invasion by proxy, invasion by IMMIGRATION, which is happening now.

    Through many, many centuries the great leaps in scientific knowledge were made within a religious context, and by spiritual men.
    The Qu’ran implores man to use his reason, Muhammad called upon people to seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave, even if it be in China!
    The Bible, The Avestas, and on and on…all Holy Books call on Man’s heart, soul, and mind.

    If your nominally “Muslim” friends consider God to be “bullshit”, then had better watch out, and do some VERY serious soul searching and atoning!

    The long famous ‘easy going’ nature of Australians is now being used AGAINST US!

    We must fight against this, and against the evil that assaults human society and spirituality!

  38. Well, there’s what you were “waiting” on M-Dawg…there’s who was going to ‘verify’ things for you!
    Someone who does not know me, at all.

    Are you doubting what I’ve said about myself and my high school?
    Why?
    I’m not a liar.
    You can rely entirely on anything I’ve said about myself and my high school.

    Ronnie, have I ever said that I “hate homosexuals”?
    No, I hate homo-sexuality.
    I do not accept that there is this inherent identity, this immutable, elite group, the “homosexuals”.
    I, with every good reason, deny that there “are” ‘homosexuals’ to possibly even hate.
    There ARE many people indulging in homo-sexuality though.
    I hate that, I hate the sin, the “lifestyle”, and what it does.
    I do hate the ‘people’ that push and promote this evil upon society.

    Did I ever say that I “hate migrants”?
    I do indeed like hot Asian ass – and there’s so much more to like and love about these women – but NOT so much as to throw my race, culture, society, nation, civilisation, and future away!
    I hate immigration.
    One might posit that ‘hate immigration, hate the migrants’, but no.
    I oppose immigration, for my people, society, and future’s sake.

    Liberals just love going on about hate, don’t they?…but then act all befuddled when people actually talk about aspects and dimensions of hate.

    What should be addressed, is the sheer hatred of Whites, that encourages mass immigration into and radical population change upon the West.

    What that you were 40 Ronnie! Then you would have a greater understanding of what I’m talking about and defending!
    I’m not referring to too long ago though!
    You might want to cast your mind back just a little ways, to when things weren’t like they are right now.

    We can still get this society back on the right track.

  39. Chill, M-Dawg.

    Scott’s far too ignorant and idiotic to be taken seriously. He just wants attention and he’s just feeding off the attention that he’s now getting. Let’s not give him that.
    Anyone who peddles “because God wants/wanted it to be so” as a legitimate argument doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously.

    The religious thumpers can go shove their bible/koran/gita/whatever up their arse for all I care. Who cares which four thousand year old verse says that homosexuality is a sin? All humans who are not hurting/harming anyone DEMONSTRABLY, need to be given freedom to do whatever they bloody well want to. Period.

    I personally find the whole idea of organized religion repugnant. Why would a god need to say “Worship me, just me and on one else or else…”. That doesn’t sound like a benevolent God to me. That sounds like a jealous girlfriend.

    Regardless, those are just my opinions. People are free to be as religious as they want. But religion fuelled hatred is completely unacceptable.

    • Thanks Tash,
      I wish I could be as calm as you are.
      I guess it’s the dominant ‘y’ chromosome that drives me up the wall when I read shit. :)
      Even kids, yet to develop their frontal lobes understand better logic & reasoning.
      Snotty here keeps coming back like herpes even after being smashed so many times by so many people. even after people from his past like Keith telling the world what an obnoxious twat Scott is.
      How could anyone possibly not have one bit of shame???
      Are they eternally doing jeger shots? even after jeger shots there is a limit, one nudie run per night for me. :)
      Bit of stupidity is entertainment, but sometimes it gets too much with Snotty & Shocky. :)
      Nothing new, playing the same track like a broken vinyle record.
      *sigh!

  40. Natasha says: “People are NOT entitled to express opinions which condone or provoke violence/crime against particular groups and individuals.”

    Your opinion. And yes, I’m aware your opinion has been officially enshrined in thought-crime legislation.

    If someone *says* “Throw a brick through that window”, no harm has actually been done unless someone *actually picks up a brick and throws it*!
    The *words* themselves cannot ‘harm’ the window or its owner.
    Yes, speech may induce harmful behaviour, but its the behaviour that harms, not the words. Who is to determine what words may or may not induce *real* harm? How can you know for sure? Even saying “Kill! Kill! Kill!” may induce *no action*.

    To quote you: “All humans who are not hurting/harming anyone DEMONSTRABLY (your emphasis), need to be given freedom to do whatever they bloody well want to. Period.”

    “The recent gay suicides weren’t a result of internal confusion.”

    Cite reference please (People keep telling me that).

    “Confused people don’t just kill themselves”.

    Um, I’m afraid they do. People kill themselves for all kinds of reasons, or even *lack* of reason (nihilistic futility of meaningless existence?)

    “No one’s telling you that you can’t love your own country.”

    People constantly use ‘fascist’ or ‘Nazi’ as *synonyms* for ‘nationalist’.

    The ‘Australia’ I love no longer exists because people like you destroyed it.
    I cannot ‘love’ the imposter I see before me today.

    “But when nationalism translates into hatred of other….”

    This is your *presumption*, “Love must mirror hate.” Positive/negative, Hero/villian, hot/cold, on/off.

    “just as a homosexual who hates the other gender or hates heterosexual people doesn’t deserve any sympathy.” You don’t have to hate him back.

    Narcissism is a normal, natural element of the human psyche. Without it, you wouldn’t bother to eat food to stay alive.
    Self-love easily extends to love-of-others-like-me.
    In contrast to self/like-self, there is ‘the other/not-self’ which can only be loved *as* ‘the other’.
    The distortion of multiculturalism preaches that ‘the other’ actually *IS* ‘the self, ‘they’ are ‘us’.
    A psychologist would probably call that ‘dysfunctional’ or ‘delusional’.

    Josh says: “So what do *you* think of Scott’s anti-gay stance? Be very interesting to see your answer.”

    I believe I already addressed that.

    M-Dawg!!! says: “I don’t know wtf shocky is on about, other than kissing Scott’s arse.”

    Pay attention. I actually disagree with him about homosexuality.
    But I completely agree about the blatant self-contraditions of ‘liberals’.

    “LIKE THAT YOUR STUPID GOD AND SCIENCE CAN NOT GO HAND IN HAND.”

    Many of history’s greatest scientists believed in God.
    A holographic universe (yes, *current* scientific theory, not 19th century materialism)created by ‘Consciousness’ is compatible with ‘God’.

    “JUST LIKE I CAN PICK WHAT T-SHIRT TO WEAR TOMORROW.”
    People do ‘choose’ their sexual behaviour and their ‘identity’.
    Men in men-only environments often engage in homosexuality (military, prison, boy’s schools).
    Most male prostitutes and ‘gay porn’ actors are actually hetero in their personal lives. You can indeed ‘wear the homo shirt’ tomorrow.

    “The world outside generally perceive the Aussie as a fair dinkum, battler, beer loving, beach loving, secular, tolerant, easy going, fun loving, sense of humour, sports mad, not very news savvy larrikin.”

    i.e. the exact opposite of vicious snob, antibogan.
    Those larrikins are not too fond of ‘poofters’, trust me.

    • “The *words* themselves cannot ‘harm’ the window or its owner.”

      Words can certainly harm a person. Imagine being a Lebanese person on the day of the Cronulla Riots listening to 5000 people chanting ‘Fuck off Lebs’…

    • Shocka -Scottsarselick-adelic,
      “M-Dawg!!! says: “I don’t know wtf shocky is on about, other than kissing Scott’s arse.”

      Pay attention. I actually disagree with him about homosexuality.
      But I completely agree about the blatant self-contraditions of ‘liberals’.”

      I agree I paid No attention or bother to read what you wrote, I simply didn’t wanna waste time not knowing where your drivel came from? I tried to establish that and you went on about some shit & that was it.
      So you’ve disagreed with Scott, did you want a medal for that?
      I’ve told Scott this, since I’m treating you like I treat Scott, I’ll tell you again.
      DON’T FUCKING EVER LABEL PEOPLE.. including me.. liberal, leftist,communist what ever fuck…

      “A holographic universe (yes, *current* scientific theory, not 19th century materialism)created by ‘Consciousness’ is compatible with ‘God’.”
      Cite reference please….
      I’m sure it’s not and God is more of a psychological placebo.
      With more information unveiled, the gaps of knowledge god used to fill are diminishing
      How psychology works with the god thing..
      http://www.youtube.com/user/richarddawkinsdotnet?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/43/1iMmvu9eMrg
      “People do ‘choose’ their sexual behaviour and their ‘identity’.
      Men in men-only environments often engage in homosexuality (military, prison, boy’s schools).
      Most male prostitutes and ‘gay porn’ actors are actually hetero in their personal lives. You can indeed ‘wear the homo shirt’ tomorrow.”

      when you say people chose sexual behaviour? if you mean to do doggy style or not to? yes that’s correct. people chose that.
      but sexuality, NO. and homosexuality isn’t all about sexual intercourse, it is also to do with feelings, feelings of love, emotional attachments etc.
      So no it is not a simple choice like what T-shirt to wear?
      Identity of course is of choosing, hence the terms & the need for the terms like ‘closet’ to exist.
      Social pressures, intolerance and bigotry influence people’s choice in identity when it shouldn’t be.
      There are also the cases of where the identity merely isn’t a choice, this is true when it comes to trans-gendered people. So your argument of identity being a choice isn’t true universally.

      Men in men-only environments is merely sexual gratification,which is a human biological imperative, the same imperative denied by some organised religions including yours & Scott’s which I believe is the Judeo-christian god thing.
      I’m not concerned about porn stars and prostitutes as you say who ‘chose’ to be gay to make a buck. you can go yell ‘faggot’ at them if you like.
      And according to you they’re going to hell anyways, so that problem is taken care of.
      Damn! My homo shirt is in the wash, your mum shouldn’t have cum on that.. bitch!

      “i.e. the exact opposite of vicious snob, antibogan.
      Those larrikins are not too fond of ‘poofters’, trust me.”

      I’ll let TAB answer that because I’m not their spokes person.
      Actually given that most those larrikins end up in cheap youth hostels in London with 7 people/room, they are not scared of poofters.

    • Commonwealth Crimes Act Amendment (Incitement to violence) 2005 Bill:

      ……57) Reason for doing an act

      If:

      (a) an act is done for 2 or more reasons;

      (b) one of the reasons is the race, colour, religion, or national or ethnic origin of a person; and

      (c) that reason is a substantial reason (whether or not it is the dominant reason) for doing the act;

      then, for the purposes of this Part, the act is taken to be done because of the person’s race, colour, religion or national or ethnic origin.

      58 Threats to cause physical harm because of race, colour, or national or ethnic origin prohibited

      A person must not threaten to cause physical harm to another person or a group because of the race, colour, or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

      Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

      59 Threats to cause physical harm because of religion prohibited

      A person must not threaten to cause physical harm to another person or a group because of the religion of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

      Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

      60 Threats to property because of race, colour, or national or ethnic origin prohibited

      A person must not threaten to destroy or damage property (other than property belonging to the person) because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of any other person or any group of persons.

      Penalty: Imprisonment for 1 year.

      61 Threats to property because of religion prohibited

      A person must not threaten to destroy or damage property (other than property belonging to the person) because of the religion of any other person or any group of persons.

      Penalty: Imprisonment for 1 year.

      62 Incitement to commit violence or damage property because of race, colour, or national or ethnic origin prohibited

      (1) A person must not, with the intention of inciting violence against another person or a group of people, or with the intention of inciting damage to property, do an act, otherwise than in private, if the act is:

      (a) reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to incite violence against the other person or group of people; or damage to property, and

      (b) done because of the race, colour, or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

      Penalty: Imprisonment for 1 year.

      (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in private if it:

      (a) causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or

      (b) is done in a public place; or

      (c) is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place
      . (3) In this section:

      ‘communicated to the public’ includes, but is not limited to, making words, sounds, images or writing available to be accessed on the internet; and

      ‘public place’ includes any place to which the public have access as a right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place.

    • Dumb response from a self-proclaimed “expert”. Somewhat like Scott with not quite as much overt narcissism.

      And completely, utterly wrong about homosexuality.

      So tell me Shonk why is it that on several occasions on other forums you have identified yourself as being gay. We have no problem with that at all – we only target racists and bigots. But we are curious.

      If someone is gay yet embraces Fascism what does that say about them?

    • I wrote a lengthy & comprehensive reply to shocky last night, somehow it appears that “Google Chrome” has eaten it on the way from my computer to this blog. :(

      I can’t be bothered writing all that again, not in the mood either, may be I will if & when I have time.
      But for now you’ll have to do with the shorter version shocky, I’m sorry. :(
      You don’t know jack shit.. just fuck off.
      … that’s the short version.. :)
      Holographic universe.-Cite reference please.
      Homosexuality has more than just chosing what to stick your dick in, it involves an emotional aspect & feelings etc which hookers & porn stars may not have to deal with.

      My homo shirt is in the washing, your mum shouldn’t have cum on it. Bitch!
      Josh here says you are homo??? I donno.. bloody rumoours. :)
      I’ll let TAB tackle that, she’s a big gal, she can lookafter herself. :)
      *yaaawwn!!

  41. Here’s something for you Scott:

    [b]“Homo-sexuality is NOT genetic, and is NOT an immutable circumstance!
    It is a choice…it may sometimes be a negatively influenced choice…but is a choice nonetheless.”[/b]

    Homosexuality is not a matter of choice. Instead, it is a combination of genetic and biological factors that cause people to become gay. Choice and willfulness have nothing to do with who does and does not become homosexual. Those who are gay have no more choice over their sexual preferences than those who are heterosexual.

    So, put it this way: You’re obviously straight. You’ve always been attracted to women. Now, if someone comes along and tells you that you must only be attracted to men from now on, you’d say it is impossible, wouldn’t you? You’d say, why, if I am attracted to women, would I fight those feelings and force myself to be attracted to men? You cannot force yourself to be attracted to something when the feeling was never there in the first place. In short, you cannot just change your orientation like that and convince yourself you’re attracted to something you’re not. There is no logic in that. Someone is not going to just “change” their sexual preference. And for those who once dated women and now choose men, well, that inkling was always there in the back of their mind. It didn’t just change all of a sudden. People don’t choose their sexual orientation, but they can of course choose the kind of a life they want to live.

    [b]“20+ years I was getting attacked, both verbally and physically, by genuine bogans, who would call me a “faggot” for dressing cool.”[/b]

    And you my friend, are a genuine bogan for judging something and ranting on and on and on about something that you have no personal experience with. How, is a relationship between two people any of your business? What gives you the right to tell everyone that what they are doing is wrong? You know what is wrong? Murder. Lying. Rape. Stealing. The list goes on. How, is two people being a relationship that has nothing to do with you wrong? There’s much more to a relationship than the sexual aspects, which I can guarantee is what you have the problem with. You keep asking people to stop going on about your home life, what you do every day, your relationship status etc. Well it works both ways. How about you stop stating that homosexuality is wrong. You’re not homosexual; what they do doesn’t concern you.

    [b] “..because I oppose the sin of homo-sexuality.”[b/]

    Yeah, because one book out of the approximate 130 million books published has the final say on everything. I went to a Catholic High School, and even we were taught the Bible is a book of stories, written to explain events and teach morals to the audience of that time. Develop your own opinions based on real life experiences, instead of quoting something that a book says is wrong.

  42. You forget that Scott is a source unto himself. According to him: Melbourne is devoid of caucasians, LGBT people are immoral and breaking the fabric of society, and that any faith bar the Christian (Catholic) faith is going to hell in a handbasket.
    Hey Scott, the very fact that you were offended by people calling you a ‘fag’ for dressing nicely mean that you’re uncomfortable in your own sexuality that you have to justify yourself by attacking the very things that make you uncomfortable? Jeeze, that’s a bully if I ever saw one! And what do bullies do? They lash out at any ‘easy’ target – in Scott’s case; LGBTs, Migrants, non-caucasians, uni students, and ‘bleeding-heart lefties’/liberals.
    Take a leaf out of your own book, Scott. If you hate it so much and think you’re so right, why don’t you leave? Deprive us of your entertaining gaffes!

    • And if there isn’t an easy target, Scot tries to make one. This he tries to achieve by calling anyone who disagrees with him a leftist. Or if it’s a woman, a radical feminist.

      Except that radical feminists aren’t exactly soft targets. They’ve got a lot of hatred in their heads directed against people exactly like Scott and some of them do have a certain affinity towards kung fu.

  43. Scott – Fact vs Opinion – Exercise 1. Is the following fact or opinion?

    The problem with all these right-wing supremecists is that they actually are missing the front half of their right cerebral cortex that allows the correct procession of logic. They then choose to molest small furry animals which makes them abominations in the eyes of the Lord.

    This is fact.

    God told us so.

    Shockaholic thinks that Scott is a small furry animal and molests him regularly. This is also a fact.

    Fact number 3: Scott likes it.

    Self-proclaimed ‘right-wing’ monocultists like Scott and Shockaholic blatantly disregard the norms of society around them because secretly they want to go to prison and take turns at being ‘the gerbil’. This is also a fact.

    God told us this too and god is unquestionable.

    Non-Anglo Saxons have a clear superiority in intelligence, athletic prowess and longevity.
    Because of an anomaly in history where Europeans managed to harness gun-powder to be used as a weapon first, they had a head start in development that is rapidly being taken over by the rightful powers.

    The Chinese manufacture more than anyone else for a reason. They are the most industrious people in the world.
    The Indians and the Chinese produce more academic high achievers than anyone else.
    West Africans irrespective of where they were forceably moved are stronger, fitter and faster than their white counterparts.
    The Japanese live longer than anyone anywhere.
    Whites cannot even breed quickly enough to keep up – Darwinism at work at its finest – AND God’s will too!

    Anglo-saxons are a genetic mistake. Like the Panda bear they are quite cute and served a purpose for a short while but now they are rapidly and rightly being cast into the garbage bin of history.

    They are the Betamax of world history whilst the rest of us have moved on past VHS to DVD and now Blue-ray.

    These are facts. God has told us this.

  44. No, Kirsten, in spite of the false claims and propaganda of gay pressure groups that has made it’s way via liberal media into common belief…there is absolutely no genetic, biological, chromosomal, or otherwise natural cause of homo-sexuality.
    People are simply not meant to only have sex with and focus only on their own gender.
    There may, in some instances be certain psychological causes…but these are to be remedied as is any other such abnormality.
    Most people though, the very vast majority of people now conceitedly parading their “fabulous” new ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian’ lifestyle are otherwise both physically and mentally healthy, with an overly inflated ego and inability to see past their own gender.

    If this was not a choice then we would not hear the constant calls for people to ‘go lesbian’, ‘try women’, ‘go gay’, we not see constant attempts to “convert” people to such a ‘lifestyle’.
    If people were meant to go with their own gender then these people would not be born with otherwise heterosexual reporoductive systems, they would be able to reproduce by having intercourse with themselves…they can’t.
    If any people were ‘meant’ to be homo-sexual then there would not be universal condemnation of such behaviour throughout all religious and social conventions.

    If this was written down dryly on paper, about people being so emotionally stunted, shallow, vain, and inverted, as to only focus on themselves and their own gender…there would still be universal rejection of such a mindset.
    Unfortunately, so many emotional, egotistical, financial, and other issues are added now. People have been duped, brainwashed, and co-opted into accepting, even championing, a completely vain, nihilistic, heterophobic “lifestyle”. It’s a hot issue, it’s fashionable.

    It’s highly ironic that liberals deride people who value and seek to protect their own race, ethnicity, nationality, and culture…yet then celebrate people that reject their complimentary gender and invertedly obsess over their own.

    No, Kirsten, there is absolutely no genetic, biological, chromosomal, or hormonal cause of homo-sexuality, at all, and all evidence verifies this. Logic alone, should attest to this.

    • Oi Snotty,
      I’ve told you many times….
      “No, Kirsten, in spite of the false claims and propaganda of gay pressure groups that has made it’s way via liberal media into common belief…there is absolutely no genetic, biological, chromosomal, or otherwise natural cause of homo-sexuality.”

      If you can’t substantiate your claims, DON’T FUCKING SAY IT YOU MORON!

    • The exercise was “fact or opinion”

      The rest was peripheral.

      You have not achieved a passing grade – we suggest that you do the course again.

      Mark: 0%

      Grade: F

  45. I have never stated that Melbourne is devoid of Caucasians (Australians are Caucasians, don’t ever forget that) Linds. Caucasians are fast becoming a minority in Melbourne, and in many parts already are.
    Are you denying this?
    For other multicultists brag about this…and that it represents “diversity” and “progress”.

    I absolutely refuse to recognise this arrogant, self-style and pompous notion about “LGBT people”. No amount of counterfeit self aggrandising will make this any more than what it is, conceited vanity.
    People obsessing over and having sex with their own gender is immoral!
    Are you claiming that is of good morality?
    This behaviour very much is destroying the fabric of society, which is why it is marketed so.
    Are you claiming that homo-sexuality in some way strengthens the fabric of society?

    When have you ever heard me saying anything like that about any bona fide religious tradition?
    Also, how can someone pushing homo-sexuality then also be so brazen as to claim to be defending any religion? All religion strongly forbids homo-sexuality.
    You should not go by the glib assumptions of your fellow liberals Linds.
    For no-where have I said anything of the like, and God forbid.
    In fact, I have consistently confirmed and drawn upon all of the legitimate religious traditions and scriptures.
    Australia is a Christian nation though, and everyone knows this.

    It’s almost as though people like yourself deliberately say the wrong thing.

    I don’t ‘lash out’ at anyone Linds. Little mention of the liberal/leftists lashing out…but that’s okay, yeah?
    It’s very simple, homo-sexuality is a sin, you might deny that, but that’s the fact.
    This is my country and I strongly and naturally oppose it being invaded and having Australians cast aside within our own society…therefore I stridently oppose foreigners (not tourists) being here in any other than token numbers.
    That is entirely the case now, and is the grim plan for the future.
    If you think any Australians should meekly step aside and lose their society, then you’re wrong.

    I oppose what it is right to oppose, and I’ve every right to, and I do so forthrightly. I do not have to leave my own country on account of any of this.

    • The exercise is “fact or opinion”

      The rest was peripheral.

      You have not achieved a passing grade – we suggest that you do the course again.

      Mark: 0%

      Grade: F

  46. As it happens “Terror AUSTRALIS!!!”, Betamax was actually superior to VHS, and the key point being that neither Betamax, VHS, DVD, or Blu-Ray would exist at all with White men inventing all of this technology.
    Very specifically, that without Anglo-Saxons/English/British people none of what you refer to or utilise would exist, at all, for you to take advantage of whilst you insult your very own ancestors so.

    Why…do you do so?

    The sole reason that any of those people you mentioned now have any undustry to be industrious in is because of us…they are also crowded, cruel, dog-eat-dog societies.
    You really want to get lost to that?

    We are not consigned to the dust-bin of history just yet, God forbid that we are though…and even if we be, we should be given the right that others throughout history who have gone that way have had the chance at…and that is to be able to honestly fight for our survival!

    • The exercise was “fact or opinion”

      The rest was peripheral.

      You have not achieved a passing grade – we suggest that you do the course again.

      Mark: 0%

      Grade: F

  47. Natasha…I have actually expressed a few times that it severely irks me to have to use phrases such as leftist or feminist…but a convenient phrase must be used, as a reference point.
    Things though, are so insidious, that even though you may imagine that you’ve come up with your little attitude all by yourself…it’s actually been planted there by the left…who in turn have their puppet strings held by even worse masters.

    All feminism is radical. It is a myth that there is moderate feminism. All feminism is misandric and is intended to drive the genders apart.
    Make no mistake about it.

    Funny how you can’t resist, even though you’re allegedly “peaceful”, making a thinly veiled threat.
    Yes, many of us are very well aware of the vile and vicious hatred in feminists, that psychotic misandry, and have seen it close up.

    No, this is not “acceptable” hate, and the violence indulged in by adherents of such, is not ‘okay’.

    • The exercise was “fact or opinion”

      The rest is peripheral.

      You have not achieved a passing grade – we suggest that you do the course again.

      Mark: 0%

      Grade: F

    • I support free markets. Let me repeat it. FREE MARKETS. Understand? CAPITALISM. Should I say it louder, yes? CAPITALISM.
      The leftist string pullers mightn’t like that. I guess they forgot to brainwash that part of my psyche, huh?

      “All feminism is radical”
      Yeah, I know. You’d just love it, wouldn’t you, if feminism didn’t exist and you had a lovely catholic wife who was barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Too bad, Scott. The MODERATE feminists won this one. Dream on, honey.

      “…thinly veiled threat…”
      How paranoid are you, exactly? That was neither a threat, nor was it “veiled”. It was humour, you dumb fuck. A joke. At your expense. Understand? Let me repeat it. A joke. At your expense

  48. M-Dawg…the notion that people are “born gay” is an unsubstantiated claim!

    There is no genetic, biological, hormonal, inherent, immutable cause of homo-sexuality…and I’m actually quite sure that, despite your bluster, you’re well aware of that.

  49. Exercise 2 – Fact or Opinion.

    History shows us that the Tokugawa Shogunate of Japan was one of the most inclusive societies in the world resulting in Japan having a significantly multicultural population. Current estimates suggest that around 83.6% of Japanese can trace their heritage back to over 247 countries in the world.

    It was only a brief period of insular protectionism under the Meiji Restoration in 1864 that saw Japan close it’s borders to the outside world. Regrettably the results were obvious leading to the great ‘Multicultural Riots’ of 1945 where the heavily multicultural southern Japanese cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima rose up in protest against such isolationist policies.

    A repressive and brutal crackdown by the Tokyo governemnent saw over half a million people killed or displaced in these cities, ultimately forcing the outside world to acknowledge the serious social upheaval. At the behest of the southern Japanese Multicultural Union (NKR), the USA under General Paul Macarthy was forced to intervene following such turmoil and strife.

    Under Macarthyism, Japan once again embracing its multicultural past and rejoining the world economy where it has gone from strength to strength become the second most powerful economy in the world after the other truly multicultural country – the USA.

    Multiculturalism is the sole reason why Japan, USA, Australia and Canada are and remain the six strongest economies in the world.

    These are the facts – this is the reality – all else is unmittigated myths, rumours and innuendos.

  50. Seriously though. I’m not in the know about Japan but yes, the sole reasons that countries like USA and Canada have done this well is that they are probably the only true meritocracies in the world and that they’ve (specially USA) created an environment where hard work and talent are rewarded with success, regardless of the social position of the person.
    Take one look at the top companies of the world and two things that immediately hit you are
    1) How many of them are American

    2) How ethnically diverse the leadership is.

    Talk Google, PepsiCo, Citigroup, Yahoo, Microsoft, Sun Microsystems, General Motors…and so on. Half the frigging silicon valley is owned by people of Indian and Chinese descent.

    The American policy of simply slicing off the cremé de la cremé from other countries has paid them tremendous dividends.
    It’s talent that matters. Not your cultural background. The Americans understand that.

  51. Does that go for everywhere else Natasha?
    Should EVERY nation on Earth be disolved and given over to this vagueness in which talent matters, and cultural background matters not?

  52. How much “talent” for anything other than violence and making babies do the massive numbers of Africans have that are pouring into Australia and the West?

    How much “talent” do the Pacific Islanders have?

    How much “talent” do most of the billions of Indians and Chinese…and other Asians have?

    If everyone else is so talented then WHY do they have to leave their “cultural background”????
    If they’re so talented then why are their countries and cultures such a mess?

    WE’RE the talent! We are the first world, WE created the modern world!

    Hang on…isn’t “MULTI-CULTURALISM” ALL ABOUT cultural background????

    People come before a culture.

    Culture is a product of people. People come first, and the reason why White nations and societies are so great is because of US!

    That REALLY burns me up! That attitude that says that it’s all been done, Whites have created all the technology, the great societies, the modern world, have built and created all this…but now they can be gotten rid off, wipe your hands of them, and then it can all be given over to everyone else.
    That enrages me beyond belief!

    SOME of the genius, and all the madness, of America is that for centuries different peoples and their cultures, different races, went there…that craziness led to a lot of creativity in America AND a lot of trouble!
    Either way we could stand back and say “only in America”.
    You CANNOT and should not try to repeat America. It’s been done.
    Australia IS NOT America!!!
    Australia is Australia, a unique, White, British, antipodean nation.

    The foundational, native, White population of America is facing a severe crisis…they are only around 66% of the population now.
    Last year California became majority Latino.
    Each year between 300,000 – 500,000 Latin Americans cross the border into the US.
    The Black population is exploding…the immigrant Asian population’s numbers are utterly skyrocketing!
    America is splitting apart, America is failing, America is in very serious trouble…there may well be serious civil conflict there soon.

    Cultural background IS VERY IMPORTANT!
    We Australians have a very rich, strong, racial and cultural background…and we’re VERY talented!!!

    • “1. How much “talent” do most of the billions of Indians and Chinese…and other Asians have?

      2. If everyone else is so talented then WHY do they have to leave their “cultural background”????
      3. If they’re so talented then why are their countries and cultures such a mess?

      1. Plenty and more
      2. Because there are better economic opportunities abroad. Mutual benefit.
      3. Because of hundreds of years of colonialism and exploitative economic policies. I don’t have to remind you that India and China are projected to be the top economies by 2050. China is hardly a “mess”. India is currently investing billions of dollars in cleaning up the mess.

      “We Australians have a very rich, strong, racial and cultural background…and we’re VERY talented!!!”
      Do you even realize how juvenile that sounds?
      YES you’re VERY TALENTED but no one is VERY TALENTED at EVERYTHING. Cultural background is VERY IMPORTANT only to morons like you who know eff all about how economies are built.

  53. You’re also talking about places and industries being owned by foreigners Natasha.
    That’s a sign of defeat.
    Enormous amounts of Australian farmland, industry, and property is currently being sold off to foreign interests.
    This must be halted.

    You’re also talking about things at a very high level only, of the creme de-la creme of business and industry.
    That is not what the plan for “multi-culturalism” in the West is about.

    It is about MILLIONS of people, of entire foreign racial, ethnic, national and cultural groups coming to stay in our countries.
    In Australia it means MASSIVE numbers of foreign groups that were not here five minutesago coming, to stay, and to grow in number here!
    No cream of the crop, but massive hordes!
    This is a disaster, that must be opposed.

    We ARE the creme de-la creme already!

    • “We ARE the creme de-la creme already!”

      This statement is exactly what causes nations to get destroyed.

      This statement proves, once again, that you’re not worth arguing with.

      Too big an ego to think rationally.

  54. “There is no genetic, biological, hormonal, inherent, immutable cause of homo-sexuality…and I’m actually quite sure that, despite your bluster, you’re well aware of that.”

    My God you are so stupid! Give us some fucking evidence of that, instead of your own opinion! We don’t care for your incoherent rants which you try to change topic with, just because everyone has backed you into a corner.

    HERE, taken from the Australian Psychological Society website:

    What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?

    How a particular sexual orientation develops in any individual is not well understood by scientists. Various theories provide different explanations for what determines a person’s sexual orientation, including genetic and biological factors and life experiences during early childhood. Despite much research there is no proven explanation of how sexual orientation is determined. However, many scientists share the view that for most people sexual orientation is shaped during the first few years of life through complex interactions of genetic, biological, psychological and social factors.

    Despite what some people claim (SCOTT), there is no evidence that society’s greater acceptance of homosexuality results in more people having a homosexual sexual orientation.

    Sooo, there you go. Pretty sure scientists know more than the shit you pull out of your ass!

  55. Natasha, for a minute there I had the sneaking suspicion you were a libertarian, and then you go and spoil it all by doing something stupid like quoting thought-crime legislation.

    Note how many times the word ‘act’ appears.
    In other words, you must *do* something actually harmful.

    No libertarian would ever think up laws that prohibit *speech*. Harmful *behaviour*, yes, but words?
    It’s the Nazi-mentality that burns books because they’re dangerous, and Nazis that want to stop any criticism of their demographic revolution by silencing the dissenters, by making words themselves a criminal offence.
    Actual damage to persons or property has *always* been illegal. The only reason for these laws is to silence dissent.

    Josh, where have I ‘self-proclaimed’ my ‘expert’-ness?
    I quote general knowledge, freely available on the Internet.

    “And completely, utterly wrong about homosexuality.”
    *Completely*? Don’t just make some grand non-specific statement. Details, please.

    “why is it that you have identified yourself as being gay”
    Um, because I am?

    “If someone is gay yet embraces Fascism what does that say about them?”
    I’ve yet to meet him. Maybe he likes sexy uniforms.

    Nationalism isn’t Fascism. Racism isn’t Fascism. Even both together aren’t Fascism.
    You simply *define* me as Fascist, but that’s your problem.

    M-Dawg!!
    Holographic universe? Google it moron, you’re on the Internet.
    “Homosexuality has more than just chosing what to stick your dick in”
    But as I show, you *can* choose where to stick it.

    Terror AUSTRALIS!!! I think this one’s finally snapped.

    Gunpowder didn’t create the Renaissance or the Industrial Revolution.
    Most of that gunpowder was actually directed at other White people.

    Non-white people only do well in the modern world White people created when they ‘borrow’ the ideas and technologies of Whites. What will happen when there’s no Whites left to steal ideas from? Back to Backwardland!

    “Fact or Opinion. Current estimates suggest that around 83.6% of Japanese can trace their heritage back to over 247 countries in the world.”

    That is neither a fact nor an opinion. It’s a lie.

    • It’s not a thought crime. You’re deliberately trying to create trouble where was none. There are limits to civil liberty, as every libertarian knows. You can’t go out and promote pedophilia, for example. You can’t go out and defame somebody by telling falsehoods. You can’t go out and tell people to destroy someone’s house because he/she is not white.

      If you incite people to violence, you are misusing your own civil liberties to attempt to impinge on someone else’s property rights in the broader sense.

      I am a libertarian, not an anarchist. There lies all the difference.

      That’s my view on the subject.

    • “Most of that gunpowder was actually directed at other White people.”

      So all the colonization was done by bow and arrow? It was only superior firepower or the threat of the usage thereof that allowed the European nations to colonize and strip the wealth from entire continents.

      “Non-white people only do well in the modern world White people created when they ‘borrow’ the ideas and technologies of Whites.”

      Which is just another wild claim with no evidence to support it. R&D budgets are linked to the size of your economy and enabling policy arrangements. Rich, powerful countries innovate more. It’s simple. When India, China and the Middle East were rich, they were the main innovators. Currently, it’s the western nations.

      “What will happen when there’s no Whites left to steal ideas from? Back to Backwardland!”

      Heh. This is too stupid a claim to rebut.

      Stop posing as a white supremacist when you’re clearly not.

    • Fucking tool head shocky,
      I can find out what holographic universe is.. but that doesn’t substantiate your claim about god, and for a fact they are expecting to build equipment to test the holographic universe (energy) thing in 2011 and they expect it to fail.

      Now go fuck your self!..homosexuals have *chosen* to stick it in your mum.
      Fucking twat.

    • “why is it that you have identified yourself as being gay”
      Um, because I am?

      Then you must be aware that people who are gay are born gay, that sexual orientation is innate and that your favourite political group has a nasty record of discrimination against gays, both during WWII, where they were incarcerated in Nazi concentration camps, and since. This record includes homophobic bashings, torture and murder.

      So you are happy to align yourself with those who consider you inferior and who would spit in your face?

    • Hi Spotaderelict –

      You really are a smart one – I am now quaking in fear at your shrewdness and attention to detail! You may want to re-read my previous post again before responding to it… You also get an F for failure to pay attention.

      Okay then – let’s try this again….

      Exercise 4. Fact or Opinion:

      This exercise is like the previous ones where I make wild claims without any form of substantitiation and claim them to be facts…. Sound familiar? May I suggest you Google the word “emulate”… It might help…

      Oh – then I get to make wonderful comments like – “but it’s freely available on the internet…” because that means it’s an irrefutable fact.

      Just the other day I heard the prosecutor say: “The prosecution does not wish to submit any evidence at this trial you honour, because this information is freely available on the internet.”… And the judge nodded wisely and said: “You are right and the defendant is therefore found guilty on all counts.”

      Okay tosspot – getting the gist of this?

      Here we go then:

      Reuters (London) 29 October 2010:

      A recent report in New England Journal of Medicine has provided the results of exhaustive study into the paradox inherent in homosexual people who ascribe to a right-wing politcal agenda. Research was conducted by over 450 doctors, scientists and psychologist from a number of peer institutions across the world working in concert across their specific areas of expertese. One of the most unexpected results was the clear empirical evidence that showed that every single person tested within the requisite criteria had no less than one third the gray matter in their craniums with the particular parts of the brain reserved for aspects of higher thinking completely undeveloped.
      Ultimately the results confirmed that which researchers had expected to find: namely that right-wing homosexuals are heavily in denial. Researchers pointed out that in the same way that most proponents of violence toward gays have latent homosexual tendencies themselves that they are attempting to subjugate through brutal physical output; similarly homosexuals who have finally acknowledged their sexuality can regress and become violently right-wing, completely oblivious to the bitter irony of this situation.
      Paul Smith a right-wing openly gay man from Soho London has become so intolerant of those who through choice of their own are different to him, he has set up a political party called “Gays against tolerance”. When asked about the intolerance he faced as a gay man and the parallels with racial intolerance, he simply said “I had no choice being gay whereas they have all the choice in the world in being black and escaping from war-torn countries in order to survive. They are not wanted here!”.

      * * * * * * * *

      This story was not only from a reputable peer supported Medical Journal but also reported through one of the world’s foremost press agencies. It is reports on a major study across 247 countries involving 450 specialist researchers.

      It is the facts.

      It is the truth.

      God has told us so.

  56. “Fact or Opinion. Current estimates suggest that around 83.6% of Japanese can trace their heritage back to over 247 countries in the world.”

    The Japanese are a mixture of their aboriginal population, the Ainu, and various Asian peoples from China, Korea, the Pacific Islands and Asiatic Russia.

    This has been conclusively proven using DNA samples.

    Sounds much like their Asian neighbours in that they too are mixtures of people from various parts of the Asia-Pacific region.

    There are no “pure races”.

  57. Natasha says: “There are limits to civil liberty”.
    So why do the ‘limits’ keep changing? Nobody saw the need for these laws 200 years ago.

    ‘You can’t go out and promote pedophilia’. Yes, you can,you just can’t *do* it.
    ‘You can’t go out and defame somebody by telling falsehoods.’ But lies are not opinions. Free speech is about opinions, beliefs. Is saying something negative about Islam a ‘falsehood’ when you are quoting from the Koran itself!!

    ‘You can’t go out and tell people to destroy someone’s house because he/she is not white.’ Yes you can, you just can’t *do* it.

    ‘I am a libertarian’. Then I suggest you stear clear of these ‘progressives’. They preach ‘freedom’, but they don’t practice what they preach.
    Their perfect utopia will never arrive through the voluntary choices of individuals, so they must *force* it down our throats with a million laws and regulations about every little thing you do.
    A true libertarian should shreak in horror at the censorious/oppressive mentality expressed by the ‘progressives’, not sidle up and link arms.

    The modern world, and all those libertarian precepts you hold so dear, were devised by Whites, in the *context* of Western Civilisaton. Everyone else jumped on the bandwagon later.
    It may be impossible to say exactly how Whites managed to achieve what they have, what that secret ingredient is.
    But other people don’t have it. They achieved a certain level of sophistication and then stagnated for centuries until the modern White world woke them up again.

    ‘When India, China and the Middle East were rich, they were the main innovators.’
    So what happened?. Why did they stop developing?

    ‘Rich, powerful countries innovate more. Currently, it’s the western nations.’
    Currently? You mean for centuries. The centuries that created the modern world we live in.

    The Renaissance. The Enlightenment. The Industrial Revolution. These were just lucky flukes that would have occurred in any land as long as you had gunpowder and gold?
    No, there is some essential intrinsic difference between Europeans and other peoples. Gunpowder and gold it is not.
    It is incredibly reckless to the present and future of our civilsation, yes *our* civilisation, to throw away the *proven record* of White achievement because of any unproven and unprovable *idealism* that all people are equal.

    M-Dawg!! ‘I can find out what holographic universe is.. but that doesn’t substantiate your claim about god’
    So the ‘consiousness’ creating the universe can’t be called ‘God’? Why the hell not?

    Josh says: ‘Then you must be aware that people who are gay are born gay, that sexual orientation is innate’
    I believe I already concurred that it is probably genetic/hormonal. Do you actually *read* my comments, or do you just respond to the presumptions in your head about ‘who I am’?

    ‘your favourite political group’?
    If you really think I’m Hitler’s #1 fan, why on Earth would you need to ‘educate’ me about Nazi history?

    Every society ‘has a nasty record of discrimination against gays’. Tell me something I don’t know.
    Homophobia will always exist. To accept this is just being realistic, it doesn’t mean you approve.

    “So you are happy to align yourself with those who consider you inferior and who would spit in your face?”
    No, I won’t align myself with *you*.

    “The Japanese are a mixture of their aboriginal population, the Ainu, and various Asian peoples from China, Korea, the Pacific Islands and Asiatic Russia.”
    Do you think you’re ‘educating’ me again?
    The ‘ethnic Japanese’ don’t come from ‘247 countries’ aournd the world.
    Of course, there’s no ‘pure’ people (Did I say there was?) but Japanese genetics have been pretty consistent for around 2000 years.

    Do they have the ‘right’ to maintain their distinctive type? They cannot do this if millions of ‘other peoples’ move into Japan, and neither can any other people on Earth maintain their particular distinctiveness for long under a policy of non-disciminatory “mass movements of people”.

    Terror AUSTRALIS!!! Another pointless fantasy ‘exercise’. Saves actually having to deal with the real world, eh?

    • M-Dawg!! ‘I can find out what holographic universe is.. but that doesn’t substantiate your claim about god’
      So the ‘consiousness’ creating the universe can’t be called ‘God’? Why the hell not?

      Who created fossils???
      Holographic universe theory is yet to get any merit, at this stage it is just a stumbled up on discovery.

  58. If you are arguing that civil liberty should be unlimited, then do not read further as we are fundamentally opposed.

    No, you CANNOT go and tell people to commit crimes. It is against the law and it is against principles of liberty. Since you don’t seem to understand that, let me repeat it. It is against the law and it is against principles of liberty.

    Society is liberal only as long as people’s rights are protected. You can’t violate those rights in the name of liberty. You can’t invoke others to violate those rights either.

    Hitler didn’t actually murder any Jews by himself. He just told people to. Joining the Nazi party wasn’t compulsory, you know, even though you had to follow orders once you did.

    Don’t tell me what a libertarian would or wouldn’t do. Complete civil liberty is a utopian idea which is impossible to implement in an ordered and free society.

    By telling people to go kill some “paki” or something, you would be DELIBERATELY attempting to encroach upon someone’s rights. By encouraging pedophilia, you are DELIBERATELY attempting to encroach upon the rights of young children. No one’s stopping you from delivering hate speeches against muslims UNLESS the government is reasonably sure that such hate speeches are likely to cause harm to an individual or a group.
    Even so, the government can be wrong or stupid, so you are given the right to redressal through an independent judiciary. It is an imperfect way to do things but there’s no better alternative, in my opinion.

    The zero wasn’t a fluke either, without which all your touted science and technology wouldn’t be a possibility. The HINDU-ARABIC counting system that we use today wasn’t a fluke, for example. Don’t turn this into a White vs Non White war. You can brag about “White inventions” but what you do not realize is that the era of white domination in science and technology is long gone. An R&D scientist today is just as likely to be Black, Brown, Yellow or White. If the white race is superior, then how would you explain the dominance of non- whites in so many international tests of cognitive ability?

    Hundreds of years of exploitative economic policies and colonialism reduced once rich regions into lands of squalor and poverty. Economics predicts that this is the Asian century. Asian nations today are growing at rates unparallelled anywhere in history. A 9% growth rate was unimaginable to 70s economists. By 2070, India and China are likely to be rich, developed countries.
    China began it’s real economic expansion in 1980. India followed suit in 1991. Britain started in the eighteenth century.

  59. M-Dawg!! “Who created fossils???”
    Creates. Present tense.

    Natasha says: “If you are arguing that civil liberty should be unlimited”.
    No, only the liberty to speak, not actions. I thought I made that clear.

    “Complete civil liberty is a utopian idea which is impossible to implement in an ordered and free society.”

    A completely non-racist, non-sexist, non-homophobic society is an impossible utopian idealism too. So stop trying to create it by legislation that inhibits liberty.

    “the government can be wrong or stupid, so you are given the right to redressal through an independent judiciary.”

    So you must *prove* your words are harmless, even when they’ve caused no *actual* harm? The prosecutor doesn’t have to prove anything, you do!

    Now listen Heretic, the Church doesn’t have to prove your heresy is dangerous, *you* have to prove it’s *not*!

    “An R&D scientist today is just as likely to be Black, Brown, Yellow or White.”
    Just as likely?
    And without Whites he’d be doing R&D in a rice paddy.

    “Hundreds of years of exploitative economic policies and colonialism reduced once rich regions into lands of squalor and poverty.”

    And made once-poor people rich.
    Brazil’s been independent since 1822. Haiti since 1804.
    Why is their condition *still* Whitey’s fault today? When is it *not* going to be Whitey’s fault? The year 34,899?

    “Economics predicts that this is the Asian century.”

    Citation please (What’s good for the goose).
    So what? How much growth will they have when their customers, the rich Western countries, are racked with civil war and revolutions because of ethnic conflict?

    Fortune magazine (ignorant bigots?) reported that the Pentagon (ignorant bigots?) predicts worldwide wars over food and resources by 2020 due to population growth and climate change.
    http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2004/02/09/360120/index.htm
    “As the planet’s carrying capacity shrinks, an ancient pattern reemerges: the eruption of desperate, all-out wars over food, water, and energy supplies.”

    “By 2070, India and China are likely to be rich, developed countries”.
    I’ll put my money on 2020 Food War.

    “Britain started in the eighteenth century”
    Yes, they did.

    • “Natasha says: “If you are arguing that civil liberty should be unlimited”.
      No, only the liberty to speak, not actions. I thought I made that clear.”

      So you’re saying that we should allow the following scenarios in our society:

      * A woman walks up to a police officer and calls him a fucking cunt;
      * A teacher calls a child a dumb shit;
      * A news reader refers to a member of council as a stupid retard;
      * An employer calls an Indian job applicant a dopey nigger;
      * A radio announcer calls a caller a sick pedophile;
      * A member of parliament calls on citizens to bash Asians whenever possible;
      * A doctor walks into a crowded waiting room and announces that his previous patient has herpes.

      ““Economics predicts that this is the Asian century.”

      Citation please (What’s good for the goose).”

      http://www.treasurer.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=economicnotes/2010/029.htm&pageID=012&min=wms&Year=&DocType=4

    • “No, only the liberty to speak, not actions. I thought I made that clear.”

      Well unlimited civil liberty to speak, then. We’re still fundamentally in disagreement. So I won’t respond to the part of your response about liberty.

      “So stop trying to create it by legislation that inhibits liberty.”
      You have an anarchistic definition of liberty which I disagree with.

      “And made once-poor people rich.
      Brazil’s been independent since 1822. Haiti since 1804.
      Why is their condition *still* Whitey’s fault today? When is it *not* going to be Whitey’s fault? The year 34,899?”

      Not all white countries are rich (Eastern Europe, Central Asia). Not all non-white countries have the potential to be rich (eg Haiti). Nation Building is a complex process in economic and political terms. Not all nations have the right conditions for it.
      Brazil has a very vibrant economy which is the ninth largest in the world today, if I’m not mistaken. You might want to read this about Brazil.

      India’s condition is definitely the Whitey’s fault, like it or not.

      “Citation please (What’s good for the goose).”

      [1]
      [2]
      [3]
      [4]
      [5]
      [6]
      [7]
      [8]

      I thought it was common knowledge by now. Not, apparently.

      “So what? How much growth will they have when their customers, the rich Western countries, are racked with civil war and revolutions because of ethnic conflict?”

      Umm yeah, here’s some quotes from wikipedia

      “…With these alterations in place, Brazil has reduced its vulnerability: it doesn’t import the oil it consumes; it has halved its domestic debt through exchange rate-linked certificates and has seen exports grow, on average, by 20% a year. The exchange rate does not put pressure on the industrial sector or inflation (at 4% a year), and does away with the possibility of a liquidity crisis. As a result, the country, after 12 years, has achieved a positive balance in the accounts which measure exports/imports, plus interest payments, services and overseas payment. Thus, respected economists say that the country won’t be deeply affected by the current world economic crisis.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Brazil#Control_and_reform)

      “India’s economy is mostly dependent on its large internal market with external trade accounting for just 20% of the country’s GDP.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India#External_trade_and_investment)


      About China

      China’s the only one out of the top three predicted economies to have an exposure to global markets which is significant enough to cause major economic problems should it turn toxic.

      Also, I needn’t remind you that both India and China have maintained very robust growth during the worst market crash since The Great Depression. They aren’t as vulnerable as you seem to think. The market WITHIN these economies is vast and it’s only set to grow bigger as disposable incomes rise in accordance with the size of the economy and their graduation up value chains.

      “Fortune magazine (ignorant bigots?) reported that the Pentagon (ignorant bigots?) predicts worldwide wars over food and resources by 2020 due to population growth and climate change.
      http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2004/02/09/360120/index.htm
      As the planet’s carrying capacity shrinks, an ancient pattern reemerges: the eruption of desperate, all-out wars over food, water, and energy supplies.” ”

      You forgot to read this little bit, right above the part you quoted
      “For planning purposes, it makes sense to focus on a midrange case of abrupt change. A century of cold, dry, windy weather across the Northern Hemisphere that suddenly came on 8,200 years ago fits the bill–its severity fell between that of the Younger Dryas and the Little Ice Age. The event is thought to have been triggered by a conveyor collapse after a time of rising temperatures not unlike today’s global warming. Suppose it recurred, beginning in 2010. Here are some of the things that might happen by 2020:”

      “Suppose it recurred, beginning in 2010.”
      The article was written in 2004. ” The article provides a hypothesis as to what might happen if it did occur. It makes no claims as to whether this would, in fact, occur. As we can see, nothing of the sort has occurred in 2010.

      The same article goes on to say
      In sum, the risk of abrupt climate change remains uncertain, and it is quite possibly small . But given its dire consequences, it should be elevated beyond a scientific debate”

      I agree, it should be. But a 2020 food war? Where does it say that that’s likely to happen?

      “I’ll put my money on 2020 Food War.”
      Then you’ll lose your money.

      “Yes, they did.”
      Glad you agree with me on something.
      Then you must also agree that 30 years of a free market economy for China (19 years for India) cannot be expected to produce overnight the results produced by an economy run for over two centuries on laissez-faire doctrines and one which also had access to immense captive markets as well as free access to the sort of physical resources which most nations today would kill to have.

    • M-Dawg!! “Who created fossils???”
      Creates. Present tense.

      The fossils they’ve found?? did your mum bake them and burry them??

      Does she still bake fossils every morning for you?

      Stupid Turd.

  60. If you manage to get someone killed or assaulted by provoking others to do it, you’ve caused *actual* harm. The person dies or gets seriously injured. As a result of YOUR hate speech. That is *actual* harm. *actual* harm includes but is NOT LIMITED TO things that you have done personally.

    You don’t live under an authoritarian church. You live in a liberal democracy. Your analogy is ridiculous. Unlike an authoritarian church, a democratic government can’t just round up and censor people for no apparent reason, for the same reason that it can’t just jail all it’s political opponents opponents. It’d be political suicide to do so.

    The prosecutor does, in fact, have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that your words are either in violation of specific legislation or that they are a deliberate attempt to provoke criminal activity. Only then can the censorship be upheld.

  61. theantibogan says: “So you’re saying that we should allow the following scenarios in our society”.
    Yes. Unless it’s liibel or perjury, which is not an opionion, that’s a lie.
    We are talking about whether speech can be *criminalised*.
    People must be held *responsible* for their speech. They may be able to say what they want, but there will be consequences.

    The policeman might pepper spray you.
    The student might slash the teacher’s tyres.
    The newsreader might find himself reporting on Dog Shows in future.
    The local community might boycott the business, making it unprofitable.
    The radio announcer may have a stalker following him home tonight.
    The member of parliament may never get nominated again.
    The doctor will lose patients, and therefore income.

    So you can say almost anything, but there will always be *consequences*, even if there’s no criminal restrictions.

    So the Treasurere says the magic words “Asian century” and it makes it so. Bing!
    The future hasn’t happened. Therefore there are no *facts* regarding the future, only hypotheses.

    Natasha. Am I an anarchist or a fascist? I can’t be both, can I?

    “Not all nations have the right conditions for Nation building.” Then it’s not Whitey’s fault.

    “Brazil has the ninth largest in the world today”.
    In gross, not per capita. It doesn’t matter how much total wealth there is if most people are average or below average. Per capita wealth defines a country as ‘rich’. Brazil is only world average after almost 2 centuries of independence.

    Brazil might weather the *current* crisis. That’s not what I said. I said the developing world would not weather the loss of Western markets, if and when Western countries implode from ethnic conflict.
    “Brazil has seen exports grow” Exports to where, other developing countries or to the West?

    “India’s economy is mostly dependent on its large internal market”
    Well, how do you reconcile that with ‘blame Whitey’?
    It’s reliance in domestic sales could be a liability in the event of natural disasters.
    I suppose when a earthquake/hurricane/whatever destroys India’s domestic-dependent economy, evil Whitey will be expected to cough up millions in aid.

    “You forgot to read this little bit, right above the part you quoted
    Suppose it recurred, beginning in 2010.”

    I believe the entire scenario is hypothetical. And so is the ‘Asian Century’.
    All future predictions are hypothetical. The food wars prediction is just as valid as the Asian Century.

    “As we can see, nothing of the sort has occurred in 2010.”
    So you’re a climate denialist now?

    “I agree, it should be. But a 2020 food war? Where does it say that that’s likely to happen?”
    Did you read it? It says climate change would create wars over food and resources and these events could happen by 2020. The article doesn’t have to literally say “There will be a 2020 Food War”.

    “If you manage to get someone killed or assaulted by provoking others to do it, you’ve caused *actual* harm.”
    I believe I already said that. *Actions* that harm people were already illegal for centuries.

    “Your analogy is ridiculous.”
    The progressives *are* creating an Authoritarian Church of absolute true/false, right/wrong. Their ideology is the one and only Truth. Just look what happens when you disagree with them about anything.

    “The prosecutor does, in fact, have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that your words are either in violation of *specific legislation*”
    We’re going in circles as usual.

  62. Heh heh. Climate denialist? You love to label people, don’t you? Let’s see what you’ve labelled me as so far. First a hive kremlin comrade, then a fake libertarian, then a naive idealist and now a climate denialist.
    You still haven’t read the article, obviously. It talks about an actual, major, specific, highly noticable event which hypothetically happens in 2010. Not gradual global warning. There’s no “cold, dry winds” that have suddenly arrived to the Northern Hemisphere. There’s no iceberg that’s appeared near Portugal. There’s no little ice age. If such drastic events occurred, we’d know about them by now. Such events could happen by 2020 *if* we found abrupt climate change in 2010. That is a big if.

    The Asian century isn’t a hypothetical prediction that may/may not happen. Economic predictions aren’t just linear projections of growth rates and diminishing returns. They take into account a lot of factors such as resource accumulation costs, increasing population pressure and so forth. There’s a definite prediction being made here. Your article says that prospects of prospects of climate change are “uncertain and quite possibly small”. The Asian century is neither uncertain, nor is it’s likelihood “possibly small”.

    And can you give it a rest with those conspiracy theories? Next, you’re going to follow Scott and tell me that it’s all an Illuminati/Zionist conspiracy. Your political opponents aren’t some homogeneous group that’s out to get you. Rights that curtail certain freedoms in order to protect the individual rights of others exist in all democracies of the world and have existed for many years now. They’ve been in place before you were even born. Do you notice any significant authoritarian church like restrictions on liberty?

    If you really want to go out today and call on people to murder immigrants, then it’s pretty obvious (the same assumptive obviousness you love) that you aren’t what one would call innocent. *Speaking* is an *action* that can cause *actual harm*, even if indirectly. That’s what I’m trying to say. I thought that was obvious.
    Two centuries of independence don’t mean anything in economic terms. A modern, free, globally integrated market has existed in Brazil only for a short while.
    Brazil is an emerging market. Per capita incomes rise much quicker than gross GDP, that’s basic economics. It’s not going to remain a low income country for too long.

    Once again, you’re conjuring up hypothetical situations to naysay predictions. An environmental disaster large enough to hit India as a whole would probably cause massive disruptions (not just economic) worldwide too. The economy would really be the last thing on our minds in such a doomsday scenario. Saving lives would be more important.

    If you’re talking slightly smaller scale, though, India is no stranger to environmental disasters. In the last year, for example, it’s been hit by a major flood, a typhoon and several major earthquakes. I don’t remember Australia providing any aid.
    Yet it lives and the economy continues to grow. Domestic demand is never a liability unless global exposure is too small to brook investment. But the FII and FDI flows to India have continued to increase, so that’s not a problem. An export based economy would be hit just as badly by a natural disaster. Natural disasters are problematic not because they kill large swathes of one’s target market but because they deter investment and trade. That’s problematic for any sort of economy and probably more for an economy which relies on foreign investment to function. Foreign investment is ALWAYS more volatile than domestic investment.

  63. “Brazil might weather the *current* crisis. That’s not what I said. I said the developing world would not weather the loss of Western markets, if and when Western countries implode from ethnic conflict.”

    The *current* crisis is a good indicator of what would happen in such a hypothetical scenario because the economic effect is exactly the same – loss of western capital and markets.

    ““Brazil has seen exports grow” Exports to where, other developing countries or to the West?”

    China is Brazil’s biggest trading partner , as of 2009, with total trade amounting to nearly $3.2 bn a year.

    In 2006, it accounted for only 5.7% of Brazil’s foreign trade. [ref1]

    So, yes, trade has grown to developing countries

    “Well, how do you reconcile that with ‘blame Whitey’?”

    How is the emergence of a domestic economy relevant to past British exploitation? It was in fact this very domestic market that they destroyed, by flooding the market with cheap products from Britain and taxing Indian made manufactures to unsustainable levels so as to make them uncompetitive. It was a captive market for them and they did exactly what any ambitious and imperialistic country would have done – they took full advantage of the opportunity.

    “Natasha. Am I an anarchist or a fascist? I can’t be both, can I?”

    You’re not a fascist (I never seriously said you were). But you do harbour plenty of right wing views and also harbour plenty of anarchistic views. What can I say? Heh heh.

    “The future hasn’t happened. Therefore there are no *facts* regarding the future, only hypotheses”

    Okay, look, let me clarify the modelling process a bit to give you some idea of how it works. You can then judge it’s prowess.

    Countries like India and China have exceedingly low capital per worker. Currently, they’re much farther from their steady states than the developed economies. In such a scenario, returns on investment are higher and perhaps more importantly, a given investment yields higher results. This is popularly called the law of diminishing returns. As you grow wealthier, returns on investment decrease as you’re already close to an equilibrium.

    Low income countries tend to have currency values which are much below PPP(Purchasing Power Parity) values. A dollar will buy a lot more in India or China than it would buy in the United States or Europe. This is because of differences in productivity levels. AS productivity levels continue to increase, the currency value starts to approach PPP values, which means that there’s a net real growth in the country’s value.

    Goldman Sachs, which wrote the now famous BRIC report, uses both these factors extensively. They call this the Goldman Sachs Dynamic Equilibrium Emerging Market Exchange Rates model or GSDEEMER model, as it is commonly known, which is an emerging markets adaptation of their GSDEER model.

    Basically, most growth models break down growth into three parts which are modeled separately. These are Employment growth, Capital Stock growth and Total-Factor Productivity growth. The first two are self-explanatory, of course. Total-Factor Productivity (TFP) growth is basically the increases that happen “on their own”. That is, they aren’t a result of increased direct investment in industry and such. Rather, TFP growth is caused by things like higher education levels, better infrastructure and increased use of technology.

    The the CD (Cobb-Douglass) functional form of production functions, for example is a simplistic formula to measure output, and it says

    Output, Y is given by Y=A * (K^alpha) * (L^beta)

    Here, A = TFP growth
    K = Capital inflow
    L = Labour input

    alpah and beta are exponents which represent the share of input from K and L, respectively.
    The TFP growth is independent of these things and causes the maximum increases for a given value increase because alpha and beta are both smaller than one ( in fact, they add up to 1 over the long term).

    The CD equation in it’s original form isn’t used that much today because it’s not VERY accurate but modern models are based on similar (albeit much refined) principles. Changes are made to the variables such that the basic skeleton remains the same but accuracy increases dramatically as micro-factors are taken into account

    TFP growth is overwhelmingly likely to occur in countries like India and China and is in fact occuring as of now on a massive scale, as they pump several trillion dollars into infrastructure, health and education.

    Radically different projection methodologies to the GSDEEMER (like the LR econometric model) predict very similar results.

    Projections are also cross checked by applying them to countries from the 1960s onwards and they’ve been broadly accurate.

    It’s much, much more than a hypothesis. UNLESS something goes drastically wrong, the BRIC nations don’t have to create economic miracles. They just have to keep going the way they are and not make any major detrimental changes in economic policy. More liberal economic policies and such will go a long way. It’s not that hard and with development being a national priority, it’s a bit foolish to assume that they’ll deliberately commit economic suicide.

    So there you go, that’s the lowdown on it, from what I know of the subject.

  64. theantibogan says:
    “So it’s okay for a teacher to call a student a dumb shit?”

    If the teacher is willing to risk this becoming common knowledge in their community (which it will) and the possible negative consequences (which could involve anything, up to and including being murdered).

    Ben says: “He believes in the abolition of accountability.”
    Obviously you’re unfamiliar with the term ‘consequences’. Borrow Daddy’s dictionary again.

    theantibogan says: “Then I guess he won’t mind if I publish his home address and phone number.”

    I was wondering when the threats of personal violence would begin.

    Natasha says: “So the article talks about abrupt changes that might happen in 2010.”

    Well, check your calendar, the year’s not over.
    Did I mention global warming? I said ‘climate change’ which can be both gradual or sudden.
    The year is an estimate. Similar events might happen in 2011, 2012, 2013.
    What the article is saying is such events (whenever they occur) will lead to wars over resources.
    Even without sudden climate disasters, there are all sorts of other events that could create similar problems, but of course you see only sunshine and lollipops on the horizon.

    “The Asian century isn’t a hypothetical prediction that may/may not happen.
    There’s a definite prediction being made here.”

    The future hasn’t happend yet, Natasha.
    *Any* statements about the future, however probable, are not *facts*.

    “Do you notice any significant authoritarian church like restrictions on liberty?”

    Yes, the ones we’ve been discussing.
    They don’t have to be *restrictions* either, but authoritarian compulsions (compulsory helmets for example or mandatory ‘green’ building codes for new construction) or even ‘rights’ *granted* against the will of the people (euthanasia, gay marriage).

    The point is that progressives think they already know what’s right/wrong/true/false so no debate is required and ‘the people’ are irrelevant. They will make their laws and regulations, whether you like it or not. If that isn’t ‘authoritarian’ I don’t know what is.

    “If you really want to go out today and call on people to murder immigrants.”

    Wow, you wouldn’t want to go overboard now would you?
    Saying people have the right to speak doesn’t mean you *agree* with what they say.
    I thought this issue had been resolved in the 18th century!

    “A modern, free, globally integrated market has existed in Brazil only for a short while.
    Brazil is an emerging market.”

    Oh, don’t give that world trade only started on Monday at 7.00am crap.
    Brazil could have been trading with *any country on Earth* for the last 2 centuries if it wanted to.

    India suffering an internal disaster would hardly cause a worldwide ‘doomsday’.

    “China is Brazil’s biggest trading partner”
    And who does China trade with?
    You said it yourself, the whole world is economically interconnected, but the whole shebang *depends* on the rich Western countries staying rich, which requires political stabilty. If anything happens to the West, the whole house of cards starts to fall.

    “This is popularly called the law of diminishing returns.”
    So that growth you forecast won’t last forever.

    There’ll be sunshine and lollipops “UNLESS something goes drastically wrong”.
    Exactly.
    And that’s never ever happened before. And never will.

    • “Ben says: “He believes in the abolition of accountability.”
      Obviously you’re unfamiliar with the term ‘consequences’. Borrow Daddy’s dictionary again.”

      Haha… don’t make me get sick into my own scorn. One day you’ll say something of a white supremacist nature to the wrong person. The consequences of your actions will then surely bite you up the arse.

    • “If the teacher is willing to risk this becoming common knowledge in their community (which it will) and the possible negative consequences (which could involve anything, up to and including being murdered).

      Oh yes, let’s do away with the police and laws. No one would rape, mug, cheat or murder anyone either as they’d have to risk it becoming common knowledge in the community and the possible consequences (up to and including murder)

      “The future hasn’t happend yet, Natasha.
      *Any* statements about the future, however probable, are not *facts*.”

      Then you might want to rethink putting your money on a hypothetical food war which may happen because there may be abrupt climate change which may happen in the coming years which may cause widespread food insecurity which may destroy the Asian economies because they may be dependent on the western economies……

      “I said ‘climate change’ which can be both gradual or sudden.”

      I don’t care what YOU said. As far as I know, you don’t have a background in climate research. We’re talking about what the article said. It says abrupt change, . Not “climate change which can be gradual or sudden”. You can’t twist words around in order to fit your theories.

      This is what your article says:
      “The result is an unclassified report, completed late last year, that the Pentagon has agreed to share with FORTUNE. It doesn’t pretend to be a forecast. Rather, it sketches a dramatic but plausible scenario to help planners think about coping strategies.

      “Brazil could have been trading with *any country on Earth* for the last 2 centuries if it wanted to.”

      Once again you showcase your ignorance. World markets have only been truly free to non-European nations since the 1950s or so. Before that, vast markets in Asia and Africa were colonies of European nations and isolated under massive tariff barriers. The USA and Europe itself had heavy tariff barriers. Protectionism was the norm.
      Britain, of course could practice “laissez-faire” doctrines within the commonwealth.

      “Did I mention global warming? I said ‘climate change’ which can be both gradual or sudden.
      The year is an estimate. Similar events might happen in 2011, 2012, 2013.
      What the article is saying is such events (whenever they occur) will lead to wars over resources.
      Even without sudden climate disasters, there are all sorts of other events that could create similar problems, but of course you see only sunshine and lollipops on the horizon.”

      Sure. A meteorite could hit us the next moment. Let’s put that on the same pedestal as a mathematical prediction, why not? ALL predictions are just hypotheses. Population projections are just hypotheses too, right? There could be a deadly virus, for example, that kills half the world. Let’s stop planning, shall we?

      Otherwise, we shall be guilty of seeing only sunshine and lollipops. Shocky has said so and therefore it is so.

      “India suffering an internal disaster would hardly cause a worldwide ‘doomsday’.”

      The entire nation? Unfortunately for your theory, disasters don’t recognize international boundaries. India is 2.4% of the world’s landmass. A natural disaster big enough to hit 2.4% of the world’s landmass would have to be very, very large indeed.

      Smaller scale internal ‘disasters’ occur quite a bit. India isn’t a pristine land unused to earthquakes and floods.

      ” even ‘rights’ *granted* against the will of the people (euthanasia, gay marriage).”
      So once again, you claim to speak for the will of the people. A bit presumptuous of you, don’t you think?

      “Wow, you wouldn’t want to go overboard now would you?
      Saying people have the right to speak doesn’t mean you *agree* with what they say.”

      By YOU, I don’t mean you, shockadelic, personally. It’s a general reference to any person.

      “The point is that progressives think they already know what’s right/wrong/true/false so no debate is required and ‘the people’ are irrelevant. They will make their laws and regulations, whether you like it or not. If that isn’t ‘authoritarian’ I don’t know what is.”

      Yeeah, well if you disagree with them, you’re allowed to vote against them. Since most people in your country did not, in fact, do that (considering that these guys are still in power), we have to presume that most people agree with most of the government’s stands. You have no right to overrule so many millions even if you think your ideas are better. That’s called democracy, not authoritarianism.

      “So that growth you forecast won’t last forever.”
      Of course not. The BRICs are growing fast right now only because they’re very far from the dynamic equilibrium which their population and economic potential affords them. As they reach closer to the equilibrium, the rate will slow. As the Growth never lasts forever.
      Countries like Germany and Japan grew at breakneck speed throughout the 1970s, for example (though not as fast as China) before moderating to a more sustainable rate of growth.

      Average growth rates of >6-7% don’t tend to be sustainable over the long run (50 years+).

      “And who does China trade with?
      You said it yourself, the whole world is economically interconnected, but the whole shebang *depends* on the rich Western countries staying rich, which requires political stabilty. If anything happens to the West, the whole house of cards starts to fall.”

      Nope. China has been steadily shifting it’s economic focus to it’s domestic economy (see the article which I provided about China). It’s neither a house of cards, nor does it necessarily *depend* on Western countries staying rich (which they’re highly likely to stay, by the way, in per capita terms). China isn’t the only partner. Trading partners can be changed in a matter of a few years.
      Political instability will have detrimental effects of course but those 3 billion BRIC citizens who now live in free markets will still drive demand and countries that can whet this appetite will profit. China is already the world’s biggest market for cars, internet and luxury goods. This despite being currently a low income nation.

      India is a highly diversified economy. Events such as the asian currency crisis, the dotcom bust and rising oil prices have had no significant impact on it’s growth;. The worldwide recession (which caused a near freeze on as western lending) reduced India and China’s growth but the effect was minuscule. They still grew at 7.8% and 10.3% respectively in 2009.

      “Exactly.
      And that’s never ever happened before. And never will.”

      No it hasn’t.
      Economic predictions (like successive recessions and depressions which were predicted beforehand as well as economic miracles like South Korea, Japan and Germany) do tend to come true. That’s because they aren’t based on things like public opinion and such, which are fickle at best. These are instead based on solid data, like consumption patterns and centuries of knowledge about how they change.

    • Shonky, you may think that the student gets one back on the teacher who calls him a dumb shit by letting down the teacher’s tyres, or allowing the community to ‘judge’ him/her, that is, if the community is even finds out about it. But what of the student, who has copped the abuse, and is not mentally developed enough to deal with this kind of criticism from someone supposedly in a position of trust? And keeping that in mind, how easy is it to take such harsh criticism from anyone without getting at least slightly hurt by it?

      Discrimination may not physically injure a person, but don’t downplay its ability to leave life long scars. Take a look at the level of abuse featured on the walls of this website on people based purely on their appearance or country of origin/religion. Not everyone has thick skin. Reading those kind of comments will be psychologically damaging for a LOT of people.

  65. Ben says: “One day you’ll say something of a white supremacist nature to the wrong person. The consequences of your actions will then surely bite you up the arse.”

    Wiki: “White supremacy is the belief, and promotion of the belief, that white people are superior to people of other racial backgrounds.”

    That’s it. It doesn’t have to involve any *particular* policy or practice.
    I don’t even know if that term is even appropriate in my case.

    Negroids are certainly superior in activities of a physical nature (I think the best thing America could do is train all those ghetto pimps to be soldiers).
    They lack in the intellectual department, having the smallest brains.
    Their physicality and impulsiveness can lead to fun things like Mardi Gras and P-Funk, but it can also lead to violence and social instability.

    Mongoloids have the biggest brains and consequently are very ‘cerebral’, so they make great scientists and are generally typical ‘good citizens’.
    But their intelligence seems mostly *imitative*, rather than generative. They make great students because they learn by rote.
    They adopt *other* people’s ideas effectively (transistors, assembly lines, cartoons/comics) but they are too passive/compliant to be real movers/shakers. That’s why they didn’t colonise the world, too risky, too unfamiliar.
    All their philosophical beliefs follow this pattern of obedience to authority, doing things the ‘correct’ way, going with the flow.

    White people aren’t so much ‘superior’ as more *balanced* between the body and the brain. It’s this balanced nature that has led to our success.

    No amount of help or interaction will compensate the other races for their particular biases.
    So they will always have some difficulty living in a civilisation made by ‘balanced’ Whites *for* balanced Whites. Their own societies were created by them, for their own kind.

    I am also a *realist*, not a utopian like you.
    I accept that the events of past centuries leave a *legacy* which can never be undone.
    This is why I find it so ridiculous that people are *still* arguing today for the artificial mixing together of different peoples, after all the troubles that we’ve seen from the past.

    Natasha says: “Oh yes, let’s do away with the police and laws.”

    You still don’t get it.
    I’m not condoning or approving violence, and actual violence should be and *always was* against the law.
    We are talking about words.
    And yes smartypants the vigilante who kills the teacher might themselves be killed. Consequences within the law, consequences outside it. Either way: consequences, baby!

    “It says abrupt change. Not “climate change which can be gradual or sudden”. You can’t twist words around in order to fit your theories.”

    *I* never said anything about ‘gradual’ change, so why are you defining what *I* said that way?
    The changes described in the article are not ‘global warming’ (*your* attempt to twist my words) but changes in climate (i.e. climate change!). You’re the one twisting words to suit yourself.

    Yes, it’s a hypothesis, a ‘plausible scenario’. Every prediction about the future is! God, can we get over this!
    You’re like a 5-year old. “Don’t touch the stove, Natasha. No, don’t. I said don’t touch it. No, don’t. Natasha!!”

    Brazil could trade with any country by diplomatic agreements. Those agreements may not have been perfect or ‘fair’, but they could still trade if they wanted to (and had anything worth selling?).

    “Sure. A meteorite could hit us the next moment.”
    Yes, it could and I hope it lands on your house.

    “Let’s put that on the same pedestal as a mathematical prediction, why not?”

    God, this is tedious! Mathematical ‘predictions’ in the messy human world?
    We’re not robots. Any ‘mathematical’ prediction is based on *past* events and circumstances.
    Perhaps you’ve heard the term ‘sensitive dependence on initial conditions’?
    Today’s conditions are not yesterday’s. Tomorrow’s are not today’s. We can plan, but stop thinking you’re dealing with *facts*, because you’re not.

    “ALL predictions are just hypotheses.”
    Isn’t that what I’ve been saying over and over and over and over?

    “India suffering an internal disaster would hardly cause a worldwide ‘doomsday’.”
    “The entire nation?”

    Did I say ‘the entire nation’? Industries are not spread evenly over the whole country. A particularly important industry might be concentrated in just one or two cities. Something destroys those cities and it doesn’t matter whether the rest of India is unaffected.

    “You’re allowed to vote against them. Since most people did not, we have to presume that most people agree with most of the government’s stands.”

    And the last 40 years of indoctrination-from-birth with the True Faith by the media and education system wouldn’t have had *any* effect on people’s ability to critique their policies.

    You don’t seem to understand the difference between ‘progressives’ and genuine ‘liberals’.
    Progressives use the *language* and symbols of liberalism, so they *sound* good to the ear. Oh yes, freedom, that’s a good thing.
    What they don’t say openly is that they don’t actually care for your personal ‘freedom’, they care that *they are right* and they will get their way. It’s about power, not lovey-doveyness.

    There is a big difference to say, for example “People would benefit from wearing helmets” and saying “People *must* wear helmets or else.” Big difference.
    A gun-to-the-head mentality (of course, *they* don’t want anyone to have real guns, so *new laws* must be introduced to curb that).

    “Nope. China has been steadily shifting it’s economic focus to it’s domestic economy”.

    Good, China and India can stare at their navels.
    If everyone else is going to be doing that, why can’t we?
    Why do we have to be ‘globalised’ to death while BRIC feathers its own nest?

    “Why draw an arbitrary line at teachers?”
    I didn’t. I responded to *all* the scenarios mentioned by antibogan. There is no line to consequences. Everything effects everything else. Six Degrees of Consequences.

    theantibogan says: “But what of the student, who has copped the abuse. How easy is it to take such harsh criticism from anyone without getting at least slightly hurt by it? Life long scars.”

    Oh, boo hoo. We must makes *laws* to make sure nobody ever has their feelings hurt. Wha-wha-wha.
    Scars heal. Life’s tough, kid. What doesn’t kill ya makes ya stronger. To gain immunity you must be exposed to the pathogen.

    • *Yawn* yet more crap from Shonk.

      Those “racial” categories are no longer used by serious scientists because they do not reflect the reality of modern genetic research.

      They are still used however by white supremacists in their pseudo-scientific diatribes.

      The personality characteristics of normal humans are almost entirely due to environment, culture, education and parental influences. Nothing to do with superficialities like skin colour, hair colour and texture or eye colour.

      Otherwise Barack Obama would have by your thesis been a track star – he wasn’t.

    • ” I think the best thing America could do is train all those ghetto pimps to be soldiers”

      Nice one, Mr liberty lover.

      ” That’s why they didn’t colonise the world, too risky, too unfamiliar.
      All their philosophical beliefs follow this pattern of obedience to authority, doing things the ‘correct’ way, going with the flow.”

      So why are you and Scott now worried that they’re trying to take over the world?

      “You still don’t get it.
      I’m not condoning or approving violence, and actual violence should be and *always was* against the law.
      We are talking about words.
      And yes smartypants the vigilante who kills the teacher might themselves be killed. Consequences within the law, consequences outside it. Either way: consequences, baby!”

      YOU don’t get it. Why draw a line at *talking*? What’s so special about talking that exempts it from laws under the guise of your “liberty”? Talking is an *action* (asterisks for emphasis), which can cause very real harm. What do I have to do to drill that into your thick skull? I’ve been trying to make that point over and over again. And now you’re accusing me of “not getting it”.

      “Brazil could trade with any country by diplomatic agreements. Those agreements may not have been perfect or ‘fair’, but they could still trade if they wanted to (and had anything worth selling?).”

      Do you or do you not understand the term “protectionism”?
      Coffee was about the only thing that Brazil was allowed to trade between 1822 and 1930.
      Pushing diplomatic agreements detrimental to a foreign country’s interests requires some sort of economic or military “sword over the head”.

      The Brits would just *love* to hand out their captive markets on a platter, wouldn’t they?

      “God, this is tedious! Mathematical ‘predictions’ in the messy human world?
      We’re not robots. Any ‘mathematical’ prediction is based on *past* events and circumstances.
      Perhaps you’ve heard the term ‘sensitive dependence on initial conditions’?
      Today’s conditions are not yesterday’s. Tomorrow’s are not today’s. We can plan, but stop thinking you’re dealing with *facts*, because you’re not.”

      We’re not fucking talking sociology, you moron. “Humans aren’t robots”, yes I know! I have an IQ of fucking 137, I think I can gather that much.
      All predictions aren’t equally likely, that’s what I’m trying to tell you. They’re not *facts*. But it’s a *fact* that these events are extremely likely.
      Much more likely than your absurd 2020 apocalypse.

      “And the last 40 years of indoctrination-from-birth with the True Faith by the media and education system wouldn’t have had *any* effect on people’s ability to critique their policies.”

      Oh please, give a fucking break, will you? What do you want schools to teach? “Whites are superior, feel superior”. “Multiculturalism is bad, don’t do it”. “Being homosexual is a sin, a bad choice that you make”. Why should schools teach what you’d like them to?

      Now you claim that people don’t like your brand of politics because they’re indoctrinated against it. Well, it doesn’t surprise me. Extremists of all kinds love that argument.
      “If you don’t agree with me, you’re naive and indoctrinated.”

      “Good, China and India can stare at their navels.
      If everyone else is going to be doing that, why can’t we?
      Why do we have to be ‘globalised’ to death while BRIC feathers its own nest?”

      Because complete economic protectionism never works unless you’re an imperialistic nation. Never. Ever. Not a single example of it’s working in world history. You’re free to try – if you want to be North Korea.

      China is “feathering it’s nest” only because it’s overexposed to the global economy. Australia is not (which is why it escaped major damage through the recession).

      It’s a globalized economy which made your country rich in the first place.

      “Did I say ‘the entire nation’? Industries are not spread evenly over the whole country. A particularly important industry might be concentrated in just one or two cities. Something destroys those cities and it doesn’t matter whether the rest of India is unaffected.”

      And temporary or even permanent destruction of particularly important industry destroys the economy? This isn’t exactly the Equatoguinean economy we’re talking about. Large economies don’t *have* particular industries on which the entire nation’s economic stability rests. This is at least in part because government economists consider such a thing to be anathema and try to avoid it at all costs.

      “Yes, it could and I hope it lands on your house.”

      Fat chance, sweetheart.

      “We must makes *laws* to make sure nobody ever has their feelings hurt.”

      Kids aren’t the same as adults, you idiot.
      I think it’s generally recognized that young children are a lot more vulnerable to psychological damage than adults.

      Adults are mature enough to take criticism (mostly).
      With kids, vicious criticism from people in power can cause lasting psychological damage and complexes.
      Such scars don’t always heal.

      It’s assholes like you who cause gay suicides and such. Because of “tough guy” nonsense such as this:

      “Scars heal. Life’s tough, kid. What doesn’t kill ya makes ya stronger. To gain immunity you must be exposed to the pathogen.”

      Does that make it acceptable? Life’s tough, that’s true. That doesn’t mean you have the right to make it tougher for someone else. Or to psychologically cripple them.
      Keep your toughness confined to adults, not ten year old schoolchildren.

    • “theantibogan says: “But what of the student, who has copped the abuse. How easy is it to take such harsh criticism from anyone without getting at least slightly hurt by it? Life long scars.”

      Oh, boo hoo. We must makes *laws* to make sure nobody ever has their feelings hurt. Wha-wha-wha.
      Scars heal. Life’s tough, kid. What doesn’t kill ya makes ya stronger. To gain immunity you must be exposed to the pathogen.”

      Oh this is rich! Where do you draw the line? Ok, let’s pretend you have a daughter, Shonky. Let’s pretend you found someone stupid enough to procreate with you. Let’s stand her in the middle of the SFS for half an hour while you’re away in Thailand trying to pay for some ladyboy sex. While your daughter stands there, let’s have 40,000 people chanting ‘You’re a fat ugly bitch with no future’.

      Cool with that? What doesn’t kill ya makes ya stronger, right?

      I’m certainly looking forward to discussing your next theory on freedom of speech after we finish with this one.

  66. Again, good on you Shockadelic.

    It’s also staggering how much liberals/leftists/multicultists/whatever will NOT listen to reason, will steadfastly IGNORE the truth, pay no attention to facts, obstinately fail to be consistent, and brazenly deny the negative affects of what is going on!

    Natasha, Australia protected itself, and Australians themselves, so very well for so long…that is WHY we were at such a high position, such a good place…it is sheer insanity or malicious intent for anyone to forsake that now!

    • “…will steadfastly IGNORE the truth, pay no attention to facts…”

      What FACTS have you given other than your OPINION?
      What TRUTHS have you PROVEN using more than just your OPINION?

      LIST THEM IN BULLET POINT FORMAT. FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT IN YOUR BANNING FROM THIS FORUM.

      “…brazenly deny the negative affects of what is going on…”

      LIST these NEGATIVE AFFECTS IN BULLET POINT FORMAT. FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT IN YOUR BANNING FROM THIS FORUM.

      * You must be careful to differentiate between proven and supported fact, and your opinion.

      Consider this ultimatum to be called The Melton Meltdown.

  67. theantibogan, you’re presenting a hypthetical situation that is utterly ridiculous and pretending like this some clever, legitimate argument.

    By the SFS, I presume you mean the Sydney Football Stadium?
    If you expect me to take this scenario seriously, please explain:
    Why are there 40,000 people there?
    Why is my daughter the target of their hostility?
    Why can’t she leave? Why would she stay?
    Why are the event organiser’s allowing this to go on for half an hour?

    Having free speech doesn’t mean people can say anything and you *can’t respond* or act. Yes, you can respond or act. You are not without any power to do anything about it.
    My daughter can act.
    The other crowd members can act.
    The event managers can act.
    They are not powerless.

    Discussing hypotheses and imagined scenarios is fine to illustrate points, but the scenario has to be realistic, not something that would *never* happen.
    You could use a ludicrously unrealistic hypothesis to negate *anything*.
    Let’s talk about issues as they exist in the *real world*?
    Oh, I forgot who I was talking to.

    • I’m interested to know where you draw the line on verbal morality.

      I’ll change the variables for you as you’re incapable of addressing the underlying question, which has nothing to do with your daughter.

      Your daughter is walking home. It’s a 20 minute walk. While she’s walking home she is harassed by a group of 5 male teenagers who call her a fat ugly shit and threaten to fuck her in the mouth. They follow her for the full 20 minutes. She hurries past a police officer and calls out for help, but the teens are not breaking any laws. She hurries past a few onlookers, and one of them tells the teens to stop. The teens tell the onlooker to go fuck a sheep. The onlooker throws a punch and floors one of the teens. The onlooker is charged with assault. Your daughter endures 20 minutes of absolute terror which psychologically scars her for life and makes relationships with males frightening at best. The teens have broken no laws.

      What say you?

  68. Scotty and Shocky

    In principle you are scared little insignificunts who run around being terrified of paper tigers.

    You are like a brain-fucked LSD junky that’s taken one tab to many and is now quivering under a blanket in the corner of a room and crying inconsolably at the big scary flying purple lions circling your house.

    Show me one single fucking example of someone (not you) being negatively affected let alone mauled by these lions and I may treat you with a little less contempt than you have earned from your ridiculous rants. By the way – this is an analogy in case you fucktards didn’t realise it.

    Sources cited:

    Scott: 0
    Shocky: 1 – an article from CNNMoney 2004 which speculates about the future.
    TAB & Natasha: too many for me to waste my time counting.

    The difference between those who respond and you two little fuckers is that we aren’t scared, terrified little weasels.

    Give me proof that I should be even slightly alarmed I fucking dare you!

    PROOF:

    proof (prf) n.

    1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

    2. a. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
    b. A statement or argument used in such a validation.

    3. a. Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.
    b. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.

    4. Determination of the quality of something by testing; trial: put one’s beliefs to the proof.

    5. Law The result or effect of evidence; the establishment or denial of a fact by evidence.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proof

    You live in fear based on your ridiculous sweeping generalisations that have no grounding in reality.

    You are pathetic.

    This is not a generalisation – you may want to Google ‘generalisation’- this is directed specifically at you two blowjobs based on all the effluent that oozes out from the faecal matter that is your brains and contaminates this site.

  69. Hey Blowjob! Yeah you Shocktard!

    I now believe you because you use *asterisks* – that is the most fucking phenomenal form of argument I have ever seen!!!

    How could I have been so niaive as to miss that previously?!?!?

    Next time I’m in court I’m going to say to the magistrate:

    “Your honour, the defendent is clearly guilty *because* *I* *said* *so*!”

    …And the magistrate will say: “Guilty as charged!”

    Proof delivered – thanks for doing that for me Shockafuckwit! I am now convinced!

    Oooooh… “the history of the world”… ooooh you are so fucking impressive with your amazing knowledge of BECAUSE YOU SAID SO….

    Okay smelly infested enema – tell me where you got this information from? I am soooo very interested to find out… *very* *very* *interested* – go on – anyone else supporting you on this one? … anyone?… hello?… anyone out there?….hello?

    Yet again you get a big fucking ‘F’ – for the failure that you are.

    Follow my instructions Mr I-rely-on-one-article-from-2004 next time, if you are actually intellectually capable of this… Sorry – bit much to ask for a nematode like you… re-read that little bit I wrote about “Proof” again… then when you are done – read it a-fucking-gain – then read it once more… then go sit on the toilet for a while – perhaps jerk off – and then read it once more… okay got it now?

    Until you give me any proof whatsoever I actually don’t give a shit what you are saying – I have flushed things that are more intellectually stimulating down my toilet than anything you have said so far.

    *LET* *ME* *SPELL* *IT* *OUT* *TO* *YOU* *ONE* *MORE* *TIME*

    *PROOF* *SUBSTANTIATION* *VERIFY* *FUCKING GIVE ME ONE EXAMPLE BEYOND YOUR RANDOM CONTAMINATED CONJECTURE*

    By-the-way I want to get this into your thick thick skull – I never claimed that I was being scientific – I was saying with absolute conviction and an entire website littered with evidence that you were NOT. Big difference there you infested ingrown anal hair – think about it…

    …okay – you can go back to quivering under your blanket you scared little maggot-infested turd… the purple flying lions are invading and we’re all going to die…

  70. It was really enjoyable to see Anderson Cooper kick Clint MCanse’s arse on TV. A well deserved arse kicking if ever there was one!

  71. Terror AUSTRALIS!!!

    Whatever.

    “tell me where you got this information from?”

    What information, moron?
    That the history of the world is a history of various peoples with various cultures?
    This information has been hidden from you, has it? Did your parents lock you in a basement until you turned 23?

    Ok, smartypants, cite me an academic reference that *proves* “the history of the world” is the history of a *singular, undifferentiated people* with no subdivisions at all.

    Antibogan, about your hypothesis, there’s a few more things I thought of.

    First, you didn’t mention what age my daughter is. Was she 5, 13, 27? This would alter the scenario substantially.

    Second, the policeman can act, even if no laws have been broken *yet*. The boys were behaving in a threatening manner, and the policeman may intervene to prevent the situation *escalating*.

    He *can* act. He could put my daughter in his car and take her home, or take her to his police station and call me to pick her up.

    Third, this scenario is about speech directed at a particular individual, which is totally different to the issue we were discussing: the expression of opinions about general topics like immigration, homosexuality or Islam.

    Yes, there are individuals who are immigrants, homosexuals and Muslims, but an impersonal generalisation is not a comment *directed* at them *personally*.

    There’s a big difference between typing “I hate Muslims!” on a blog, and walking up to someone woman in a burqa, sitting at a bus stop and screaming in *her* face “I hate Muslims!”.
    Even current laws would recognise the difference.

    I do not necessarily object to punishing *seriously insulting and/or threatening* speech, if it’s directed at a specific person or persons, but not if it’s some impersonal general statement.

    Fourth, laws don’t prevent crime.
    Even if you had the most stringent speech restriction laws imaginable, those boys had *already* abused my daughter *before* she met the policeman.
    The “scars” had already been inflicted.

    All the law can do is punish *afterwards*.
    If laws actually prevented crime, there’d be nobody in prison.
    When creating laws, the point isn’t what do we want to prevent (because they won’t prevent anything), the question is: What is so serious that we consider it worth *punishing*.

    • Hello again *ASTERISK MAN*!

      You had me at: “Whatever.”

      Argument concluded – signed, sealed and delivered again from you in no uncertain terms! Well done!

      “What information, moron?
      That the history of the world is a history of various peoples with various cultures?
      This information has been hidden from you, has it? Did your parents lock you in a basement until you turned 23?”

      Yeah mate – THAT information! The bit where you tell me that this actually makes any difference to a cohesive multicultural society now… Go on then…

      “Ok, smartypants, cite me an academic reference that *proves* “the history of the world” is the history of a *singular, undifferentiated people* with no subdivisions at all.”

      *NO* *NEED* *TO* – tut tut tut – try not to miss the point scaredy cat – I am actually okay with the world I live in – you’re the terrified one who claims that cultural differences are tearing us apart – you’re the one who believes that “whites” are superior – go on then – *prove* *it*!

      “Antibogan, about your hypothesis, there’s a few more things I thought of.

      “First, you didn’t mention what age my daughter is. Was she 5, 13, 27? This would alter the scenario substantially.”

      How? Pray do tell!

      “Second, the policeman can act, even if no laws have been broken *yet*. The boys were behaving in a threatening manner, and the policeman may intervene to prevent the situation *escalating*.”

      Under what law or statute? Pray do tell!

      “He *can* act. He could put my daughter in his car and take her home, or take her to his police station and call me to pick her up.”

      Hey SHOCKY – How about we keep adding random bits of crap to this hypothesis without addressing the underlying theme?

      What if the policeman is infact asleep from eating too many doughnuts and your daughter cannot wake him? What if due to underfunding the policestation is unmanned as all officers are out on patrol? What if a small meteor has just hit the policeman’s garage and destroyed his entire model plane collection and he is inconsolable….

      You understanding how off topic you are yet?

      “Third, this scenario is about speech directed at a particular individual, which is totally different to the issue we were discussing: the expression of opinions about general topics like immigration, homosexuality or Islam.”

      Yeah – sweeping generalisations targeting groups of people are sooooo much better than individual attacks.

      “Yes, there are individuals who are immigrants, homosexuals and Muslims, but an impersonal generalisation is not a comment *directed* at them *personally*.”

      No of course not, I totally agree with you that this is totally acceptable even though you are a fucking poofter and you poofs are all disgusting abominations.

      “There’s a big difference between typing “I hate Muslims!” on a blog, and walking up to someone woman in a burqa, sitting at a bus stop and screaming in *her* face “I hate Muslims!”.”

      I hate smelly arsebandits! All of them – not you Shockadelic – I think you are an individual Admiral of the Windward Passage.

      Yeah – it’s totally acceptable to target a group rather than an individual – changes the message altogether! Why didn’t I think of that?!?!

      “Even current laws would recognise the difference.”

      Yeah – the following law is pretty ambigious:

      Commonwealth Crimes Act Amendment (Incitement to violence) 2005 Bill:

      ……57) Reason for doing an act

      If:

      (a) an act is done for 2 or more reasons;

      (b) one of the reasons is the race, colour, religion, or national or ethnic origin of a person; and

      (c) that reason is a substantial reason (whether or not it is the dominant reason) for doing the act;

      then, for the purposes of this Part, the act is taken to be done because of the person’s race, colour, religion or national or ethnic origin.

      58 Threats to cause physical harm because of race, colour, or national or ethnic origin prohibited

      A person must not threaten to cause physical harm to another person or a group because of the race, colour, or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

      Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

      59 Threats to cause physical harm because of religion prohibited

      A person must not threaten to cause physical harm to another person or a group because of the religion of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

      Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

      60 Threats to property because of race, colour, or national or ethnic origin prohibited

      A person must not threaten to destroy or damage property (other than property belonging to the person) because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of any other person or any group of persons.

      Penalty: Imprisonment for 1 year.

      61 Threats to property because of religion prohibited

      A person must not threaten to destroy or damage property (other than property belonging to the person) because of the religion of any other person or any group of persons.

      Penalty: Imprisonment for 1 year.

      62 Incitement to commit violence or damage property because of race, colour, or national or ethnic origin prohibited

      (1) A person must not, with the intention of inciting violence against another person or a group of people, or with the intention of inciting damage to property, do an act, otherwise than in private, if the act is:

      (a) reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to incite violence against the other person or group of people; or damage to property, and

      (b) done because of the race, colour, or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

      Penalty: Imprisonment for 1 year.

      (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in private if it:

      (a) causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or

      (b) is done in a public place; or

      (c) is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place
      . (3) In this section:

      ‘communicated to the public’ includes, but is not limited to, making words, sounds, images or writing available to be accessed on the internet; and

      ‘public place’ includes any place to which the public have access as a right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place.

      “I do not necessarily object to punishing *seriously insulting and/or threatening* speech, if it’s directed at a specific person or persons, but not if it’s some impersonal general statement.”

      This is because you are from a group of fuckwit inbred cumsuckers and not an individual one.

      “Fourth, laws don’t prevent crime.
      Even if you had the most stringent speech restriction laws imaginable, those boys had *already* abused my daughter *before* she met the policeman.
      The “scars” had already been inflicted.

      All the law can do is punish *afterwards*.
      If laws actually prevented crime, there’d be nobody in prison.
      When creating laws, the point isn’t what do we want to prevent (because they won’t prevent anything), the question is: What is so serious that we consider it worth *punishing*.”

      Ah – true – hard facts clearly show that a society without a police or justice system have exactly the same incidents of crime as societies without them. Wasting tax-payers money on law enforcement and a criminal justice system is simply a techique for politicians to remain in power by not spending on education or health.

      You got this from your imaginary sources again didn’t you?

    • “…will steadfastly IGNORE the truth, pay no attention to facts…”

      What FACTS have you given other than your OPINION?
      What TRUTHS have you PROVEN using more than just your OPINION?

      LIST THEM IN BULLET POINT FORMAT. FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT IN YOUR BANNING FROM THIS FORUM.

      “…brazenly deny the negative affects of what is going on…”

      LIST these NEGATIVE AFFECTS IN BULLET POINT FORMAT. FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT IN YOUR BANNING FROM THIS FORUM.

      * You must be careful to differentiate between proven and supported fact, and your opinion.

      Consider this ultimatum to be called The Melton Meltdown.

      ___________________________________

      The most offensive and incomprehensible thing about your aimlessly meandering rants is that you CONSTANTLY refer to how you speak the truth, and how you offer facts. If you admitted that everything you said is what you believe (opinion), and nothing more, then nobody would bother asking for evidence from you.

      We disagree with you because we are aware of facts, statistics, research data and support that opposes your position. If you want to keep this as a debate that doesn’t take low shots at the fact that you’re a total fuck-up loser who has never achieved anything, then stick to FACTS. That way the debate will be our facts and statistics and data versus yours.

      If you enter the debate and say that you only want Australia to stay white because you just don’t like non-whites, that is an opinion you are entitled to, and an opinion we can accept. We don’t like it, but at least there’s nothing to debate – you’re just a racist. But you never say that you don’t like non-whites. You say that you have no problem with them but they should stay out simply because they don’t deserve to be here. Then you make up facts.

      There’s a problem with that, many in fact. And the longer you keep avoiding the ultimatum the longer your posts will be simply deleted. You waste a fuckload of time writing them, but luckily you’ve got little else to do.

  72. Who are you to make ultimatums?
    Really?

    You deny Australia’s right to exist as a sovereign nation, deny it’s legality, you deny the Australian’s right to preserve their identity and progress intact, you deny the right of Australian’s to oppose, and even more to end, immigration into our country…you mock, ridicule, insult, and defame Australians that speak up against their impending racial and social destruction…you ignore history…deny truth…AND then presume to dictate ultimatums???

    • I dictate ultimatums because you clog up my forum with your SHIT. I will ban your sorry arse if you’re unable to answer my extremely simple request.

      ________

      “…will steadfastly IGNORE the truth, pay no attention to facts…”

      What FACTS have you given other than your OPINION?
      What TRUTHS have you PROVEN using more than just your OPINION?

      LIST THEM IN BULLET POINT FORMAT. FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT IN YOUR BANNING FROM THIS FORUM.

      “…brazenly deny the negative affects of what is going on…”

      LIST these NEGATIVE AFFECTS IN BULLET POINT FORMAT. FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT IN YOUR BANNING FROM THIS FORUM.

    • I’m not even going to read this one Scott.

      I want peer reviewed articles from credible sources and not opinion blogs like you keep digging up.

      Go ahead punk – make my ***comment deleted due to failure to adhere to ultimatum ‘Melton Meltdown’***

    • Not only is Snott a fuckwit, he is also a fuckwit Nazi. Maybe I should just forward his details to AJAIC.

      No wonder he can’t get a girlfriend. Even the dimmest bogan chick would run for miles away from him.

      Time for this dude

  73. Let’s start the ball rolling shall we Scott:

    http://www.acmro.catholic.org.au/docs/one_in_christ/a_benjamin_chow.pdf

    http://www.multiculturalaustralia.edu.au/doc/jayasuriya_2.pdf

    http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/multicultural/issues97/macpape5.htm

    http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/australia-state-of-fear/2006/01/26/1138066918372.html

    http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2010-11/11rp06.htm

    http://www.unesco.org/most/sydpaper.htm

    http://www.gcim.org/attachements/TP6.pdf

    So – Scott – here’s the grub – I agree with some of these articles, I disagree with some of these articles, I agree with aspects of some of these articles, I disagree with some aspects of these articles – HOWEVER – I respect all of them for coming from CREDIBLE and REPUTABLE sources and for presenting a balanced approach not a rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth verbal diahorrea like you.

    Your turn…

  74. Terror, perhaps you should take a closer look at the law you keep quoting.
    It does not criminalise criticism or even mere ‘negativity’.

    It criminalises only:
    “threats of and incitements to racially or religiously motivated *violence*”
    “The Bill would provide the following crimes:
    a. threats to cause *physical harm* because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
    b. threats to cause *physical harm* because of religion
    c. threats to *property* because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
    d. threats to *property* because of religion
    e. incitement to cause or threaten *physical harm or damage to property* because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
    f. incitement to cause or threaten *physical harm or damage to property* because of religion.” [Explanatory Memorandum]

    You seem to be under the misapprehension that this law criminalises *any* negative/hostile/critical speech directed at racial or religious groups. It does no such thing.

    Unless the speech is a threat or incitement of *actual physical harm* to persons or property, then this law does not apply.

    “Ah – true – hard facts clearly show that a society without a police or justice system have exactly the same incidents of crime as societies without them”.

    What society hasn’t created laws and enforced them? Another pointless not-clever red herring from Mr Smoke-N-Mirrors.
    A police officer doesn’t have to have a ‘statute’ to act in a humane manner to another human being.

    “I am actually okay with the world I live in”
    So am I.
    But Australia isn’t ‘the world’, nor does it’s internal demographics have to reflect that world, they only need to reflect its own history.
    With just 0.32% of the world’s population, we are quite vulnerable to any changes in demographics. The problem, my dear, is this is an unprecedented experiment. We cannot know everything will be fine, as you presume it will be.
    If history has taught us anything (ha!) it’s that mixing different peoples together inevitably creates potential and often actual conflict, or at least an less than satisfactory society for all concerned. If you don’t know this, you nothing about history, and no amount of citations can help you.

    “you didn’t mention what age my daughter is. Was she 5, 13, 27? This would alter the scenario”
    “How? Pray do tell!”

    Pray tell the difference between a 5-year-old and a 27-year-old? You are the most pathetic, ridiculous person. Do you really think you’re being clever? You are a laughing stock!

    theantibogan says: “The point I’m making is that verbal abuse is still incredibly harmful.”

    That’s it?!
    After presenting these ridiculous scenarios, then *demanding* that I address them, you waive it off with this lame cop-out?
    I believe you had already make that ‘point’ clear.

    The point of this debate (I thought) was *what* speech should be *criminalised*.
    Plenty of things could be subjectively interpreted as ‘harmful/hurtful’. You can’t just go banning everything that *might* offend someone, or there’d be no speech left!

    • Shockadelic. You’re missing the point. You say that the community will act out in violence against people who denigrate those without the power to stand up for themselves. And so that makes it okay because you stick some asterisks around the word ‘consequences’.

      How about this situation:

      A male adult is at a party and he sees a 9 year old boy playing in his bedroom. The man walks in and tells the boy that his parents adopted him and that he is a screw up that will never amount to anything. He then tells the boy that if the boy tells anyone about this conversation he’d kill him.

      Do you think that any child should be legally allowed to hear that from someone?

      Personally, I don’t think that it matters what the age of the person being verbally abused is. A person can still be psychologically scarred for life from words. Imagine you were a Lebanese woman walking through the Cronulla Riots. When 5000 people who had never met you were chanting ‘Fuck Off Lebs’, do you honestly think that that kind of thing wouldn’t be hurtful and scarring for that woman?

    • Shock – I’ll let you respond to TAB on his point lest I further confuse your already over-addled brain – it appears to have hit capacity and is in the red zone… Alarms going off etc… Mind you, since you are an alarmist then there is probably nothing new in this scenario for you.

      Thanks for weighing in with the ASTERISKS again Shock. I was beginning to miss them.

      Valid point by-the-way, these laws do “not criminalise criticism or even mere ‘negativity’… Mind you – you are the same person that said:

      “If someone *says* “Throw a brick through that window”, no harm has actually been done unless someone *actually picks up a brick and throws it*!
      The *words* themselves cannot ‘harm’ the window or its owner.
      Yes, speech may induce harmful behaviour, but its the behaviour that harms, not the words. Who is to determine what words may or may not induce *real* harm? How can you know for sure? Even saying “Kill! Kill! Kill!” may induce *no action*.”

      Still sticking with this are you?

      …Oh wait – let’s keep reading your comments shall we?…

      “It criminalises only:
      “threats of and incitements to racially or religiously motivated *violence*”
      “The Bill would provide the following crimes:
      a. threats to cause *physical harm* because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
      b. threats to cause *physical harm* because of religion
      c. threats to *property* because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
      d. threats to *property* because of religion
      e. incitement to cause or threaten *physical harm or damage to property* because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
      f. incitement to cause or threaten *physical harm or damage to property* because of religion.” [Explanatory Memorandum]”

      …Oooops – incite violence – but who determines this?!?!? Try a judge or magistrate for starters…. They may take “Kill! Kill! Kill!” to be an incitement to cause or threaten physical harm – even if you are too stupid enough not to see the correlation between the two.

      Shock – you seem to be under the misapprehension that I am under the misapprehesion that this law criminalises criticism. If you actually read my post you’ll see that I have made reference to your inane stupidity which suggests that an insult to an individual is different to an insult to a group of people.

      If you actually want the laws that you are breaking by involving a distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of any human right or fundamental freedom in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life then please refer to Article 9 of this:

      http://www.comlaw.gov.au/comlaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/0/29DCCB9139D4CCD8CA256F71004E4063/$file/RDA1975.pdf

      You also seem to be under the misapprehension that you’re statements cannot be construed to “incite violence” – key words there – now I could legitimately argue that your racial vilification is easily interpreted as an incitement toward violence on the basis that you wrote this previously:

      “ALL people fight to defend themselves when they feel their survival, wealth or power is being threatened. And plenty of white people will feel this way soon enough. Just wait.”

      Or this:

      “Do you think White Western people won’t resort to ‘a few skirmishes’ when they realise this is *never* going to end?
      Resistance never succeeds the first time (One Nation). There’s more to come.”

      I’d say this is inciting violence wouldn’t you?

      Sorry let me phrase that in your terminology: “threat or incitement of *actual physical harm* to persons or property”…

      “What society hasn’t created laws and enforced them? Another pointless not-clever red herring from Mr Smoke-N-Mirrors.

      A police officer doesn’t have to have a ‘statute’ to act in a humane manner to another human being.”

      Ummm – right – got that from your excellent source documents again – Mr-I-don’t-cite-anything-I-just-have-opinions…

      Try reading this then you twat:

      http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?a=internetBridgingPage&Media_ID=53208

      Ooops that kinda kills the no “statute to act in a humane manner” argument… Ya want me to provide similar charters for the other state and territory police forces in Australia? Easily done if you want me to reinforce the point.

      My point was – Mr-I-can’t-deal-with-logical-progression, that your point idiocy apparently extends to your misunderstanding of the criminal justice system when you made the following point:

      “Fourth, laws don’t prevent crime…All the law can do is punish *afterwards*.
      If laws actually prevented crime, there’d be nobody in prison.”

      Okay – so your argument is that laws don’t prevent crime – got that? Okay so on this thesis if we remove laws altogether and there should be no variance in crime rates – following yet? Okay fool – prove your thesis.

      “With just 0.32% of the world’s population, we are quite vulnerable to any changes in demographics. The problem, my dear, is this is an unprecedented experiment. We cannot know everything will be fine, as you presume it will be.”

      Please show me where immigration levels are overwhelming this fragile little land. Go on with the majority of immigrants being from European backgrounds and the immigration levels being representative of approximately one third of the actually population increase – where’s the problem except for the one in your head… Where are the real actually negative issues occurring with the exception of intolerant idiots like yourself causing it… i.e: “I told an Arab to ‘go home’ and then they swore at me in a foreign language – this in unacceptable in Australia!’ That’s your logic right there…

      “If history has taught us anything (ha!) it’s that mixing different peoples together inevitably creates potential and often actual conflict, or at least an less than satisfactory society for all concerned. If you don’t know this, you nothing about history, and no amount of citations can help you.”

      Yeah – you’re soooooo right there – let’s look at that one shall we?

      1. The Roman Empire
      2. The Mongol Empire
      3. The Frankish (Carolingan) Empire
      4. The Mayan Empire
      5. The United Kingdom
      6. The German confederation.
      7. The confederation of Italian states and principalities.
      8. The Ottoman Empire.
      9. The Austro-Hungarian Empire.
      10. The Qing Dynasty
      11. New Zealand.
      12. The United States of America.
      13. Canada.
      14. The European Union.

      All inherently unstable and constantly wracked with internal dissent and violence. Gee the Romans only had Pax Romana for 500 years – terrible!!!

      Yeah – Australia may degenerate into violence in 500 years time – terrible!!!

      You are an idiot – you may want to cite some examples so I can destroy them for you too… By the way before you do say anything remember this: 1. “actual violence” = fact – you can cite sources here. 2. “potential violence” = opinion – not interested in yours. 3. “less than satisfactory society for all concerned” = definitely your opinion and yours alone – don’t even bother to say anything here.

      “Pray tell the difference between a 5-year-old and a 27-year-old? You are the most pathetic, ridiculous person. Do you really think you’re being clever? You are a laughing stock!”

      Let me quote you back at you here: “Another pointless not-clever red herring from Mr Smoke-N-Mirrors” – nice way to avoid answering the questions you imbecile.

      Let’s try that again shall we – are you suggesting that age determines the level to which someone can be insulted, threatened or tormented? Please tell me your age then Shockadelic so I can determine to what extent I can threaten or insult you.

      “The point of this debate (I thought) was *what* speech should be *criminalised*.
      Plenty of things could be subjectively interpreted as ‘harmful/hurtful’. You can’t just go banning everything that *might* offend someone, or there’d be no speech left!”

      No but you can adhere to laws already in place that protect against vilification towards based on sweeping generalisations…. Got that sunshine?

  75. B-b-b-b-but, ‘anti-bogan’, isn’t THIS a mere blogs? That voices only your OPINION that Australia would not be good enough staying white, that this country must be turned multi-racial, and that anyone who opposes such an opinion and plan is “bogan”???

    • No, it’s a blog that highlights the hideous racism that is prevalent in Australia. And the evidence is the hundreds of screenshots of racist Australians. When we provide screenshots of people being racist, it moves from just being our opinion that there is lots of racism in Australia to supported fact.
      You’re too fucking dumb for words.

    • What this post serves to show is the manner in which your opinions warp the way you see everything. You twist and selectively mutiliate knowledge and evidence according to your belief that different ‘races’ cannot live together, whites are supreme for no reason other than their complexion and that anyone who challengest you is an ‘evil multicultist’.

      Perhaps it is you who is incompatible with the rest of humanity. Incompatible with reality even.

    • “antibogan, I haven’t missed the point at all.
      Honestly acknowledging the *possibility* of vigilante violence is not the same as endorsement.”

      You’re suggesting that society is better off allowing hate speech because the *consequences* will be that all people offended will have the ability and mental capacity to physically attack a person who offends them in return. You’re suggesting that people will carry weapons and fight people who discriminate against them, and that this is somehow improving society. You’re suggesting that a mere child who is denigrated to the point of psychological harm by his/her teacher will somehow ratify such psychological harm by going outside and letting down the tyres of teacher who denigrated him/her, and that this is somehow going to improve society. You’re suggesting that a mere child who, when walking down the street and is approached by 5 young men who scream taunts at her and threaten to rape her, is going to somehow avoid feelings of psychological harm and feelings of anxiety and distress by and fighting 5 young men, maybe even with an illegal weapon.

      And you still want to continue on this line of how this will somehow improve society?

  76. theantibogan I haven’t missed the point at all.
    Honestly acknowledging the *possibility* of vigilante violence is not the same as endorsement.

    More scenarios? Will I get a response if I bother?

    “A person can still be psychologically scarred for life from words.”

    Yes, but does that mean you criminalise the speech?
    There is no ‘correct’ answer to that question. Different people will have different opinions about where to draw the line.

    What degree of “scarring” is required to deserve prosecution? Telling your girlfriend her bum does indeed “look big in this”?

    Do you still prosecute the speaker (it’s a law after all), even if there’s *no evidence* anyone was actually harmed?

    “No, it’s a blog that highlights the hideous racism that is prevalent in Australia.”

    But it’s only your opinion that racism is “hideous”.

    • Guess what Shocky – it’s not just “opinion” – something you seem stuck on perpetuating – it’s fact and… ooooooo wait for it….. it’s law…

      Racism is illegal.

      Hard one for you to seem to grasp.

      Now before you respond – Google: “Law” and then Google: “Democracy”.

      Good boy.

      Now do your homework before you give us more of your “No bananas swapping for cotton and bananas” logic.

    • ““A person can still be psychologically scarred for life from words.”

      Yes, but does that mean you criminalise the speech?
      There is no ‘correct’ answer to that question. Different people will have different opinions about where to draw the line.”

      Our Government has legislation in place, but not the resources to enforce such laws. Most people agree that discrimination has no positive effects. Do you agree or disagree? Legislating is the best way of preventing a behaviour other than educating against the causes for the action/discrimination. As you aware, theft is against the law. Do you think that crimes of theft would be reduced if the laws regarding theft were dropped?

      “What degree of “scarring” is required to deserve prosecution? Telling your girlfriend her bum does indeed “look big in this”?”

      A private conversation between two people who have an existing relationship and an understanding of each others’ feelings is a completely different scenario than walking through the streets and confronting an African female and telling her to fuck off home to her wasteland of a country because she is scum and a burden on our people who have to put up with looking at her black skin. Also, the girlfriend probably asked for her boyfriend’s opinion whereas the African woman just wanted to walk down the street without being harassed.

      “Do you still prosecute the speaker (it’s a law after all), even if there’s *no evidence* anyone was actually harmed?”

      Are you going to ask rape victims to ‘prove harm’ if they’ve just been threatened into having sex without being physically beaten? Is it not enough to expect that if you call a young man with Downs Syndrome a fucking hilarious retard that everyone thinks is an idiot that he’s not going to be hurt by that? Do you want him to appear before the courts and have to prove that he has been psychologically harmed? Or is it enough to accept that the action of speaking to someone like that with the intent of making them feel like jumping off the bridge is enough to warrant some kind of penalty?

      “But it’s only your opinion that racism is “hideous”.”

      Do you find racism to be a good thing?

  77. Terror AUSTRALIS!!! says: “Valid point by-the-way, these laws do “not criminalise criticism or even mere ‘negativity’… Mind you – you are the same person that said:
    “If someone *says* “Throw a brick through that window”…..
    Still sticking with this are you?”

    Yes. I didn’t say the statement was not contravening current law, I said there’s a difference between saying it and doing it.

    Now you’re quoting a completely different law, the Racial Discrimination Act, a law I want repealed.
    In my eyes, you may as well quote the Book of Mormon.

    You conveniently left our the rest of the article 9:
    9 Racial discrimination to be unlawful
    (1) It is unlawful for a person to do any act involving a distinction,
    exclusion, restriction or preference…..
    (1A) *Where*:
    (a) a person requires another person to comply with a term,
    condition or requirement which is not reasonable having
    regard to the circumstances of the case; *and*
    (b) the other person does not or cannot comply with the term,
    condition or requirement; *and*
    c) the requirement to comply has the purpose or effect of
    nullifying or impairing the recognition, etc.

    Now please explain what “act” of mine “required” anyone to “comply” with an “unreasonable condition or requirement” that they cannot comply with, that nullifys their fundamental rights or freedoms.

    “I’d say this is inciting violence wouldn’t you?”

    I’d say it’s an honest assessment of human nature, something I’m sure is completely alien to you.

    • Go on – get it repealed then – this is a democracy after all – try garnering the public support to see that one overturned.

  78. Terror AUSTRALIS!!! says: “A police officer doesn’t have to have a ‘statute’ to act in a humane manner to another human being.”
    Ummm – right – got that from your excellent source documents again – Mr-I-don’t-cite-anything-I-just-have-opinions…
    Try reading this then you twat:”

    Try reading it yourself.
    The very first paragraph:

    “Our members have a duty to preserve the peace, protect life and property, prevent offences, detect and apprehend offenders and help those in need of assistance.”

    Some of the specified ‘duties’ include:
    “Demonstrate moral strength and courage
    Make timely decisions that are guided by both values and evidence
    Inspire confidence through ethical and fair treatment of others
    Provide empathy in a timely and genuine manner”

    “Okay – so your argument is that laws don’t prevent crime – got that? Okay so on this thesis if we remove laws altogether and there should be no variance in crime rates”.

    Actually Mr Logical Progression, if there were no laws, technically there’d be *no* crime.

    “Please show me where immigration levels are overwhelming this fragile little land.”

    You are new to this debate? No, you just act dumb (or is it an act?)
    Try water supply, arable land, traffic congestion, half a million unemployed, for a start.

    “with the majority of immigrants being from European backgrounds”

    So this matters, eh? Watch out, urine balloon!

    • “Actually Mr Logical Progression, if there were no laws, technically there’d be *no* crime.”

      No, nothing that could be declared a crime. You’re right! You win the whole argument!

      Dumb fuck.

      Women would be raped, stores would be robbed. They wouldn’t be called crimes anymore but they’d still be acts that harm.

  79. Terror AUSTRALIS!!! says: “1. The Roman Empire
    2. The Mongol Empire
    3. The Frankish (Carolingan) Empire
    4. The Mayan Empire
    5. The United Kingdom
    6. The German confederation.
    7. The confederation of Italian states and principalities.
    8. The Ottoman Empire.
    9. The Austro-Hungarian Empire.
    10. The Qing Dynasty
    11. New Zealand.
    12. The United States of America.
    13. Canada.
    14.The European Union.”

    And where are most of your shining examples of multicultural success today? Rubble?
    Only a few remain, and those have only been ‘multicultural’ for a relatively short time.

    Are you forgetting that Germany and Italy are internally culturally related? They don’t consist of unrelated peoples.

    Are you forgetting the Maori and Native American wars and the current ‘success’ of those peoples?
    The crime rates and poverty of Black Americans?
    That Ireland fought for independence from the UK?
    That some Québécois wants to secede?
    That millions of Europeans vote for anti-EU parties?

    “Yeah – Australia may degenerate into violence in 500 years time – terrible!!!”
    Try 50.

    “are you suggesting that age determines the level to which someone can be insulted, threatened or tormented?”

    The age of my daughter would determine whether:
    a. she would even walk down the street alone.
    b. whether she could understand what’s going on.
    c. whether she could physically fight back.
    d. whether she could carry a weapon.

    “you can adhere to laws already in place that protect against vilification towards based on sweeping generalisations…. Got that sunshine?”

    And what are these laws?
    They’re not the ones you’re quoting.

    • The age of my daughter would determine whether:
      a. she would even walk down the street alone.
      b. whether she could understand what’s going on.
      c. whether she could physically fight back.
      d. whether she could carry a weapon.

      a) I’ve seen children walking down the street alone in suburbs out of the major cities;
      b) Children understand abuse and insult from a very young age;
      c) Whether she could fight back is irrelevant, because the scenario involved 5 young men;
      d) Nobody has the right to carry a weapon. And if you’re advocating that society would be a better place if we were all allowed to simply stab or shoot a person who offended us then you severely need a straight jacket.

  80. I did read it Shocky.

    Apparently your definition of “humane” which is what you seem to have forgotten started this whole progression seems to be out of sync with the rest of humanity. Go on then – tell me how yours differs.

    For a refreshing change – try actually proving your own points rather than attempting to find the most far-fetched means to disprove other peoples. I dare you.

    “Actually Mr Logical Progression, if there were no laws, technically there’d be *no* crime.”

    Really? So if a tree falls in the forest and there is no-one to hear if fall, does it make a noise?

    Nice try but… ummm… no – FAIL!

    “You are new to this debate? No, you just act dumb (or is it an act?)
    Try water supply, arable land, traffic congestion, half a million unemployed, for a start.”

    Yeah – you backed that argument up nicely didn’t you. Conjecture = FAIL.

    “So this matters, eh? Watch out, urine balloon!”

    Seems to matter to you BANANANA man wanna swap NO Bananas for your overused urine-soaked canine?

  81. Terror AUSTRALIS!!!
    “are you suggesting that age determines the level to which someone can be insulted, threatened or tormented?”

    The age of my daughter would determine whether:
    a. she would even walk down the street alone.
    b. whether she could understand what’s going on.
    c. whether she could physically fight back.
    d. whether she could carry a weapon.

    “you can adhere to laws already in place that protect against vilification towards based on sweeping generalisations…. Got that sunshine?”

    And what are these laws?
    They’re not the ones you’re quoting.

    “Racism is illegal.”

    Sorry, no. Race-ISM is not. Racism is an opinion.
    Certain *acts* of speech and behaviour deemed harmful are. No *opinion* is illegal in this country. Yet.

    • “No *opinion* is illegal in this country. Yet.”

      But the public expression of a negative and unfounded opinion forged on the basis of unjustified feelings of superiority with the intend to offend or incite violence is illegal.

    • Really? Racism is an opinion is it?

      Oh my god – you are actually far more stupid that I actually realised – I knew you were intellectually challenged but I cannot begin to start responding to your *asterisks* again when you make comments like this.

      I’ll leave it up to you to *prove* that this is the case… how does that sound?

  82. Terror AUSTRALIS!!! says:
    “Apparently your definition of “humane”…
    is irrelevant.

    You claimed *police* couldn’t act humanely unless they had a ‘statute’ to do so and you are wrong, wrong, wrong as usual.

    “So if a tree falls in the forest and there is no-one to hear if fall, does it make a noise?”

    Another LSD-inspired non-sequitur from the King of Clueless. Fail yourself.
    Crime *is* breaking the law. No law, no crime.

    “Conjecture”
    Our problems with water, etc are not ‘conjecture’. They have been central to this issue for many years.

    Where have I ever mentioned ‘canines’?
    Smoke some more dope, maybe your brain might finally explode and we’ll be free of your embarrassing nonsense forever.

  83. Ah Shocky – more questions answered with questions – nice one!

    You really are quite useless aren’t you.

    “And where are most of your shining examples of multicultural success today? Rubble?
    Only a few remain, and those have only been ‘multicultural’ for a relatively short time.”

    Thought you may try that approach – not very creative really… Wanna talk about two people from the same culture, same ethnicity, who speak the same language but who regularly resort to violence? Try going to a Rangers vs Celtics football game…

    Welcome to the ebb and flow of history sunshine – empires fall – after centuries – remarkable that! Now show me where cultural diversity specifically caused their destruction – go on – your turn.

    “Are you forgetting that Germany and Italy are internally culturally related? They don’t consist of unrelated peoples.”

    My Silesian, Prussian and Westphalian ancestors may have had a thing or two to say about that… As may the Genoese and the Venetians… Get your facts straight before you start down this path.

    “Are you forgetting the Maori and Native American wars and the current ‘success’ of those peoples?”

    So does this mean New Zealand, the USA and Canada are fractious societies about to implode? Is this what you are trying to say? Just what is your point. Dissent by indigenous populations is destructive? It has weakened these countries?

    “The crime rates and poverty of Black Americans?”

    Your point is? America is worse off for it? Should have sent the slaves back when they released them? Is America now the number 2 economy in the world specifically because they have seriously mistreated a minority? Is this what you are alluding to?

    “That Ireland fought for independence from the UK?”

    Your point is? Did the Welsh, the Scotts? Is the UK weaker for incorporating these people?

    “That some Québécois wants to secede?”

    So do the West Australians. Your point is? Is Australia weaker because of this?

    “That millions of Europeans vote for anti-EU parties?”

    Has the EU ensured the longest-lasting peace in Western European history? Has it? Your point is? Fractious societies all of them?

    “Yeah – Australia may degenerate into violence in 500 years time – terrible!!!”
    Try 50.”

    Really – your proof? Show me? Convince me?

    Now go back and do your homework again and actually back your statements up – see if you are actually capable of it because on current form the answer would have to be a big fat fucking NO.

    Try again.

  84. antibogan, my original comment didn’t seem to be going through the system, so I chopped up the original message and reposted as separate messages. Just delete the duplicates if you want.

  85. Ahh – resorting to the name calling are we Shocky?

    Getting to you am I?

    Make the statement: “A police officer doesn’t have to have a ‘statute’ to act in a humane manner to another human being.” and now this becomes “irrelevant” does it? Nice attempt at a back-track.

    “You claimed *police* couldn’t act humanely unless they had a ‘statute’ to do so and you are wrong, wrong, wrong as usual.”

    Did I now? Where did I say that police COULD NOT act humanely unless legally compelled? Where in any of my response to your ridiculous statement (you know – the one above in inverted commas) do I say this?

    Another LSD-inspired non-sequitur from the King of Clueless. Fail yourself.
    Crime *is* breaking the law. No law, no crime.

    Nice try – failed Philosophy 101 did you? Kudos on bringing back the LSD analogy – seem to recall I used that on you a little while ago. Running out of ideas on how to make a point are we?

    “Our problems with water, etc are not ‘conjecture’. They have been central to this issue for many years.”

    Proof please? Seems to me that our dams are quite full at the moment. There is some debate about unsustainable farming techniques such as wet rice agriculture and the growing of water intensive crops but I’d love to know your point on this one.

    “Smoke some more dope, maybe your brain might finally explode and we’ll be free of your embarrassing nonsense forever.”

    Ah another drug reference – nice – I’m absolutely mortified that you have said this to me of course. I am now going to go and cry myself to sleep every night.

    You wanna scroll back to where you started with the whole urine balloon thing – might reveal some things about dogs that you may have forgotten…

    By-the-way – seeing as everyone but Scott the Melton Meltdown is in disagreement with you – you may want to think about the words “embarrasing nonsense” for a second there….

    Nice try – go back to chewing your crayons you intellectual light-weight.

  86. theantibogan says:
    “Most people agree that discrimination has no positive effects.”
    Irrelevant. The state has no right to unreasonably infringe on individual citizens making their own decisions and speaking their mind.

    “Do you think that crimes of theft would be reduced if the laws regarding theft were dropped?”
    To quote Terror: Your point is? The right to property is fundamental. The “right” to never be offended is not.

    “A private conversation between two people who have an existing relationship and an understanding of each others’ feelings is a *completely different scenario* than walking through the streets and confronting an African female and telling her to fuck off home”.

    That was *my* point. Where do you draw the line?
    Just because you know someone, you can insult them?
    If you insult your girlfriend in public, not at home, you get arrested?
    If the African *asked* what you think of her, you can abuse her?

    “Are you going to ask rape victims to ‘prove harm’”

    Again you’re equating definitively harmful *actions* with possibly harmful words, as if they’re comparable.
    We’re just going in circles here!

    “Do you want him to appear before the courts and have to prove that he has been psychologically harmed?”

    Why the hell not? Since when don’t you need evidence to convict someone of a crime! My God, this is ridiculous!

    “Do you find racism to be a good thing?”

    What does it matter? Whether or not I think something is good or not is not the issue.

    Fundamentally, it’s what right does the *state* have to legislate personal speech or behaviour, if when and why.

    You seem to think that any *possible* harm that might result from something, gives the state the right to deprive you of your funds or freedom, even if no real harm is done.
    I can’t believe anyone can support such a position and claim to be some enlightened sophisticated educated person. That is Tyranny.

    • “The state has no right to unreasonably infringe on individual citizens making their own decisions and speaking their mind.”

      Bullshit. Why do you think laws exist in the first place? We as citizens have plenty of freedom. But we don’t have the freedom to rob a store, we don’t have the freedom to murder people we don’t like, and we don’t have the freedom to abuse children. Similarly, we shouldn’t have the freedom to vilify or verbally abuse to the point where it causes psychological harm.

      “The right to property is fundamental. The “right” to never be offended is not.”

      Says you. And your opinion is worth nothing.
      “That was *my* point. Where do you draw the line?
      Just because you know someone, you can insult them?
      If you insult your girlfriend in public, not at home, you get arrested?
      If the African *asked* what you think of her, you can abuse her?”

      No, my point a long time ago was where do YOU draw the line? 40,000 people screaming abuse at a 5 year old girl may be a scenario that will never happen, but do you still allow the hate speech? Would this not affect a 5 year old girl? Are you saying it’s okay that her teacher calls her a dumb fuck capable of nothing, but it’s not okay for her to be abused by a stadium full of people?
      People have their opinions, and they share them around friends and family, and there is nothing wrong with that. It is when people make their opinions PUBLIC (a la the examples provided on this very website) that such opinions become very damaging to other people. It is WRONG to make assumptions about a person based solely on the colour of their skin or their gender/sexuality and then denigrate them to the point where they may become psychologically harmed. It is reasonable to suggest that one will know a family member or friend well enough to form opinions based on more than just the colour of those peoples’ skins and their gender/sexuality.

      “Again you’re equating definitively harmful *actions* with possibly harmful words, as if they’re comparable.
      We’re just going in circles here!”


      And you continue to deny that verbal abuse causes psychological harm. Just because you cannot see physical evidence of harm does NOT MEAN THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO HARM CAUSED YOU STUPID, STUPID FUCK. A rape victim can’t prove that they’ve been raped, unless they’ve been physically beaten. To a magistrate, it’s possible that they had consensual sex. Geddit?
      “Why the hell not? Since when don’t you need evidence to convict someone of a crime! My God, this is ridiculous!”

      When there is evidence to suggest that verbal abuse was carried out, such as the testimonies of witnesses, or the physical availability of emails/text messages etc, then you will find that a person who has been psychologically harmed by verbal abuse has grounds to argue their case.
      At this point, I note that you capitalise the word ‘God’, and then I remember that you’re a big believer in that random sky fairy that doesn’t exist. And the irony of you DEMANDING evidence to prove that there has been harm caused becomes so ridiculous, because you will argue until you’re blue in the face that God exists without one single piece of evidence. Good one.

      “Fundamentally, it’s what right does the *state* have to legislate personal speech or behaviour, if when and why.”

      Then what right does the state (asterisks why?) have to legislate violence and physical actions? The state has an obligation to protect its citizens from abuse and harm. Full FUCKING stop. You spastic.

      “You seem to think that any *possible* harm that might result from something, gives the state the right to deprive you of your funds or freedom, even if no real harm is done.”

      It is YOU who assumes that the only harm that comes from verbal abuse or incitement is the physical reaction that comes as a result. It is YOU who denies that verbal abuse harms a person psychologically. Don’t fucking use your stupid asterisks around the word ‘possible’ when referring to harm as a result of verbal abuse, its a fact. There is mountains of evidence to suggest that people are psychologically harmed as a result of discrimination, verbal abuse, taunts and threats.

      “I can’t believe anyone can support such a position and claim to be some enlightened sophisticated educated person.”

      It just goes to show how shallow and misguided you are.

  87. “Actually Mr Logical Progression, if there were no laws, technically there’d be *no* crime.”
    No, nothing that could be declared a crime. You’re right! You win the whole argument! Dumb fuck.
    Women would be raped, stores would be robbed. They wouldn’t be called crimes anymore but they’d still be acts that harm.”

    Yes, I win antibogan.

    Again you’re equating real harm from actions with possible harm from words.

    There have always been ‘things that harm’ in the world.
    People disagree on whether those things should be *illegal*.

    Some cultures allowed human sacrifices, cannibalism.
    Some banned things we allow like tattooing.
    Debates still rage in our own society about drugs, abortion, euthanasia, bomb-making instructions, Eminem, etc.

    There is no universal agreement on what *is* ‘harmful’, let alone whether particular harmful things should be *illegal*.
    Stop pretending you have all the answers.

    • “Yes, I win antibogan.

      Again you’re equating real harm from actions with possible harm from words.”

      I can take a punch in the face. A 5 year old girl can’t. Are you going to say now that because some people can deal well with abuse that we should abolish all legislation that protects all citizens from all abuse? And get off your ‘possible’ harm rant. Isn’t it enough that there are hundreds and thousands of people who claim that they’ve been psychologically harmed by discrimination, verbal abuse, taunts and threats? I can deal with being racially discriminated against because I’m living a comfortable life, surrounded by good friends and a close family. There are those that have come here from war-torn countries, having watched their families murdered that have to endure the verbal abuse that is given to them by people who call themselves Australian. That abuse is unwarranted and given on the basis of the country in which those people were born. That abuse quite often (not always) causes psychological harm.
      “There is no universal agreement on what *is* ‘harmful’, let alone whether particular harmful things should be *illegal*.”

      There is. Have you read the UN Charter for the Rights of Children at all? Is there a reason why violence and murder are legislated against in all Western countries and the majority of other countries? There are Universal agreements on what does and does not cause harm. Stop pretending you have all the answers.

  88. theantibogan says:
    “You’re suggesting that society is better off allowing hate speech…somehow improving society”

    Better off? Improving? No, you are the one concerned with making everyone ‘feel good’.
    I’m concerned with people’s liberty, whether they’re better off or not.
    Free and unhappy. Free and poor. Free and sick. As long as I’m free, I’m ‘better off’ than not being free.

    “all people offended will have the ability to attack a person who offends them in return.”

    They could. They don’t have to.

    “You’re suggesting that people will carry weapons”.

    They could. They don’t have to.

    “a mere child who is denigrated by his/her teacher will somehow ratify such psychological harm by going outside and letting down the tyres of teacher”

    They could. They don’t have to.

    “You’re suggesting that a mere child who, when walking down the street and is aproached by 5 young men who scream taunts at her and threaten to rape her….maybe even with an illegal weapon.”

    She could. She doesn’t have to.

    I didn’t say anything about her “avoiding feelings of psychological harm and feelings of anxiety and distress””. Quite the opposite.
    I said that whatever harm is done is *already done*, whether it’s illegal or not. Whatever harm is done is already done before she even finds the policeman.

    “And you still want to continue on this line of how this will somehow improve society?”
    I never said anything about ‘improving society’. I’m not a Progressive. I’m a Realist.
    My ‘line’ as I’ve stated about six gazillion times is about basic rights to liberty and when and why that liberty can be restricted.

    “the public expression of a negative and unfounded opinion forged on the basis of unjustified feelings of superiority with the intend to offend or incite violence is illegal.”

    It’s not illegal to have a negative opinion, an unfounded opinion, an unjustified opinion, an offensive opinion, or to express it publicly. Only if you incite or threaten real physical harm, as I’ve already clearly pointed out.
    Vilification laws also use defining terms like ‘serious’ and ‘severe’.
    In other words, these laws should only apply in very serious cases, not any and every *possible* case of “offensiveness”.
    I have also stated clearly that I don’t necessarily disagree with prosecution of, quote, “*seriously insulting and/or threatening* speech, if it’s directed at a specific person or persons, but not if it’s some impersonal general statement.”
    Capiche?

    • ” I’m concerned with people’s liberty, whether they’re better off or not.”

      Then why have any laws at all?

      “They could. They don’t have to.”

      Showing your extensive debating skills here. Good job.

      “It’s not illegal to have a negative opinion, an unfounded opinion, an unjustified opinion, an offensive opinion, or to express it publicly.”

      Wrong.

      “Vilification laws also use defining terms like ‘serious’ and ‘severe’.”

      Correct. Serious does not have to be severe, as the word ‘severe’ is subjective from case to case.

      “In other words, these laws should only apply in very serious cases, not any and every *possible* case of “offensiveness”.”

      Then who is going to define how serious a case is?

      “I have also stated clearly that I don’t necessarily disagree with prosecution of, quote, “*seriously insulting and/or threatening* speech, if it’s directed at a specific person or persons, but not if it’s some impersonal general statement.””

      Who are you to judge whether or not a person can be psychologically harmed by a comment that is public, yet impersonal?

  89. Shockadelic says: “If you say something, you have balloons filled with urine thrown at you, your home vandalised and your pet dog strangled.”

    Nothing there about canines being soaked in urine. Dog strangled, yes, soaked in urine, no.

    Terror AUSTRALIS!!! says: “Go on – get it repealed then – this is a democracy after all – try garnering the public support to see that one overturned.”

    They didn’t need public support to introduce it.

    In fact, no progressive law, policy or regulation has probably ever been supported by the people.
    But they just keep introducing more and more of them, whether we want them or not.
    It’s for our own good. Father knows best.
    Cite: My Arse

    • Shockadelic says: “If you say something, you have balloons filled with urine thrown at you, your home vandalised and your pet dog strangled.”

      “Nothing there about canines being soaked in urine. Dog strangled, yes, soaked in urine, no.”

      Ummmm – since you are familiar with urine and you love Australia so much – you’ll be familiar with the Australian institution of the piss-take… Welcome to someone utilising it against you Mr BANANANA man… (and no – I also realise you didn’t misspell Banana – I’m also doing that on your behalf).

      See, my simple and slightly backward debating compadre, your statement was so stupidly inane that I simply enhanced a little – you know – tweaked around the edges for you. Alternative – and I’ll give you yet another opportunity here – show me the newspaper article or police report or whatever that showed that someone’s dog was strangled *and* their house had urine filled baloons thrown at their recently vandilised house for any reason whatsoever let alone because they “say something”…

      Until then you will forever be the man who is know for throwing urine soaked strangled dogs at vandilised houses that have no bananas to swap with Fijian bananas and cotton.

      With reference to all laws apparently, Shockaholic says:
      “They didn’t need public support to introduce it.

      In fact, no progressive law, policy or regulation has probably ever been supported by the people.
      But they just keep introducing more and more of them, whether we want them or not.
      It’s for our own good. Father knows best.
      Cite: My Arse”

      I have therefore reviewed your citation and found it to be a foul-smelling, faecal smeared, hairy sphincter with an unusually inflamed, mildly ruptured, bloody haemorrhoid potruding from it and a slight smell of sperm.

      In other words your words are bloody inflamatory cum-stained crap…

      • “Until then you will forever be the man who is know for throwing urine soaked strangled dogs at vandilised houses that have no bananas to swap with Fijian bananas and cotton.”

        Can’t stop laughing TA!

  90. The whole point of creating a liberal society, Shocky, is that people benefit from living in a place where they are free to do as they please as long as they don’t impinge on peoples’ rights. They are also protected from their rights being impinged upon.
    Everyone is protected by a law enforcement system as well as independent redressal systems.
    Liberty for liberty’s sake is an incredibly dumb idea. That’s kind of why sane people don’t drool about societies where it’s okay to carry guns in public and rape and murder anyone you please as long as no one is watching.
    By your definition of liberty, a large part of Somalia is the most free region of the world. No government, no police, just guns, consequences and “liberty”.

  91. Oh, I see, they don’t need public support. They’re immune to democratic processes, of course, those pesky evil progressives. People don’t like their laws at all but but they don’t want to vote against the parties that make these laws because…umm…er… well I’m not sure why but it’s some conspiracy thingy or the other. Shocky says so, therefore it is so.

  92. Natasha, I thought you at least might ‘get it’, being a ‘libertarian’ and all.
    Apparently not.

    “as long as they don’t impinge on peoples’ rights. They are also protected from their rights being impinged upon.”

    Not any more. Once upon a time, there was this strange idea that states should have *minimal* interference in the lives of citizens, only making laws when no other alternative was possible.

    Now, they think they can make laws about anything, whether it restricts your freedom or not.
    And no, they don’t necessarily advertise what they’re going to do, or they distort what they do tell you (if they had told us *the truth* about the consequences of immigration reform in the 60s, do you think there’d have been public approval?)

    No progressive *ever* comes out and says “This new law will restrict your freedom”. They say nice things about safety, justice, peace, cutesy-pie Hallmark Christmas Special.

    “Liberty for liberty’s sake” Where did I say or even imply this?
    No society has absolute liberty. You can though, have as little interference in the citizenry’s liberty as possible.

    And thank you for bringing up Somalia. Another multicultural ‘success’ for your list of rubble, Terror?

    You cannot guarantee any rights and freedoms, no matter what “the law” says, when your country is torn apart by ethnic conflict, as we will soon learn.

  93. antibogan says: “Then why have any laws at all?”
    Because there are some things that truly are worthy of punishment.

    “It’s not illegal to have a negative opinion, an unfounded opinion, an unjustified opinion, an offensive opinion, or to express it publicly.”
    Wrong.”

    Wrong? Showing *your* extensive debating skills.
    Sorry, right.
    Here a negative, unfounded, unjustified and offensive opinion, published here and *not* illegal: “Cathars smelt like salmon, used dead skunks to wash their backs and I want to cum all over their decomposing ears.”

    “the word ‘severe’ is subjective.” So is the word ‘serious’.
    Then who is going to define how serious a case is?”

    You define what is serious *before* you make the law.

    “Who are you to judge whether or not a person can be psychologically harmed by a comment that is public, yet impersonal?”

    I don’t care.
    It’s not about ‘him’, it’s about ‘homosexuals/Muslims/Cathars”.

    • “antibogan says: “Then why have any laws at all?”
      Because there are some things that truly are worthy of punishment.”

      What makes a crime worthy of punishment then, magistrate?

      “Wrong? Showing *your* extensive debating skills.
      Sorry, right.”

      Publicly expressing offensive opinions on the basis of race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion is illegal, and there are laws against it. Just because the laws are virtually unable to be policed doesn’t mean that they aren’t laws.

      http://theantibogan.wordpress.com/2010/10/12/know-the-laws-regarding-online-racism/

      ““the word ‘severe’ is subjective.” So is the word ‘serious’.”

      No it’s not.

      serious |ˈsi(ə)rēəs|
      adjective
      • (of a subject, state, or activity) demanding careful consideration or application

      “You define what is serious *before* you make the law.”

      A crime is an infringement on someone’s rights. A crime is something that constitutes an offense. A usually entails somebody being hurt or having something taken from them. A 5 year old child or an elderly woman will not be able to take being punched in the face and called white trash. I can take it, as I’m a 6’2″ 90kg 26 year old male with good social support. The severity of a punch in my face versus punching a child or an elderly woman is drastically different. The seriousness is exactly the same. I have the right to live in society without having other people assault me. There’s a good chance that I’ll recover, physically and emotionally faster than a child or an elderly woman, yet I would still take this kind of assault as seriously as either of them.

      “I don’t care.
      It’s not about ‘him’, it’s about ‘homosexuals/Muslims/Cathars”.”

      You miss the point entirely. What a surprise.

      • theantibogan says:
        “What makes a crime worthy of punishment then, magistrate?”

        There is no universal agreement on that, as I already made clear.
        A society *could* make anything illegal. However, our society has its own philosophical/ethical traditions that emphasise the right to speech.

        People have been aware of the existence of other cultures and religions for centuries.
        Strange how nobody felt the need to introduce anti-vilification laws in the 16th, 17th, 18th or 19th centuries. Why not? Because back then, people genuinely believed in the right to speak freely. Not in making everyone ‘feel good’.

        “Publicly expressing offensive opinions on the basis of race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion is illegal”.

        Only if you contravene a *specific* clause in a *specific* law.
        There is no blanket ban of publishing ‘offensive opinions’ about these subjects.

        ““the word ‘severe’ is subjective.” So is the word ‘serious’.”
        No it’s not.
        serious |ˈsi(ə)rēəs|
        adjective
        • (of a subject, state, or activity) demanding careful consideration or application”

        And where is the objective authority that determines what demands careful consideration?
        *We* decide what demands careful consideration by our subjective judgements.

        Do people’s opinions about icecream demand careful consideration?
        No? Why did you answer that?
        Because of your *subjective* judgment about the importance of icecream in our society.
        In some possible future society, icecream might be their God, the most important thing in their lives. Their *subjective* judgement of the seriousness of icecream will be very different to yours.
        There are no absolutes or certainties in human society.

        “A crime is an infringement on someone’s rights. A crime is something that constitutes an offense.”

        But peoples’ rights are defined by law too.
        So laws are defining laws.
        There is no absolute authority, only men’s own subjective judgements about what is serious, what needs to be punished, etc.

        “A usually entails somebody being hurt or having something taken from them. I have the right to live in society without having other people assault me.”

        And physical harm to real persons and their property have been illegal for centuries. No need for new laws.

        “I don’t care.
        It’s not about ‘him’.”
        You miss the point entirely. What a surprise.”

        No, that *is* the point. Laws used to be, and should only be, about crimes against a *particular* person (Mr Jones) or persons (Mr and Mrs Jones), not impersonal generalisations (all people named ‘Jones’).

        “I’m a 6’2″ 90kg 26 year old male.”

        Ooh, I’m scared.

        • “However, our society has its own philosophical/ethical traditions that emphasise the right to speech.”

          Our society also recognises equality and fair treatment. The right to free speech involves the right to fair trial, freedom of assembly, political dissent, free media, freedom of censorship, but we do NOT have a bill of rights (as the USA does) that includes freedom of speech. What we have instead is a democratic secular society that values the rights of all of its citizens and denounces hate speech. We have an Anti Discrimination Act and a Racial Discrimination Act, and both state that it is unlawful to publicly denigrate a person on the basis of race, gender, sexuality, religion or disability. Our society does not support a person standing on a soapbox at Flinders Street Station with a megaphone saying things like “women are inferior sex objects”, “Indian children are dirty thieves and the product of inbreeding”, and “all Muslims are terrorist scum”. Our society does not support that kind of freedom of speech and I doubt you would have the support of people like Noam Chomsky, who you’ve quoted, if you said that should be allowed. Such comments, regardless of how calm and polite the delivery, are designed to antagonise and perpetuate unwarranted hatred. They are spoken only to cause pain and angst to women, Indians, children and Muslims. They serve no democratic purpose, and they are considered to be hate speech. They are derogatory and based on negative, untrue, unsubstantiated generalisations about women, Indians and Muslims.

          “Because back then, people genuinely believed in the right to speak freely. Not in making everyone ‘feel good’.”

          Back then we had Marshall Law. Back then we segregated Aboriginal people into separate ‘communities’ and denied them basic human rights. Back then, we denigrated Asian people because they were evil and disease carrying. Back then we had unsubstantiated views of people who had different colour skin. Get off your ‘make everyone feel good’ argument. People have the right not to be discriminated against because of their ethnicity, gender, sexuality or disability. It’s that simple. Corey party-boy Worthington was bashed by the media and by the public, not because he was white, or because he was male, but because he threw a party that trashed a house, a street and caused mass police involvement and tallied up tens of thousands of dollars that the tax-payers had to foot. And then failed to show remorse or guilt or apology of any sort.

          “There is no blanket ban of publishing ‘offensive opinions’ about these subjects.”

          Yes there is.

          “And where is the objective authority that determines what demands careful consideration?
          *We* decide what demands careful consideration by our subjective judgements.”

          The objective authority is our police and legal systems that are in place to protect the rights of our citizens. If a person walks into the police station saying that they have been physically harmed, they are protected by our laws, regardless of whether they are an elderly woman or a 6’9″ 220kg wrestler. When a boy goes through school, bullied and taunted, he is protected by school authorities. Psychological and emotional harm is real. It cannot be seen, but it can usually be assessed by psychologists and medical therapists. If a person is the subject of psychological harm, or attempted psychological harm, our state has an obligation to protect that person.

          Do people’s opinions about icecream demand careful consideration?
          No? Why did you answer that?
          Because of your *subjective* judgment about the importance of icecream in our society.
          In some possible future society, icecream might be their God, the most important thing in their lives. Their *subjective* judgement of the seriousness of icecream will be very different to yours.
          There are no absolutes or certainties in human society.”

          WTF?

          “But peoples’ rights are defined by law too.”

          You’re forgetting that in Australia, people do not have the right to discriminate against or denigrate a person based on their ethnicity, gender, sexuality or disability. And rightly so.

          “And physical harm to real persons and their property have been illegal for centuries. No need for new laws.”

          And you continue to deny the existence of psychological abuse. Don’t pretend that courts have never ruled in favour of this.

          “Laws used to be, and should only be, about crimes against a *particular* person (Mr Jones) or persons (Mr and Mrs Jones), not impersonal generalisations (all people named ‘Jones’).”

          You talk about fairness and liberty, yet feel that it is okay to make sweeping negative generalisations about entire communities of people and assume that none of them should take any sort of offense.

          ““I’m a 6’2″ 90kg 26 year old male.”

          Ooh, I’m scared.”

          That’s not the point. I would be less affected by a punch in the face than an elderly woman would. THAT was the point. But yeah, if you’ve got masculinity insecurities then so be it.

  94. Oh, I see, so the pesky progressives sugarcoat their stances and since no one else in Australia is as smart/unbiased as you and your buddies, they buy it.
    What’s stopping you from sugarcoating YOUR bullcrap? Is it your integrity Shocky? Prickles of Conscience?
    “True Liberty” is a pretty easy sell, you know. You don’t seem to have many buyers though. Is that because of bad marketing? That’s what you’re telling me?

    Once upon a time, there was this idea that anyone threating your cave should be beaten to death. Once upon a time there was this idea that slavery is okay. Once upon a time there was this idea that colonialism is fine and dandy. Once upon a time there was this idea that women are fit to be little more than typists and secretaries. Once upon a time, people used to believe in spirits and fairies. Once upon a time people thought the sun goes around the earth.
    “Once upon a time” fantasies don’t prove anything at all.

    So you’re actually comparing the situation of an impoverished, economically backward, politically unstable country with the sort of multiculturalism that’s seen in developed countries? Are you really that dumb?

  95. Natasha: “Oh, I see, so the pesky progressives sugarcoat their stances and since no one else in Australia is as smart/unbiased as you and your buddies, they buy it.”

    Yes, it’s called Propaganda. Presenting your agenda in the most flattering light.

    “What’s stopping you from sugarcoating YOUR bullcrap?”

    I’m not selling snake oil. Or my soul.

    ““True Liberty” is a pretty easy sell”.

    What the hell’s “True Liberty” and where did I try to sell it?
    Liberty is the state you’re born in. But it’s not the reality of human society. Because some people do truly evil things, and by sympathic understanding people come to agree that certain things must be punished in a civil society.
    Those restrictions should be kept to an absolute minimum.

    “Once upon a time” fantasies don’t prove anything at all.”

    Your *claimed* ideological forebears did not think this a ‘fantasy’. Minimum government, maximum liberty is the very core of Libertarianism.
    This principle underpinned democratic/republican political ideals until the collectivists (Progressives, Communists, Socialists, Fascists) infected the West in the early 20th century. Individual liberty could never produce their desired utopias, so to hell with individual liberty.

    Please stop referring to yourself as a Liberatarian. You are a fraud.

  96. Oh, so an anarcho-fascist who knows fuck all about economic policy is going to define for me what libertarianism means? You’re such a tool, shocky.
    I don’t know a single libertarian who argues that it’s okay to incite crime using your free speech. Point me to a single libertarian who does say that. Can you?

    So you’re NOT pushing your agenda, huh? Honest to the death. Who was the one screaming themselves hoarse about realism over idealism? Who was the one stridently calling me a naive idealist recently?

    Exactly. Minimum government. *FREE* markets and movement of people. NOT a fucking racial/ethnic hegemony. NOT white Australia.

    If there’s a mob of people deliberately trying to create a law and order situation, the government does have a mandate to stop possible gross violations of individual property rights. Even a small government.
    I never said that “offence” needs to be criminalized (except in the case of young children, for whom emotional abuse is much more likely to cause permanent damage). Incitement to crime is very different from being offensive. It’s perfectly within your rights, for example, to say that you hate all pakistanis and that they’re stupid turds. But trying to get people killed or getting their property destroyed is something entirely different. You say that causing offence is not criminal. I agree. But trying to create violence against a particular community/group IS criminal. You’re trying your best to get people to violate MY property rights. Without any legislation about incitement to crime, you’d be absolutely within your rights to advocate the creation of a violent mob which murders all Pakistani immigrants they see on the street. Let’s say this does happen and Pakistani immigrants do get murdered. Aren’t you responsible at least in part? Even if you didn’t personally violate property rights, you advocated to people to do so. Therefore, you committed a criminal offence by misusing your right to free speech, except that without legislation to that effect, it can’t be called misuse at all and you’d be cleared of all responsibility. That’s absolutely unacceptable.
    Libertarianism espouses that peoples’ actions should be restricted if and only if they violate property rights of another person. This is a clear case of the same.
    Merely offensive speech doesn’t really violate my rights (again, I’m talking about adults here) and is therefore not a crime, although I do have the right to protest against it.

  97. Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us all.
    – Justice William O. Douglas

    Without free speech no search for truth is possible… no discovery of truth is useful. Better a thousandfold *abuse* of free speech than denial of free speech.
    – Charles Bradlaugh

    If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we *despise*, we don’t believe in it at all.
    – Noam Chomsky

    I cannot assent to the view, if it be meant that the legislature may impair or abridge the rights of a free press and of free speech whenever it thinks that the public welfare requires that it be done. The public welfare *cannot override* constitutional privilege [i.e. free speech].
    – John Marshall Harlan

    Free speech is meaningless unless it tolerates the speech that we *hate*.
    – Henry J. Hyde

    *Fear of serious injury* cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.
    – U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

    Censorship reflects society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.
    – Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart

    What about freedom of speech? Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking?
    I don’t want to be associated with those people, but I also don’t want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilised behavior because that’s one of the things freedom requires: is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilised, but that doesn’t mean we approve of it.
    – Rand Paul

    It is forgotten that the right of free speech means the freedom to advocate one’s views and to bear the possible consequences, including disagreement with others, opposition, unpopularity and lack of support.
    The political function of “the right of free speech” is to protect dissenters and unpopular minorities from *forcible suppression*—not to guarantee them the support, advantages and rewards of a popularity they have not gained.
    – Ayn Rand

    The communists and the Nazis are merely two variants of the same evil notion: collectivism. But both should be free to speak—evil ideas are dangerous only by default of men advocating better ideas.
    – Ayn Rand

    But the issue here is not one’s view of sex. The issue is freedom of speech and of the press—i.e., the right to hold *any* view [her emphasis] and to express it.
    I want to state, for the record, my own view of what is called “hard-core” pornography. I regard it as unspeakably disgusting.
    It is not very inspiring to fight for the freedom of the purveyors of pornography or their customers.
    But in the transition to statism, every infringement of human rights has begun with the suppression of a given right’s *least attractive practitioners*. In this case, the disgusting nature of the offenders makes it a good test of one’s loyalty to a principle.
    – Ayn Rand

    “They came first for the white supremacists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a white supremacist. Then they came for the homophobes, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a homophobe. They they came for the patriarchalists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a patriarchalist. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.”
    – Natasha

    • 1. Quoting Fascist enablers Ayn Rand and Rand Paul alongside far more distinguished people won’t get you any brownie points here Schlock.

      2. Your so-called quote attributed to Natasha is a gross distortion of the original by the admirable Martin Niemoller, a hero of the German Resistance. Pissant pseuds like yourself have no right to trash his words.

      White supremacists, homophobes and patriarchilists (sic) are the enemies of free speech and of a democratic society. The less we hear from them the better. I’d have thought the events of 1945 would have underscored that.

      While we’re at it old fruit, it may have slipped your attention but your lip-curling particular targeting of Natasha tells me heaps about you. You’re a misogynist toe-rag.

      So Schlock you are advocating for the revival of a regime of murderers, genocidists, psychotics, perverts and thieves?

    • Hey Mr Pro-Australia Shockadelic – nice quotes:

      – Justice William O. Douglas – October 16, 1898 – January 19, 1980 – USA
      – Charles Bradlaugh – 26 September 1833 – 30 January 1891 – UK
      – Noam Chomsky – born December 7, 1928 – USA
      – John Marshall Harlan – June 1, 1833 – October 14, 1911 – USA
      – Henry J. Hyde – April 18, 1924 – November 29, 2007 – USA
      – U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis – November 13, 1856 – October 5, 1941- USA
      – Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart – January 23, 1915 – December 7, 1985 – USA
      – Rand Paul – born January 7, 1963 – USA
      – Ayn Rand – 1905 – March 6, 1982 – USA
      – Ayn Rand – 1905 – March 6, 1982 – USA
      – Ayn Rand – 1905 – March 6, 1982 – USA

      Bit in love with the USA are you – familiar with their bill of rights which enshrines freedom of speech are you? Show me where in Australian law such rights are fostered let alone protected? Go on… show me!

  98. “So you’re NOT pushing your agenda, huh? Honest to the death. Who was the one screaming themselves hoarse about realism over idealism? Who was the one stridently calling me a naive idealist recently?”

    Screaming? Strident? I think you’re confusing me with *everyone else here*.
    I state my opinions and point our the flaws in yours.
    I have no political power over society.

    “NOT a fucking racial/ethnic hegemony. NOT white Australia.”

    I didn’t say anything about Libertarians supporting ethnonationalism or protectionism, only supporting *free speech*, including that of ethnonationalists and protectionists.

    “It’s perfectly within your rights, for example, to say that you hate all pakistanis and that they’re stupid turds.”

    Not any more, Ms Vilification.

    “But trying to create violence against a particular community/group IS criminal. You’re trying your best to get people to violate MY property rights.”

    *Trying* to incite crime is not the same as doing it. What if your words cause no reaction at all? Why should you still be prosecuted?

    “you’d be absolutely within your rights to advocate the creation of a violent mob which murders all Pakistani immigrants they see on the street.”

    Advocating it isn’t doing it.
    It’s always been illegal to murder people, even Pakistanis.

    “Let’s say this does happen and Pakistani immigrants do get murdered.”

    Then the murderers get prosecuted.

    “without legislation to that effect, it can’t be called misuse at all and you’d be cleared of all responsibility.”

    Correct.

    “Libertarianism espouses that peoples’ actions should be restricted if and only if they violate property rights of another person. This is a clear case of the same.”

    Uh, no it’s not. Because words are not actions. They are only theoretical, hypothetical until made real by action.
    So you would support banning Valerie Solanas’ SCUM Manifesto and Eminem’s recordings? Just in case they incite crime?

    • “I state my opinions and point our the flaws in yours.
      I have no political power over society.”

      FALSE – you *only* state opinions and *attempt* to point out flaws in others.
      TRUE. – you have no political power – go and garner some more and then come back here and try to make a point.

      Simpleton – you opinion counts for next to nothing – you have archaic and draconian ideologies and you have next to no public support. Society rejects you – go away.

  99. So, in Shocky’s illustrious list of “libertarians”, we have an anarchist, a self described social conservative who belongs to the tea party movement, a woman who rejected libertarian philosophies herself, a republican, a radical who advocated trade unionism and republicanism, a bible thumper who refused to stop schools from imposing religious beliefs on students and a supreme court judge who supported Southern Segregation. I’ll leave you to find for yourself which is which.
    Nice list.

    It’s ironical that you included that last one. It was written about the Nazi regime, which was one of the biggest suppressors of free speech which ever existed. But of course, words aren’t actions, Nazi propogandists are utterly blameless.

    As for the rest, eyeroll.

    No, advocating isn’t the same as murdering (this is like the fourth time I’m saying this) but it is a crime in itself. Most people, unlike you, have double-digit IQs and don’t just apply laws mindlessly across the board. There’s such a thing as reasonable doubt.

    Did I say that “just in case” should be a justification for censorship? I said “reasonably likely”. Is there a difference between the two or is it clouded by your wide-eyed paranoia? How fucking dumb can you get?

  100. theantibogan says:
    “we do NOT have a bill of rights (as the USA does) that includes freedom of speech.”

    We don’t need to. It’s a basis principle clearly understood for centuries.
    We don’t need a law stating your right to wear socks. And we don’t need one.

    “We have an Anti Discrimination Act and a Racial Discrimination Act, and both state that it is unlawful…”

    Your argument is circular.
    You justify speech-restriction laws because there are speech-restrictions laws.
    This is like saying (in 1792) “Women can’t vote because the law says they can’t, so there!” as if women had any say in the law itself.
    When did Australian citizens democratically ever agree to these speech-restriction laws? When?
    Was it on the same day they approved 66% Asian immigration?

    “Our society does not support a person standing on a soapbox at Flinders Street Station with a megaphone….”

    We used to.
    They may have had rotten tomatoes thrown at them, but they could still speak.

    “They are spoken only to cause pain and angst”

    So nobody can ever say something that might cause pain and angst.
    This is what I mean by your ‘right to feel good’ perspective.
    Conflict of interests is inevitable.

    “they are considered to be hate speech.”
    Yes, we define you speech as unacceptable because we say it’s ‘hate speech’, and therefore unacceptable because we say ‘hate speech’ is unacceptable.
    Chasing your tail.

    “Back then we had Marshall Law.”
    Instituted by Governor Marshall.
    Wiki: “Martial law is the imposition of military rule by military authorities”.
    When was Australia ruled by the military, antibogan?

    “People have the right not to be discriminated against because of their ethnicity, gender, sexuality or disability.”

    Because you say so. Therefore it’s true.
    No, people have the right to *be themselves*, to be Aboriginal, to be female, to be gay, to be blind, not the right to protect their ego from insult through legal statute.

    Corey Worthington?

    “There is no blanket ban of publishing ‘offensive opinions’ about these subjects.”
    Yes there is.”

    No, there isn’t. Quote the legislativeclause which states *any* offensive opinion about race, etc is illegal. *Any* offensive opinion.

    “And where is the objective authority that determines what demands careful consideration?
    The objective authority is our police and legal systems”

    Wrong. They don’t decide *what* will be illegal, they only enforce the law.

    “If a person is the subject of psychological harm, or attempted psychological harm, our state has an obligation to protect that person.”

    Attempted psychological harm? ROFL.

    You are not protecting them. You are only punishing the ‘offender’. The harm has been done. You cannot ‘avoid’ it.

    “Do people’s opinions about icecream demand careful consideration?
    No? Why did you answer that?
    Because of your *subjective* judgment about the importance of icecream in our society.”
    WTF?”

    Mr Fictional Scenario can’t understand. I didn’t think you would.
    Plain English translation already provided (Analogies for Dummies) at end of scenario: “There are no absolutes or certainties in human society.”

    “You’re forgetting that in Australia, people do not have the right to discriminate,blah blah blah.”

    I didn’t forget. I disagree.

    “And you continue to deny the existence of psychological abuse.”

    Where is the federal act that criminaslises “psychological (or attempted) abuse/harm”?
    If this were a *basic principle* of our society, where is the generic psych-abuse law?

    “You talk about fairness and liberty, yet feel that it is okay to make sweeping negative generalisations about entire communities of people and assume that none of them should take any sort of offense.”

    Fairness?!
    Again, you think allowing speech means you *approve or agree* with it.
    No! No! No! No! No!
    When are you going to get it? Free speech is not about whether you agree with the *content* of someone’s speech, but their right to say it. Nothing more.

    People who take offense or disagree have what? That’s right: Free Speech.
    They are just as entitled to respond with contrary statements of their own.

  101. Natasha says: “Nice list.”

    So you disagree with them?

    “It’s ironical that you included that last one. It was written about the Nazi regime”

    I didn’t know that. Eyeroll.

    “Nazi propogandists are utterly blameless.”

    If the people who created the posters didn’t kill anyone, yes. But the people who did *are* responsible.

    “Most people, unlike you, have double-digit IQs and don’t just apply laws mindlessly across the board. There’s such a thing as reasonable doubt.”

    Reasonable doubt has to do with your possible guilt, not whether your action was a crime itself, Ms Double Digit.

    “Did I say that “just in case” should be a justification for censorship?”

    Yes, because you justify crimalising speech on the *possibility* it will promote actual harm (whether it does it not).

    Okay, smartypants, is the SCUM Manifesto or Eminem “reasonably likely” to promote violence? How do you determine this?

  102. Josh Ayn Rand supported the Nazis? No, she supported free speech. When are you “double-digit IQs” going to understand the difference between.
    1. Allowing speech.
    2. Agreeing with it.
    Wiki: “She was a fierce opponent of all forms of collectivism and statism, including fascism”

    Rand Paul was born in 1963. Pray tell, which Fascist regime he supported?

    “Pissant pseuds like yourself have no right to trash his words.”

    He would completely understand. The revision is perfectly apt.
    Just like the incremental Nazification of Germany, people today (even “libertarians” like Natasha) fail to see their liberty being nibbled away, inch by inch.

    “patriarchilists (sic)”
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/patriarchalism
    If there is partiarchalism, then there must be patriarchalists.
    I didn’t misspell it either.

    “the enemies of free speech and of a democratic society.”

    Still have the same rights as any other citizen.

    “While we’re at it old fruit, it may have slipped your attention but your lip-curling particular targeting of Natasha tells me heaps about you. You’re a misogynist toe-rag.”

    And what does ‘old fruit’ tell me about you?
    I target Natasha, because she’s the only person here to openly state she’s libertarian, while defending speech-restriction laws.
    I expect hypocritical nonsense from Commies. I expect more from Libertarians..

    “So Schlock you are advocating for the revival of a regime of murderers, genocidists, psychotics, perverts and thieves?”

    No.
    I’m advocating free speech.

  103. Rand Paul is a libertarian? I might have agreed if he wasn’t a member of the Tea Party movement, which condescendingly tells us gullible souls that masturbation is Bad for us because God says so and that the economy needs to be regulated more, not less. He actually self identifies as a social conservative.

    I don’t know which political science 101 brochure you’ve been reading but most forms of liberatarianism do NOT advocate complete removal of restrictions on civil liberties, including free speech. Exceptions to freedoms are few but essential. The non-aggression principle in classical liberatarian ideologies rejects aggression towards others, including threats of violence and other non-physical forms of aggression .

  104. Natasha, please answer my question:
    Are the SCUM Manifesto or Eminem “reasonably likely” to promote violence? How do you determine this?
    Could they not be perceived as ‘aggressive’ or ‘threatening’?

  105. scott are u retarded. muslims arnt going to take over australia anymore than hindus or atheists or whatever. the point is poeple whould have a choice when it comes to religion (or no religion). if people want to convert to christianity/islam/hinduism/buddhism by choice thats great everyone has the right to pick what they believe in instead of beleiving sumtink shoved down their throat. if people instead, choose to become atheists or agnostics fine i got no worries with that! its about freedom of choice.

What do YOU think about this?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s