BlogRandom Notes - Idle Thoughts
And even MORE on unapproved speech — Same-sex marriage critic Margaret Court hits back over Cottesloe Tennis Club dumping: The West Australian
This is getting ugly and grotesque in the extreme and not Australian. In the recesses of their minds, these people are giving vent to their inner thug and bully. These are the heel clipping oppressive Brown Shirts, the preening, virtue signallers, the rainbow gestapo strutting their moral vanity.
As to trusting politicians, it’s hard to think of even one of today’s problems which, if it weren’t created by them, they’ve not made significantly worse. From replacing the lowest ¬energy costs in the world with the world’s highest, from declining educational standards to the way the criminal justice system better protects the criminal than the victim, today’s politicians have hardly earned our confidence.
“..As someone who has written extensively on climate change for a decade, my view is that all of this is madness. We are entering into dangerous territory, a fundamental attack on free speech. If we’re going to use agencies of the federal government to investigate and even prosecute “climate deniers”, for making “false and misleading claims” then let’s damn well do the same for “climate alarmists”, who do the same thing all the time..”
This is America today. I suspect Australia is not far behind. In fact given the violence last night of 200 or so SSM advocates attacking 15 to 20 Catholic traditionalists at Sydney University, combined with the treatment (again) of Margaret Court in the last few days, (separate blog post) I’d say we’re already equal to the US. That is, if you dare to think or articulate unapproved thoughts you’re up for both banishment to the status of a non person, and verbal and physical attack.
“….It is in this way, the language has changed. Whereas the word “violence” has always meant actions that include actual physical violence, progressives have transmogrified “unapproved thought” from a mere difference of opinion into an integral component of the definition of violence…”
This is the point that many are either ignoring or won’t admit to and it seems quite apparent that the object of the exercise is to render both the word and the institution meaningless and devoid of value. “…Words are meaningful not only because of what they include, but because of what they exclude. For example, the word cat is meaningful because it includes cats, and also because it excludes all other objects, including other four-legged mammals. Some objects are in (all cats) and some objects are out (all other things). Let’s say some squirrels felt distressed at being excluded from the world of catness. …They begin to call themselves cats. No one much minds. But then they begin to insist that other animals also call them cats. “Don’t you believe in equality?” they ask. It is hard to argue with that…”
With same-sex marriage activists, the federal attorney-general, and five MPs working on a same-sex marriage bill arguing that there are no consequences for religious freedom to changing the definition of marriage, it is worth considering whether this might be really true. Let’s take this argument in light of what is actually happening in countries that legalised same-sex marriage, even when it was thought that religious freedom would receive full protection by the law.
Great to see these two sneering, condescending elitist snobs, Jane Caro and Peter FitzSimons, straight off the set of The Drum or Q&A or The Project, get well and truly slammed. They epitomise the loathsome class of the commentariat elite who want to finger wag and lecture and tell everyone else how to live their lives as they jet around the world berating everyone else about their careless carbon footprint.
I think this line best sums up the blustering, bloviating Fitzsimons “..the Eddie McGuire of historians..”
Me and him again—
Him: “This shouldn’t be an issue, it is a basic human right.”
Me: “Since the argument is predicated on equality, some, (many perhaps) would argue that polygamy is a basic human right. Or marrying your sister. Or consanguinity is a basic human right. Would you argue against that? If not why not? If so, how? After all, “all love is equal” so you keep telling us. What’s your bottom line and how would you morally and ethically prosecute your case against the above type of unions celebrating their special kind of love?”
Again, Grand exit into a broom cupboard.
A piece of shallow, leftist logic (is there any other kind?) with respect to the SSM debate.
Him: “The question is simply should same sex couples be allowed to marry, yes or no: religion is a human construct based on human need for social order and control.”
Me: “You mean like your religion based on human need for social order and control, socialism/communism? Or perhaps you mean that other social construct and religion, climate change?”
You had to be there. Was like making a grand exit and walking into a broom cupboard
Random Note: It’s quite apparent that while strutting and preening, wearing their green credentials on their sleeve and taking the moral high ground, the energy behemoths like AGL and Engie are in fact scamming consumers by using the shut down of one of the assets and thereby creating a shortage, to boost their profits. In other words they’re gaming the system. They’re using the current policy as a way of tinkering with supply and demand and boosting profits whilst at the same time virtue signalling their supposed green credentials and responsible corporate worthiness when in fact they’re simply shysters, scammers and con artists