Midweek Roundup

Our server has has a volume of posts problem so I am aggregating the last three to reduce the pressure and make room for other people who might have something to say. Sorry about the comments that will be lost.

STEVE KATES IN NEW YORK

Last week Steven Kates went off to a conference in New York run by the Heterodox Academy founded by Johathan Haidt. This organization started a few years ago and it has always been on the list of important sites that I circulate from time to time.

Steve has been very slack about telling as about it, I suppose there is so much to do in New York. Just don’t forget to have Jonathan sign my copy of his book that I lent you. There was a witness!

The good news is that Jonathan Haidt himself is coming to town next month.

If you haven’t heard of Jonathan Haidt yet, you’re about to start seeing his name everywhere. After recently engaging in some enlightening conversations across the podcast circuit with the likes of Sam Harris, Joe Rogan, Ezra Klein and Jordan Peterson, it’s clear Jonathan has perspectives worth hearing. Jonathan thinks that we should be able to disagree in a more constructive way (and if you think he’s wrong then you’re an idiot, you have no idea what you’re talking about, get the **** out of here!!). But seriously, true civil discourse is slowly becoming a thing of the past & at Think Inc., we want that to change.

Once upon a time, not so long ago, there were these wonderful places that were designed for young people to come together, gain knowledge and exchange ideas. These were mysterious structures where you could voice your thoughts and opinions; you could even challenge and argue with others, all in the name of learning.

People were offensive.
People were offended.
Everyone was allowed their time of day and the best ideas came out on top.

Those places still exist today, if only by name: University.

MADNESS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE

Could you make this up? Back to feudal life in the inner city, but well equipped with electric vehicles!

On the topic of universities, something for nerds, a long piece just published by a NZ academic looking back on Karl Popper and the great book that he wrote while he was there from 1937 to 1945.

According to Michael King, Popper’s The Open Society and Its Enemies may be “the most influential book ever to come out of New Zealand.” Written in Christchurch in the last years of the Second World War by a Jewish intellectual in exile from Vienna, the book’s forthright attack on Plato created a storm of controversy worldwide, and continues to be influential today. In this piece, I want to reintroduce Popper to the current generation of New Zealanders. I look at how the book came to be written in New Zealand, and what Popper thought of the country. I also examine the controversy surrounding the book, and see what we might say about it today, especially in light of subsequent scholarship.

MARK LATHAM TALKS TO ALAN JONES ON FALAU ETC

Good listening. Not just the Folau case but the lockout laws in Sydney and lazy planning for the new international airport out of Sydney.

DONATE HERE

A note to Iampeter on my amen to the warning be careful, very careful about legislation to protect religious freedom. When the moral framework of society is crumbling the last people you would ask to help are social engineers in politics and big government bureaucracies. Contemplate the Human Rights Commission!

On that, full marks to Gillian Triggs for her comments yesterday. Is that the same person who shamelessly played party politics and enforcer for political correctness when she ran the HRC? Does that show how power corrupts?

PS Interesting Liberty Quote [Wayne] Swan is a hard worker and spends a lot of time poring over briefs — Judith Sloan

Maybe he should have got out more. Or got different people to write the briefs.

This entry was posted in Rafe, Rafe's Roundups. Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Midweek Roundup

  1. stackja

    Sorry about the comments that will be lost.

    All my prose gone!

  2. Rafe

    I would have saved it if it was in verse that scanned and rhymed.

  3. mem

    I just read a report in The Herald Sun breaking news section which is a version of a Reuters article. The subject is climate action and a call from investors to divest from coal.
    The HS article omits important information which results in exaggerating the support for climate change action even beyond the Reuters article. I don’t have the time to do a full dissection but it is worth readers going through both articles to spot the difference.
    https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/investors-demand-climate-action/news-story/dd244c591765eab9c21fac93884b6721

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-investment-letter-exclu/exclusive-investors-with-34-trillion-demand-urgent-climate-change-action-idUSKCN1TQ31X

  4. Rococo Liberal

    Swan is a hard worker and spends a lot of time poring over briefs

    Swan was a knicker fetishist, who knew?

  5. duncanm

    MADNESS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE

    great, but frightening read, with a few nice turns of phrase, eg:

    It’s not some rogue element of the campus in a reefer-strewn Carlton hideaway

  6. Up The Workers!

    Maybe if “The Goose” had got different people to actually wear the briefs, he wouldn’t have spent quite so much time pawing over them?

    God knows what would have happened if the freshly rubbed-and-tugged ‘AnAl the Brothel-Hopper’ or Bonking Billy Short-One had come across them first.

    Never a dull moment in Allah’s Local Party.

  7. Percy Popinjay

    MADNESS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE

    great, but frightening read

    It was actually incredibly depressing. That people so staggeringly stupid, evil and utterly ignorant of history are blighting quackademia is clearly something that society can no longer afford, as opposed to the entirely fictional “climate emergency” the fantastical gullible morons keep incessantly squawking about.

    Remember, our taxes pay for these idiots’ bizarre fascist flights of fancy. They’re not only insane, they’re potentially extremely dangerous and will be, if their much hoped for “degrowth” scenario ever arises – as it no doubt will under a future labore/greenfilth goat rodeo.

  8. Mother Lode

    On that, full marks to Gillian Triggs for her comments yesterday.

    The horrid woman used to be able to threaten people with scant resources into prostrating themselves at the altar of progressive fads which just happened to be where she was standing – as far as she was concerned they were worshipping her.

    Now she needs to make herself look credible for her rancid lucre. Picking out that this is going Izzy’s way is not insightful, especially as she can can hold it at arms length by speaking only of what the law says, not what proper justice is.

    What she put those kids at QUT through was insidious. It was a long process and the weakness of their case manifest – but the HRC did not follow law. They had their own ‘higher’ justice to mete out.

    Considering her attitude to people sitting around the kitchen table, recklessly talking to each other without being properly monitored – do you really think her saying something is legal means she thinks it is right?

  9. Bruce

    “Or got different people to write the briefs.”

    Or to wear them?

    On another topic: Is Triggsy having intimations of mortality, and a few worries about a “justice” even higher than hers?? Chickens cleared for landing?

  10. None

    Haha I said two numbers yesterday or the day before he should read Haidt instead of his outdated Pop psychology.

    Motherlode I listen to that Triggs interview with karvelis and then I also listened to the ACL guy’s 10 minutes about the legal side of the case. Triggs is into international law and UN human rights rubbish while the ACL guy has been directly involved with other workplace code of conduct type set ups and he pointed out some really interesting issues that may arise out of the Folau case. While he is still relatively Young I’m sort of giving his opinion a little bit more weight at the moment. To me there seems a danger that if this case goes all the way to the High Court it can risk effectively banning the Bible ( which has directed Vacations for both J–s and Christians) and that is certainly what a few homosexualist activists have been trying on with various petty litigations through tribunals and the like.

    Apart from that I give Triggs no points for credibility given that witch, when she had a real opportunity to really do something for free speech, did sweet FA snf instead f****** went after pole and when confronted about it f****** pikrd out with a triple twist. Let’s not forget her concerns for asylum seekers which only a rose during politocally opportune moments and her lies during Senate estimates. The icing on the cake has to be her f****** recommendation that we award hundreds of thousands of taxpayers Harden to a f****** illegal creep who bashed his wife and unborn child to death with a bicycle.

  11. Lilliana

    The people at Melbourne Uni are totally bonkers. Unfortunately most people are too busy on FB, or glued to the idiot box etc to see what is happening. Universities, once hubs of knowledge and enlightenment, are now little more than indoctrination centres for producing brainwashed borg like leftist minions.

  12. bespoke

    A note to Iampeter on my amen to the warning be careful, very careful about legislation to protect religious freedom. When the moral framework of society is crumbling the last people you would ask to help are social engineers in politics and big government bureaucracies. Contemplate the Human Rights Commission!

    Was that Iampeter? Regardless 👍👍

  13. duncanm

    Percy Popinjay
    #3057980, posted on June 26, 2019 at 1:27 pm

    MADNESS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE
    ..
    They’re not only insane, they’re potentially extremely dangerous and will be, if their much hoped for “degrowth” scenario ever arises – as it no doubt will under a future labore/greenfilth goat rodeo.

    agreed a millionty percent.

    These whackos need to be exposed to the general public.

  14. Iampeter

    A note to Iampeter on my amen to the warning be careful, very careful about legislation to protect religious freedom. When the moral framework of society is crumbling the last people you would ask to help are social engineers in politics and big government bureaucracies. Contemplate the Human Rights Commission!

    Is this supposed to be an answer? It’s like you didn’t even read the post you’re responding to.
    Let me put my point forward as clearly as possible, Rafe:

    You have grossly misread the situation, mistaking a contract dispute for an issue of free speech and “religious freedom,” something it will never be. You’ve then thrown your support behind funding for legal action based on identity politics and encouraged others to do so too.
    This means you are on the same side as the social engineers and the Human Rights Commission.
    This means you are attacking free speech, religious freedom and many other rights besides.
    You seem to have all these basic political concepts completely confused and don’t know how they work.

    So it’s ME telling YOU that YOU need to contemplate the full implications of your position here.
    You seem to have everything completely backwards.

  15. The BigBlueCat

    Something for Iampeter to consider:

    Israel Folau is primarily acting in his own self-interest – RA has terminated his contract after attempting to muzzle him from expressing certain things on his personal social media account. After warning him not too, after the second post they had issues with, they sanctioned him arguably as a code of conduct breach. This is also a salient warning to others not to do as Folau has done, and we even saw those who supported Folau’s post with a thumbs-up being warned and pressured.

    That Folau is a Christian is not relevant to the issue at hand, although arguably you could say that RA has not upheld their own inclusivity and diversity policy given that Folau’s post was a reflection of Christian Scripture and a paraphrasing of St. Paul. In warning Folau about his post, there might be a case that RA have been anti-Christian, but that might only be germane to the issue if the reason for Folau’s sacking was because he was a Christian. In any event, his post wasn’t specific to anyone in particular, was to the world at large, and wasn’t in connection to him being a rugby player. As I understand it, his legal action is for unfair dismissal, not religious freedom or free speech, though free speech is a likely to enter into the “lawful” aspect of what Folau has said and the reasons why RA think it is a breach of their code of conduct.

    That many Christians and non-Christians are supporting Folau’s legal battle is evidence of what they consider their own self-interest and concern for others who might be cajoled by their employer not to say certain things in public even without any direct association with their employment.

    I take your point that Folau, under the law, is free to express himself irrespective of his employment with RA. He has done so. Where the rights issue occurs is RA telling Folua what he can and can’t say (specifically can’t) – he was warned by RA, and they penalised him by (allegedly) unlawfully terminating his contract.

    The full ramifications relate to the potential for some to say things we don’t like, but under freedom of expression they have a right to say it. But the expressions that incite violence, racial hatred, defamation and so forth are not permitted under law – if you say it and a complaint is made, then you are liable for what has been said. An adherent of the RoP, for instance, can’t call for the execution of someone who has written or said something they don’t like and then expect to be protected by free speech / religious expression protections. Folau’s case is a universe away from that.

    I, for one, don’t think this is a case for the protection of religious expression or free speech per se, and I don’t think that special protections are specifically necessary given what we understand about the case. My view is that RA have been dicks – they should have ignored the post and moved on. I am concerned that if Folau doesn’t win, then those who say something (lawfully) not in context to their employment, and that their employer objects to, the employer will use that to sack the employee for reasons unassociated with their employment or the employer’s economic viability.

    But those corporations who call for diversity and inclusivity need to understand that it is a “two-edged sword” that cuts both ways. And that is the point of the Folau case. While Folau’s playing days (for RA) are over, if RA has acted unlawfully and have potentially defamed Folau and used reasons contrary to their own code of conduct, or have breached their own code of conduct in terminating Folau’s contract, then Folau is due compensation for that.

    Both are free agents to do whatever they like, but there may or may not be consequences under the law. Time will tell.

  16. The BigBlueCat

    BTW – the Izzy Folau legal fund on ACL is nearing $2.2m … people have many concerns, but essentially want to see Izzy defend himself against an (alleged) unfair dismissal by RA. They have their own reasons for this – most of which relate to self-interest and what the outcome might mean for them individually.

    Folau’s case has little to do with identity politics as some have said – it’s about his contract termination. All the other stuff relate to “reasons” that have yet to be tested in court or tribunal (other than RA’s hearings). IMO.

    But if it is determined that RA has terminated Folau’s contract because of anti-Christian sentiment (that is, they disagree with his deeply-held religious convictions and how he has expressed them independent of his RA commitments), they deserve the feel the full weight of the law. If, on the other hand, it goes against Folau, then by implication we are no longer free to express ourselves without first considering what our employer might do if they don’t like what we say or write.

    Or alternatively, we accept certain subjective consequences that the exercising of our free agency might bring (eg. I am offended by what you said/wrote, so you’re fired!). That is a frightening proposition.

  17. Iampeter

    Something for Iampeter to consider:

    There’s not much here for me to consider, as you’ve just put all the confusions on this subject into one post.
    So, thanks for that, I guess.

    I take your point that Folau, under the law, is free to express himself irrespective of his employment with RA.

    No, that’s not my point. My point is that firing someone will never be a violation of any kind. This is because you don’t have a right to a job. This is different to any contractual disputes or settlements that may be reached in parallel to this. This is different still, to violations to do with speech or religion, which can only be perpetrated by the government, not by private actors.
    You also mentioned defamation and incitement in your meanderings, but these are different still. These are actual rights violations that private actors can commit against you, where you can prove damages by applying the relevant, objective legal tests. Nothing about somebody being fired will ever qualify for a rights violation so these terms cannot be used here.
    In short, these are all different concepts, that require a proper understanding of politics, in order to use correctly and in their proper contexts.
    You can’t just throw them together in word salads, like you’re all doing, to pretend that some kind of great wrong has been committed, because you’re upset a Christian is upset. This is how supporters of the HRC behave. They are sad and have no legal recourse, so have cooked up a whole system under which to sue people for their feelings.

    Where the rights issue occurs is RA telling Folua what he can and can’t say (specifically can’t) – he was warned by RA, and they penalised him by (allegedly) unlawfully terminating his contract.

    He was not told what he can or can’t say and his termination was not unlawful. Again, you don’t know what you’re saying, but just want it to be true because, “but…but…Christian waa waa.”

    An adherent of the RoP, for instance, can’t call for the execution of someone who has written or said something they don’t like and then expect to be protected by free speech / religious expression protections.

    Why not? According to you all, they have “freedom of religion.” How did you resolve the conflict between your misunderstanding of free speech and misunderstanding of freedom of religion to conclude they can’t threaten?

    I, for one, don’t think this is a case for the protection of religious expression or free speech per s

    Well thanks for that oh so generous concession. Especially since no private party could ever violate your free speech or religious expression. Only the state can do that. This is what I mean by you not knowing what you’re saying.

    . I am concerned that if Folau doesn’t win, then those who say something (lawfully) not in context to their employment, and that their employer objects to, the employer will use that to sack the employee for reasons unassociated with their employment or the employer’s economic viability.

    Why would that be a concern?
    Unless you’re a leftist you should support the right to sack anyone for any reason.
    You don’t have a right to a job.

    But if it is determined that RA has terminated Folau’s contract because of anti-Christian sentiment (that is, they disagree with his deeply-held religious convictions and how he has expressed them independent of his RA commitments), they deserve the feel the full weight of the law.

    What law is that? Any such “law” would be ACTUAL violations of free speech, freedom of association, property rights and individual rights in general.
    I thought you opposed these kinds of violations?

    If, on the other hand, it goes against Folau, then by implication we are no longer free to express ourselves without first considering what our employer might do if they don’t like what we say or write.

    No there is no such implications. He just got fired. There’s nothing more to it than that. It’s not a crime to fire people, just because they’re Christians. You don’t have a right to a job.

    Folau’s case has little to do with identity politics as some have said – it’s about his contract termination.

    Oh, OK. I guess no one mentioned his Christianity, or suggested “freedom of religion” has been violated. Yep. This entire thing is about just another, run of the mill, contract termination. Wait…why is it an issue then?
    Get outta here with this shit. You cannot possibly have written this with a straight face.

    But those corporations who call for diversity and inclusivity need to understand that it is a “two-edged sword” that cuts both ways. And that is the point of the Folau case.

    No, it’s conservatives that need to realize that if they oppose the identity politics of the diversity crowd, that they need actual alternative ideas. Not just more identity politics.

    That’s what this case is actually about. The fact that conservatives are nothing more than religious and politically illiterate leftists, tards.

  18. stackja

    Still more petering out.

  19. The BigBlueCat

    My point is that firing someone will never be a violation of any kind. This is because you don’t have a right to a job.

    Are you an employer? Have you put this to the test? My point is, along with many others, is that is the sacking is unlawful, there can (and ought) to be consequences. Your mind is stuck in your Utopia, not the real world. Your rights are defined by the employment agreement, freely entered into by both parties. If one or either party breaches the agreement unlawfully, they can receive some kind of restitution, including reinstatement. This happens all the time.

    Nothing about somebody being fired will ever qualify for a rights violation so these terms cannot be used here.

    The point I’ve made that you have missed is that the alleged rights violation (attempting to control Folau’s expression of his deeply-held religious convictions) led to the alleged unlawful dismissal (Folau was warned not to post by RA, but did anyway). Your blinkered viewpoint has obscured this from your sight. This is why I have also said this is not a freedom of religion case per se – Folau isn’t claiming that as far as I know – but he is claiming unfair dismissal because he exercised his right to free expression – RA is claiming it breached their code of conduct; a claim that still needs to be tested objectively and independently.

    This is different still, to violations to do with speech or religion, which can only be perpetrated by the government, not by private actors.

    Not so, but if you keep repeating it to yourself …..

    He was not told what he can or can’t say and his termination was not unlawful. Again, you don’t know what you’re saying, but just want it to be true because, “but…but…Christian waa waa.”

    Fairwork Australia and possibly the AHRC will determine that. I’ve not said he was sacked because he is a Christian, and that’s not something he will claim. But it may be germane to his argument regarding wrongful contract termination and his expression of this deeply-held religious convictions.

    How did you resolve the conflict between your misunderstanding of free speech and misunderstanding of freedom of religion to conclude they can’t threaten?

    Are you being deliberately obtuse? Incitement to violence and murder is a crime, is it not? Not all speech is protected. Sure, as a free agent people say things that get them arrested. That is my point.

    Especially since no private party could ever violate your free speech or religious expression.

    If they seek to manipulate or limit what I might say, then under ICCPR Article 19 they have violated my rights. It’s not limited to governments, it’s scope is more universal. Sure, I can still say what I want as a free agent, but their attempts to manipulate and control are an attack on my freedoms, according to the ICCPR.

    Why would that be a concern?
    Unless you’re a leftist you should support the right to sack anyone for any reason.
    You don’t have a right to a job.

    You’re not arguing from a position of the law, but from an ideological position (which is what you usually do). In Australia, as an employer, you do need a reason (not any reason, and especially no reason) to terminate an employee. I suggest you do some research on Australia’s Industrial Relations and Employment laws. I know you may not agree with them – that’s not a defence in a tribunal or court of law.

    No there is no such implications. He just got fired. There’s nothing more to it than that. It’s not a crime to fire people, just because they’re Christians. You don’t have a right to a job.

    You’re not really up with the facts of the case, are you? They terminated his contract because of an allegedly flagrant breach of RA’s code of conduct. They didn’t fire him for being a Christian – they fired him because they determined the expression of his deeply-held religious beliefs were a high-level breach of their code of conduct. Folau is arguing that it either wasn’t or if it was then the code of conduct and subsequent actions by RA are an attempt to manipulate and control his expression of deeply-help religious convictions. Your argument is that RA can’t control what Folau says – in terms of free agency that is correct (he can say whatever he want to say), but if the attempt sees Folau take down his post, then it can be said that RA controlled his expression through (allegedly) unlawful interference.

    Oh, OK. I guess no one mentioned his Christianity, or suggested “freedom of religion” has been violated. Yep. This entire thing is about just another, run of the mill, contract termination. Wait…why is it an issue then?
    Get outta here with this shit. You cannot possibly have written this with a straight face.

    Sure, many people have mentioned religion and Christianity. Aren’t they exercising their free speech? The issue is that Folau is claiming unfair dismissal – that what he posted on social media was a lawful expression of his deeply-held religious convictions, which you have said he has a right to do. RA will claim his post was a high-level breach of their code of conduct. What Folau posted will need to be considered to determine if the termination was lawful given the social media posts, the code of conduct, and agreements between the parties.

    Folau’s rights regarding free expression and freedom to hold and express religious viewpoints will come into play in Folau’s argument – if RA has breached Folau’s rights, then the question of unlawful termination can be determined. Why can’t you see that? It’s very simple. You are arguing for something completely different – RA can sack him; Folau doesn’t have a right to a job, and that private parties can’t restrict free speech, and it’s just identity politics. That’s it. That’s all you have. The rest of your diatribe consists of ad-hominem attacks and glaring ignorance of Australian employment law, contract law, the Australian human rights framework, the role of the ICCPR, Fairwork Australia, the impact on individuals, etc. You write from an ideological perspective, not a real-world one. Good luck with that.

    No, it’s conservatives that need to realize that if they oppose the identity politics of the diversity crowd, that they need actual alternative ideas. Not just more identity politics.

    I agree that Conservatives (and others) should fight identity politics with different ideas. But that’s not the case here. It’s a case of an alleged unfair termination of a contract; unfair terminations are not lawful under Australian law. I think you are too busy arguing “the ought” rather than “the is” to see that. I’m certainly not arguing the identity side – that should never fly in a tribunal or court of law. Unfortunately in recent times it has.

    That’s what this case is actually about. The fact that conservatives are nothing more than religious and politically illiterate leftists, tards.

    Ad-hominems again … not supported by any evidence – just an assertion. You must have failed debate club. But time will tell who wins between Folau and RA. I’m thinking the Folau will win at Fairwork Australia, but if he doesn’t win there he will at AHRC. I guess you’ll be joining the RA legal team, eh Pete?

    Iampeter: “No-one’s rights have been violated, employers can sack anyone for any reason, private parties can’t violate rights to free speech, it’s just identity politics” … we’ll see.

  20. The BigBlueCat

    BTW – some interesting reading: here

  21. Mark A

    The BigBlueCat

    You’re not arguing from a position of the law, but from an ideological position (which is what you usually do). In Australia, as an employer, you do need a reason (not any reason, and especially no reason) to terminate an employee. I suggest you do some research on Australia’s Industrial Relations and Employment laws. I know you may not agree with them – that’s not a defence in a tribunal or court of law.

    This is all you had to say, it summarizes the different positions.

    He always argues from his lofty ideological position, which mostly consists of everyone else is wrong and he is right, and we don’t know our politics and we are mere left-wing clowns masquerading as conservatives.

    Answering him at length only gives him fuel.

  22. Iampeter

    BigBlueCat, everything you’ve said here was directly addressed in the post you’re responding to.
    You’ve just restated the same nonsensical posts, without understanding anything that’s being said to you.
    Saying “not so” to things that are exactly so, simply because you have no idea what you’re talking about, is just dishonest.
    You know nothing about the subject of laws or politics. Not how things are, nor how they should be and why.

    He always argues from his lofty ideological position, which mostly consists of everyone else is wrong and he is right, and we don’t know our politics and we are mere left-wing clowns masquerading as conservatives.

    No, I just make logical arguments based on a proper application of political theory.
    If I’ve said something wrong, or there’s a counter position, I’d love to hear one.

    On the other hand, you guys spout confused gibberish, that is mostly verbatim what any leftists say, except much more confused, and pretend you’re discussing politics.

    You know I’m right. That’s why you guys get so triggered.

  23. Iampeter

    You know, there’s an exercise you guys should try to really understand where I’m coming from.
    You guys should go to forums covering less abstract topics than politics and try to pull the same crap as you do here.
    Go to an auto-sports, or PC build, or fitness blog, or whatever, and start throwing terms around that you don’t understand with the tone of an expert.
    Then when people come along to explain that you don’t make any sense and have no idea what you’re talking about, tell them that they’re just being “ideological.” Tell them to stop being so “utopian.”

    See how that works out for you.

  24. The BigBlueCat

    Iampeter , go start a business, hire a few people, then fire them for any (or no) reason and see how you go … there’s a good lad.

  25. Iampeter

    Because that will prove…what?
    Which one of my points do you think you’re arguing against with this question?
    What point are you trying to make?

    LOL.

  26. The BigBlueCat

    Join the dots, Iampeter, join the dots ….

  27. Mark A

    The BigBlueCat
    #3064630, posted on June 28, 2019 at 9:02 am

    Join the dots, Iampeter, join the dots ….

    His white cane is in the way to see any dots.

    You are wasting your time, when you point to actual, existing, legal requirement of employment in most western countries and he comes back with “Because that will prove…what?” you have to realise you have lost.

    He is beating you down BS and persistence by repeating the same useless mantra.

  28. Mark A

    He is beating you down BS , read, “He is beating you down with BS.

  29. Iampeter

    Join what dots?
    When I use that line it’s in support of a point I’m making.
    You can’t use it in place of being able to articulate an actual point, SMH.

    You are wasting your time, when you point to actual, existing, legal requirement of employment in most western countries and he comes back with

    What “existing legal requirements of employment in most Western countries” did her question point to?

    You don’t think people are fired every day, for no good reason, even for bad reasons, only to just go get other jobs, without trying to claim their “free speech” or “religious freedoms” have been violated?

    Do you support laws that prevent businesses from firing people for some reason? You think people have a right to a job?

    What POINT are you idiots trying to make, in order to avoid conceding you don’t have a clue?

    How much more doubling down are you prepared to engage in?

  30. mh

    Did Ayn Rand have a right to be on welfare for so many years?

  31. Mark A

    I give up IMP you win whatever it is you were after, you got it. display it with pride.

    You just don’t get it!
    It’s one thing arguing from pure ideology quite an other when confronted with reality.

    Did you not get the argument that there are laws governing employment?
    Like how not to discriminate when employing and what are the rules to follow when dismissing?

  32. The BigBlueCat

    He always argues from his lofty ideological position, which mostly consists of everyone else is wrong and he is right, and we don’t know our politics and we are mere left-wing clowns masquerading as conservatives.

    Answering him at length only gives him fuel.

    Yeah, I know … but it is fun!

  33. Iampeter

    Did you not get the argument that there are laws governing employment?
    Like how not to discriminate when employing and what are the rules to follow when dismissing?

    What’s argument you want me to get?
    You’re just asking me if I know there are employment laws.
    Yes. And?

  34. The BigBlueCat

    Join what dots?
    When I use that line it’s in support of a point I’m making.

    Really? Saying “join the dots” means “make your own conclusions from the facts” – it’s not a line that supports an argument, its an invitation to do further analysis.

    What “existing legal requirements of employment in most Western countries” did her question point to?

    Who are you calling “her”?

    You don’t think people are fired every day, for no good reason, even for bad reasons, only to just go get other jobs, without trying to claim their “free speech” or “religious freedoms” have been violated?

    People are fired for all sorts of reasons, even no reasons. That is not my argument – my argument is that at law the termination must be just – that is, there must be a lawful reason for the termination, otherwise the employee can seek restitution. They don’t have to claim “free speech” or “religious freedom” if that is not the reason for the dismissal.

    Folau contends that those issues led to his unlawful termination, but your position of “No-one’s rights have been violated, employers can sack anyone for any reason, private parties can’t violate rights to free speech, it’s just identity politics” if to be taken as a general rule is not supported by Australian employment law (either legislation or case law). But you push an “ought” not an “is”. Fair enough as a political discussion, but the Folau issue is a legal one.

    Do you support laws that prevent businesses from firing people for some reason? You think people have a right to a job?

    I support laws that require businesses to have a lawful reason for firing people – those reasons include poor performance, bad behaviour, restructuring, conflicts of interest, etc. Our current laws requires a lawful reason for termination; if no lawful reason is given, the employee has a right to challenge the termination via Fairwork Australia. That’s the bit you don’t like.

    People don’t have a right to be given a job, but if they have a job under an employment agreement, and the employer has no lawful reason to terminate the employee, then they shouldn’t – and if they do they risk a Fairwork Australia complaint. They have protections at law, and if they are covered by an award they have additional backing. That is all I am saying.

    What POINT are you idiots trying to make, in order to avoid conceding you don’t have a clue?

    How much more doubling down are you prepared to engage in?

    The points I am making is that you can’t act as an employer outside of what the law provides. You can disagree with the law all you like on political or ideological grounds – won’t get you far in a tribunal or court of law.

    The point I made about you starting a business and firing employees without a just reason was to help you understand the real-world issues you conveniently dismiss. Take it from one who has some experience here. I’m not necessarily claiming the laws are just or correct, they just are! And you say we “don’t have a clue”? FMD!

    You are wasting your time, when you point to actual, existing, legal requirement of employment in most western countries and he comes back with “Because that will prove…what?” you have to realise you have lost.

    Probably. It just proves that he has no understanding of the real world as it is – he wants everyone to be acolytes of Ayn Rand because in his mind Objectivism is the only real “truth”. Except that reality is the harshest truth of all. Denial of counter-arguments and denial of reality is his stock-in-trade. Ideologues are like that.

  35. Iampeter

    We keep going in circles.
    First you post nonsense parapraphs, misusing political and legal concepts.
    Basically what I expect to see from the most confused Marxists, calling for central planning, only you don’t realize any of this.
    When I point this out, you guys pivot and start saying that existing laws support your position. That I’m just being “theoretical” and don’t understand “the real world.” Well, I’m not disputing that there are tons of leftist laws and organizations. As a right winger, I oppose them, don’t you?

    But why bring that up? How does that change the facts that you don’t know what you’re saying and are advocating the exact opposite of what you think you’re advocating?

    Because of this total confusion that you’re refusing to address, you can do nothing but hopelessly misread the Folau situation and have no way of working out that you have that totally backwards too.

  36. The BigBlueCat

    We keep going in circles.

    No, you do. You keep pivoting back to “No-one’s rights have been violated, employers can sack anyone for any reason, private parties can’t violate rights to free speech, it’s just identity politics”. You claim that coherent arguments arguing a case for the application of current Australian employment laws are somehow Marxist and leftist – when in fact the argument is agnostic to that. You belligerently fail to see that it is you that keeps going around in circles, repeating the same stuff without acknowledging the role of Australian employment laws in the Folau/RA situation.

    First you post nonsense parapraphs, misusing political and legal concepts.

    No, you do. You do not seem to have a grasp on Australian employment laws as they currently stand. I have not argued the political or even social case other than looking at RA’s reasons for terminating Folau’s contract and Folau’s lawful expression of his deeply-held religious convictions. I have not said “it’s because he’s a Christian” nor have I defended that proposition. Yet you have accused me of it.

    Basically what I expect to see from the most confused Marxists, calling for central planning, only you don’t realize any of this.

    I am not calling for central planning – I am describing to you some of the realities of hiring and firing people – you seem to be struggling to comprehend that. I could claim that you diatribe is what I would expect from a confused Randian Objectivist, but I won’t go that far …. oh, wait ….

    Well, I’m not disputing that there are tons of leftist laws and organizations. As a right winger, I oppose them, don’t you?

    That is the only concession that you have made recognising there are laws that apply. In the Folau case (the context of this whole discussion) it is not a matter regarding opposing laws, but applying laws. The laws aren’t necessarily left or right, and I’m not arguing from their origin – I am arguing from what is. You seem to have difficulty with reality. That the laws should/could/would change is not the discussion, nor is the ideological view that “employes can sack employees for no reason” … which you assume includes no redress for the employee. You bring up “no-ne has a right to a job” – no-one is disputing that in the context of “give me a job” … but if they have a job, there are certain protections that it seems you want removed. I don’t think that’s fair. I’m not right wing. I’m not left wing. As I keep having to remind you, I am centre-right, and I am happy to stand by that. You’re not. C’est la vie.

    But I note you haven’t considered if Folau is acting in his own self-interest. I think he is – I also think there are wider implications if he wins. Rafe says we should be careful of what we hope for. You attack him for that. Go figure.

    But why bring that up? How does that change the facts that you don’t know what you’re saying and are advocating the exact opposite of what you think you’re advocating?

    You keep arguing your ideal position – but that position doesn’t exist for Folau or RA. It seems you ignore relevant facts/realsities to suit your ideological argument. Your argument may have merit, but it gets lost in your rhetoric and your ad-hominem attacks (and also strawman arguments I might add), and has no practical use in the Folau case, in my opinion. If you were arguing to change employment laws, then have at it. But that was not the discussion – you made certain assertions that aren’t supported by Australian employment law.

    Because of this total confusion that you’re refusing to address, you can do nothing but hopelessly misread the Folau situation and have no way of working out that you have that totally backwards too.

    No, I am applying what I know about Australian employment law … you seem to think an employer can sack an employee for any or no reason. As a free agent they can, but the employee may have redress if the termination is unlawful. That is all I have ever based my discussion on. But hey, if you want to give sacking employees with no reason a go, be my guest.

  37. The BigBlueCat

    mh
    #3064646, posted on June 28, 2019 at 9:36 am
    Did Ayn Rand have a right to be on welfare for so many years?

    No one would give her a job … I guess she was ok with that.

  38. Iampeter

    LOL, so you just do exactly what I said you were going to do and restart the cycle again?

    I mean EVERYTHING in this post is wrong. EVERYTHING.

    Here’s one example:

    I am not calling for central planning – I am describing to you some of the realities of hiring and firing people

    No, you said, “I support laws that require businesses to have a lawful reason for firing people.”
    That means you support the government regulating private enterprise to such a degree that they can even tell them why they can or can’t fire people.
    That means you’re calling central planning.
    This shouldn’t need to be explained, except such is your total confusion on this subject.

    Or another example,

    You keep pivoting back to “No-one’s rights have been violated, employers can sack anyone for any reason, private parties can’t violate rights to free speech, it’s just identity politics”.

    I’m not pivoting to this, it’s my main argument.
    Do you disagree? If you do, that means you think people have a right to a job. So again, you’re a central planning, Marxist.
    This also shouldn’t need to be explained, but such is your total ignorance on this subject.

    Etc. Everything you’ve said is wrong and explaining it is pointless.

    This is the last time I’ll be responding to you as you are breathtakingly unintelligent and on top of that, your endless attempts to project onto me things that you and others are always doing here, means you are dishonest too.

    You’re an idiot and a liar. You can have the last word, as it’ll be as worthless as all your others.

  39. Iampeter

    Hey Rafe, you know how said, “contemplate the HRC,” for some reason?

    Now that Folau is dragging RA through Fair Work, do you think you there’s some contemplating you need to do there?

  40. The BigBlueCat

    I mean EVERYTHING in this post is wrong. EVERYTHING.

    You haven’t proved ANYYTHING is wrong … you are just making an assertion. You deny the reality of laws you disagree with.

    No, you said, “I support laws that require businesses to have a lawful reason for firing people.”
    That means you support the government regulating private enterprise to such a degree that they can even tell them why they can or can’t fire people.
    That means you’re calling central planning.
    This shouldn’t need to be explained, except such is your total confusion on this subject.

    No, that means I support fairness and paeties living up to their agreements. Something you can’t contemplate. It has nothing to do with central planning – you are making that up!

    I’m not pivoting to this, it’s my main argument.

    It’s not an argument germane to the Folau/RA dispute, which is my point. It doesn’t matter if I agree with it or not from an actual law perspective – it’s not a defence.

    Do you disagree? If you do, that means you think people have a right to a job. So again, you’re a central planning, Marxist.

    I have already said what I think about that. It doesn’t match what you claim I have said. No-one has a right to a job if they don’t have one. If they have one, they have certain protections under the law and any awards that might apply. Employers can terminate employees for lawful reasons. If an employer terminates an employee without a lawful reason, the employee has remedies. I am merely stating what the current state it, no more, no less. Apparently, you have difficulty in reading and comprehension … and you make false statements about me being Marxist, leftist, etc. Who is the liar?

    Etc. Everything you’ve said is wrong and explaining it is pointless.

    No, it is a futile exercise explaining Australian employment law to you … you’re like a child.

    This is the last time I’ll be responding to you as you are breathtakingly unintelligent and on top of that, your endless attempts to project onto me things that you and others are always doing here, means you are dishonest too.

    This is the last time you will respond to me because you have no argument against what I’ve said, other than the ideological one which I have said is not the issue in the Folau/RA case. You’ve got nothing, so nothing you will give. It’s not me being dishonest, it’s you being so infantilely obstinate in denying the reality of Australian employment laws. Good luck in court!

    You’re an idiot and a liar. You can have the last word, as it’ll be as worthless as all your others.

    Where have I lied? Why do you call me an idiot? You should apologise. Admit it, you’ve got it wrong at a practical level.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.