Merlin... again (1 Viewer)

[thorrnydevil]

Wats a "housemaster"?

 

[mz_rxy]

im doing indigenous studies at school and if theres one thing i learnt its that ATSI ppl are in the position they are in today because of what the english did during settlement and all indigenous ppl are in similar situations because of colonisation so there needs to be a balance between white and ATSI ppl


By the way Merlin is sooooo fuckin gay...wat an idiot he thought his stunt would prove a point but it didnt do jack shit

 

[Gregor Samsa]

Katie is the only person who's approached this rationally.

What? I've been reading through this thread and most of her arguments seem to be drawn out pieces of unfunny sarcasm ('Lets go apologise to every other group that has been discriminated against! Bow down before my wit!".), stereotyping (e.g. 'hippies', 'Fern Gully', etc and problematic arguments, i.e.

THE NATION HAS NOT MADE A MISTAKE. TODAYS GENERATION IS NOT, I REPEAT NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR PAST EVENTS. WE DON'T HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE UP FOR THE FACT THAT INJUSTICES HAVE HAPPENED IN THE PAST.

I AM NOT SAYING SORRY AND I AM NOT GIVING A CENT TO THE CAUSE. WHY? BECAUSE I'D RATHER SPEND MY MONEY ON SOMETHING THAT LOOKS TO BE A LITTLE MORE PRODUCTIVE, SUCH AS CANCER RESEARCH, CAREFLIGHT. SOMETHING THAT I GIVE A DAMN ABOUT, BECAUSE TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH I DO NOT CARE. I AGREE, WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM WAS GHASTLY, AND SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED, HOWEVER I, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WHAT SO EVER AM GOING TO ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT HAPPENED.

THIRDLY; IT'S A QUESTION. IT'S NOT AN ARGUABLE QUESTION, IT'S A CLOSED QUESTION. YES OR NO. DO, YOU, THE PEOPLE WHO THINK THE WHOLE NATION SHOULD APOLOGISE, MAKE AN INDIVIDUAL EFFORT TO SAY SORRY? IF NO, THEN WHY NOT? SURE, IT ISN'T GOING TO FIX THE PROBLEM, BECAUSE ACCORDING TO YOU, IT'S A NATIONAL EFFORT...BUT YOU STILL HAVENT MANAGED TO EFFECTIVELY ANSWER WHY IT IS YOU DON'T SEE THE NEED TO APOLOGISE TO AN INDIGENOUS PERSON ON THE STREET IF YOU FEEL THEY SO DESERVE AN APOLOGY.

Its a self-contradictory argument.

You say that John Howard shouldn't apologise because we have no individual responsibility in those oppressive acts. Yet this is the point. The reason for a national apology is because its a symbolic act for events committed in the nation's past. An individual apology is not going to have this symbolic effect, and there have been equivalent actions anyway, such as the Harbor Bridge Walk of May 2001.

And yes, our governments have ignored majority opinion on many occasions. Look at the 'War on Iraq'. If you're suggesting that the majority must always be heard and reflected, you should at least be consistent in that belief.

 

[thorrnydevil]

The thing is though, they didn't go against the majority. When Howard was re-elected his intentions of not saying sorry where pretty clear.

Also, the "War in Iraq" (in the beginning) was supported by the majority of citizens. It wasn't until the end of the war that people started to riot and have a cry.

John Howard shouldn't apologise for something that wasn't his fault. If you want an apology from the State, maybe you should ask the Head Of State-who by the way, if you don't know, is the Queen, and her representative, the Governor-General.

Whats wrong with stereotyping? You all think where stupid, and we all think your stupid-thats a stereotype-now get over it.

Also, don't go attacking Katie, just because your jealous that we can have some fun.

Now, bow down before my wit!!!

 

[Gregor Samsa]

John Howard shouldn't apologise for something that wasn't his fault. If you want an apology from the State, maybe you should ask the Head Of State-who by the way, if you don't know, is the Queen, and her representative, the Governor-General.

I wasn't trying to stereotype, but instead criticise the presented arguments. Theres a difference that remains despite the condescending nature of your response. (Yes, the Queen is the head-of-state, but she's at an even greater distance.)

My point still stands though. Of course it wasn't individually Howard's fault, (Unless he has a dark past that has been skillfully covered up. ) but the significance would be in the greater symbolism. Howard apologising would be a national apology, rather than that of an individual, because of the scale through which it is conveyed, as opposed to say, his apologising to a single person on a street.

 

[crazyhomo]

WTF!?! How? Are you high again?

The offence which occured WAS intended you tool.

NO OFFENCE WAS INTENDED. That has been my case from the start.

if you don't want to actually participate in an argument that follows some kind of logic, that's fine. but just at least admit you're an idiot who can't vote or make a difference and leave politics to the people with opinions that matter

 

[thorrnydevil]

Crazyhomo: Just get over it. You've lost-OK. Your arguemenst have been flawed. Then, you go and call other people idiots cause you can't think of anymore arguements. I feel sorry for you homo. You cut and past my comments to suit yourself, even if there not in the right context. Ok, for the last time I'll tell you. Now read (if you can):

APOLOGY: AN EXPLANATION THAT NO OFFENCE WAS INTENDED.

Ok, the Australian Government intended to take the children away from their parents. That means the OFFENCE WAS INTENDED. Why should the government apologise for something their ancestors INTENDED to do. Obviously you have absolutely no commonsense and can't analyse texts. Maybe you should ask your english teacher for some extra help, cause obviously, your gonna fail your exams.

 

[Gregor Samsa]

APOLOGY: AN EXPLANATION THAT NO OFFENCE WAS INTENDED.

Ok, the Australian Government intended to take the children away from their parents. That means the OFFENCE WAS INTENDED. Why should the government apologise for something their ancestors INTENDED to do. Obviously you have absolutely no commonsense and can't analyse texts. Maybe you should ask your english teacher for some extra help, cause obviously, your gonna fail your exams.

That isn't the only possible definition of 'apology'. What is your source on that definition?

To quote The Macquarie Dictionary;

Apology 1. An expression of regret offered for some fault, failure, insult or injury.

Makes no mention of whether offense was intended. If viewed by your criteria, almost all past acts of oppression and/or genocide etc: are unaccountable in the present. If anything, the actions being intended is what makes it more necessary to apologise in this case, to officially recognise those past offences.

(Incidentally, the German government officially apologised for the 1904-05 Herero genocide yesterday.)

 

[crazyhomo]

thorny: once again you have said it yourself. you say that the actions were intended, but the offence was not. so why not apologise for the offence which was not intended?

 

[thorrnydevil]

My source is the Oxford dictionary

 

[thorrnydevil]

Homo: Why apologise for something that was supposed to happen???

 

[crazyhomo]

because, as your definition of apology states, you are indicating that no offence was intended, not that the action itself was not intended

 

[thorrnydevil]

No offence was intended and the action was intended

 

[crazyhomo]

No offence was intended and the action was intended

APOLOGY: AN EXPLANATION THAT NO OFFENCE WAS INTENDED.

that fits in with your definition, does it not?

 

[tWiStEdD]

you're still arguing english?
you never cease to amaze me. i do wonder if you could simply correct him, and move on.... or do you like dragging things out?

 

[thorrnydevil]

Ok homo, I'm over this. If your gonna post crap about english, go to that thread. OK?

 

[crazyhomo]

you're still arguing english?
you never cease to amaze me. i do wonder if you could simply correct him, and move on.... or do you like dragging things out?

which part of me correcting him and him not being able to understand did you think was me trying to drag this out? even now, when he has finally figured out that he is wrong, he tries to make it seem like i am the one splitting hairs. he was the one who grabbed a dictionary definition of apology to prove his point, only when it turns out that it makes him a hypocrite, then suddenly i'm the one arguing over english? maybe you guys should actually think things through because you go making these 'realist' statements that fall apart when you apply even the slightest amount of pressure

 

[thorrnydevil]

I haven't admitted I'm wrong and to this day I still believe I'm right. I'm just agreeing with you so you can stop having your cry. Let me get this pass your thick head. YOUR WRONG AND STUPID.

 

[crazyhomo]

it's ok, little one

 

[owoodley]

it's ok, little one

Well at least Thorny knows he's wrong, let's just leave it at that?


(reply in ignorance today!)