Oceania LOL! Apparently, "Free" trade > culture

We might be denialists, but you are an apologist.

Just because you know Law A, doesn't mean Event B happened.

PROOVE that the Stolen Generation happened.

YOU actually sponsor racism! You state that if anyone mixed with another race, it is diluting the purity of the blood, so, gradual genocide.

And you never DID answer my question. If a full-blood Aborigine today, marries a white and has a child, is that Aborigine then guilty of genocide!?

Why are you so RIGHT, and people who disagree with your opinion WRONG? Isn't that arrogant?

There are PLENTY of historians... on both sides of the fence who disagree, and those who agree.

 

I guess it is true because the ABC told you so.

 

Prove it? PROVE IT?


Please.


Gatherer, for a period of approximately half a century, the Australian government sponsored the abduction of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families with the specific intent to assimilate them into White society, thus diluting their aboriginality and effectively breeding them out of existence.

Before 1948, the word genocide didn't exist. It wasn't until the Nuremberg trials that the ideal of the slaughter (Lat cide) of an entire peoples (Latin, genos) became law and thus a crime. I know you reject the idea that because under customary international law, genocide is defined in such a way that doesn't suit your arguement, but outside of a series of lectures on the histories of international law and genocide, I don't know what I need to do to illustrate to you that

a) Genocide is ONLY defined at an international level, and
b) there exists prima facie evidence of an international crime against humanity which, at the very least, needs to be investigated by a competent and impartial tribunal.

But I don't need to prove it; you're asking me to prove fact, which is like rejecting the heliocentric view of the Universe and asking people to prove that the sun is the centre of the universe.

Gatherer, prove to me that each and every testimony given by Aborigines regarding their separation from their parents is fasle. Prove to me that the deliberate transferring of children from one cultural, racial, ethnic or religious group is not genocide. Prove to me that the intent, however benignly you want to illustrate it, was not to remove the aboriginal race from the planet.

Which you can't, and won't, do.

And you never DID answer my question. If a full-blood Aborigine today, marries a white and has a child, is that Aborigine then guilty of genocide!?

I didn't answer it because it's such an utterly idiotic proposition it doesn't bear consideration. If you weren't so bone idle about it, or at least afraid that the carefully constructed house of cards that is your ideology will be smashed to the ground, you could actually take the time to understand what the crime of genocide is. If you read the definition - I'll even help you hear, Articles I - III of the 1948 Convention - you'll answer your own question.

But I'm not here to do your job for you. Might I suggest a change of vocation? You ought to become a cab driver. You're an intolerant bigot will ill-informed opinions, who shows no signs of bothering to educate himself to the truth - it suits you too much to believe in straw men, red herrings and other cute little terms - and you feel your political opinions are best out in the open, despite the fact your audience doesn't care and probably knows more about the facts than you do.

Heck, you're overqualified.


E_S

 

Nicely done, Ender.

See, this is the problem that I have with a lot of people in this forum. They do not have an OPEN mind, and only accept text books, histories, etc... that agree with their OWN mindset. You really need to research history from all points of view, not just the history that YOU agree with.

Oh the irony.

I am at least willing to listen to the other side of the argument than be blinded by my own personal paradigms.

I disagree wholeheartedly...from my experience, Gath - yes, my own personal experience - this couldn't be more incorrect. From what I see, my good friend, your opinion is very slighted by what you see and think you see, and very set. This means, of course, that - as far as you have shown me - you don't accept other views, and you certainly don't even go as far as taking them into consideration.

Again, blinded by your own mindset.

Oh the irony...

PROOVE that the Stolen Generation happened.

Prove it... Don't be ridiculous. If you want a second opinion here, take note:
Prove it? PROVE IT?


Please.

Oh...and were you there? Didn't you just say that you shouldn't comment on something unless you have had personal experience with it...
And you're the one who said it, so it doesn't mean that we need to exactly live by what you said. I just think it hypocritical - that's right - that you can comment on this when you said you needed to have some personal expericence with it yourself.

Oh, and this is not a personal attack against you. Just against hypocracy in general

 

That's fine Ender_Sai, resort to insults.

Just how many Aborigine's have YOU asked about the Stolen Generation?

Or again, is it just what the ABC has told you?

I guess if you were alive during World War II, and as this country was being attacked by the Japanese, you would have called people who disagreed with the Japanese bigots as well...

 

Ok, Ender_Sai, PoT, et al.

I have been trying for around 6 months now for people like you to offer YOUR solution to the many problems facing the Aborigine population, ie: Health, Unemployment, Education, Substance Abuse, Hand-out Sit-Down Money Culture.

Without the insults and accusations, please provide realistic and workable solutions to these problems.

 

No more personal attacks from anyone, if you can't get your point across without resorting to insulting someone's intelligence then it's probably a crap point that nobody wants to hear. If you don't feel your point is going across, then try making it more accessible to its target audience. For example, you could use less Latin.

Not looking at anyone in particular.

 

Haha!

As I said above, I really would like to discuss the topic seriously, in a polite and respectful manner. I would like to open up the floor, let's hear your suggestions.

 

Just how many Aborigine's have YOU asked about the Stolen Generation?

Bad question to ask, compadre.

For two reasons.

One, it shows that you simply cannot argue back. Maybe you never took debating in high school, and never entered into any substantial arguements with people.

Generally, an arguement isn't what you'd hear on talkback radio, though you have all their styles downpat.

See, when someone provides you with facts to support their opinion, the accepted next move is to respond to that arguement by providing a counterpoint - hence the term "point/counterpoint".

You, however, seem to fit the bill of the Hatemongering Right Wing Bigot Who Substitutes Ill-Informed Positions for Educated Thought. Just like an AM Radio host!

So, you see, what you need to do now in order to salvage any semblance of an arguement here, is to respond with a counterpoint that's not merely a rewording of "I know you are you said you are!"

The second is that I had the honour of studying under Dr Colin Tatz, whom you've never heard of (just a guess) but your idols, like Andrew Bolt, certainly have. I worked on several research projects concerning the Stolen Generation and did the Sydney Harbour Bridge walk for reconciliation on crutches.

I guess the equivalent for your side of the fence on this, the "I'm not racist I just hate Aborigines" side, is watching "helplessly" as a young Aboriginal prisoner throws himself out of a window.

(I bet you think the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody was a waste of money, right? Go on, you can tell us!)

Or again, is it just what the ABC has told you?

Please, are you back to mocking me for being educated? Do you want to add petty to your increasingly long list of adjectives?

It's funny, because you take these pituitary ******* retards, like Bolt, lap up their opinions, regurgitate them verbatim because they fuel your insecurities - of which we're all aware - and then utterly reject anything which doesn't neatly mesh with your carefully constructive but ultimately weak worldview.

I guess if you were alive during World War II, and as this country was being attacked by the Japanese, you would have called people who disagreed with the Japanese bigots as well...

**** you. My grandfather was in Ambon.

Besides, that example is so far from being relevant it only pains me to read it. You're out of your league here, Gath. You haven't responded to any of the facts I've brought up, you can only come up with weak excuses and the worst thing is that you try to patronise us for being idealistic. As a word of advice, don't talk down to your betters.

E_S

 

See, you keep proving yourself back to me... YOU are the one that can't debate or reason.

I ask for credible, proovable, certifiable evidence... yet you cannot.

I ask you a simple question, which is too hard for you, and you insult back, because you CAN'T answer.

So again, are you insinuating that by your definition of Genocide, if it happened, then your cause for it happening was MASS rape of the entire Aborigine population to enfore the dilution of their blood and race?

If there was NO MASS rape, then you have to conclude that the Aborigine's consented to have sex with people outside their race, made thier own free decision.

Yet again, you blame the white person, and not accept that it takes two to tango. So again, you are ashamed of YOUR race and culture. You are quick to defend others, and persecute your own.

 

[image=http://www.introwebnet.com/forums/images/smiles/bang.gif]

God I'm tired of you. You're not smarter than anyone here Gath, so stop acting like this is some exercise in "educating us."

I am going to prove to you, using as few syllables as possible, what you don't want to hear. Give me a few minutes.

And since you have a demonstrable habit of missing the point entirely, then warping your misperceptions into ammunition, I'll kindly use bold, color and highlights to help you.

E_S

 

You say that I am bashing you for having an education becuase you listen / watch the ABC? I often listen to the ABC news when my Dad has it on, and watch the ABC news every night. However, unlike yourself, I can discern the leftist propaganda.

See, you blame me for being one sided, yet you yourself have never proved that you have the ability to form a paradigm shift or more past your mindsets and just for the smallest second, accept that someone apart from yourself (ie: Bolt) could be right, and you wrong. That is arrogance my friend, pure and simple. As I said, I am the one that is willing to be open minded.

 

However, unlike yourself, I can discern the leftist propaganda.

Please. I vote Liberal. I live in John Howard's Federal seat, and in one of the most affluent suburbs in the country. If you click the link in an earlier post, you can have a look at my GPS school.

In short, find me someone with a more conservative mold to be cut from.

E_S

 

Wow! I am suprised that you are a Conservative!

I was about to suggest that you go visit Protest Warrior!

 

So again, are you insinuating that by your definition of Genocide, if it happened, then your cause for it happening was MASS rape of the entire Aborigine population to enfore the dilution of their blood and race?

PART I - OVERVIEW

Gatherer, this is a meritless assertion, the idea of mass rape. I'll elaborate more, but I'll give you a history now.

The law of genocide, to be clear, isn't solely "my definition", it's the world's definition. The 1948 Convention on Genocide is the only accepted legal definition of genocide out there, and so you have to accept that or find an accepted and workable alternative. Key sections will be in bold text.

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

Approved and proposed for signature and ratification or accession by
General Assembly resolution 260 A (III) of 9 December 1948
entry into force 12 January 1951, in accordance with article XIII
status of ratifications, reservations and declarations

The Contracting Parties,
Having considered the declaration made by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its resolution 96 (I) dated 11 December 1946 that genocide is a crime under international law, contrary to the spirit and aims of the United Nations and condemned by the civilized world,

Recognizing that at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity, and

Being convinced that, in order to liberate mankind from such an odious scourge, international co-operation is required,

Hereby agree as hereinafter provided:

Article 1

The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article 2

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts [/b]committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article 3

The following acts shall be punishable:

(a) Genocide;

(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;

(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;

(d ) Attempt to commit genocide;

(e) Complicity in genocide.

Article 4

Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

The Convention, above, has not yet been implemented under Australian law. The way international conventions like this work is that States are signatories to a treaty; they ratify it. They must also implement it into domestic law, which we haven't done because we know what they means for us. Facing the past.

PART II - PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF GENOCIDE

The absolute key to the Stolen Generation being a genocide is the prima facie (at first look/glance) evidence pursuant to Article II (e) of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948.

Which says that;

Article 2

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

I think we're all aware that the Group in question is the indigenous population of Australia, i.e Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.

As you said, the idea of mass rape isn't substa

 

You like the cut and paste function, don't you? Is this how you do all your research, not think for yourself?

Yes go ahead, provide a source and link. Yes, I will read it with an open mind.

Yet, if I provide a source from someone with a doctorate, etc... that takes the opposing view, you will instantly dismiss it.

Oh, and once again, thanks for answering my questions.

 

This bickering is pointless......but really, who gives a toss..?

I ask you a simple question, which is too hard for you, and you insult back, because you CAN'T answer.

Uh...he just did answer, Mike, and furthering that you are only trying to insult him in every answer you yourself give...

That is arrogance my friend, pure and simple. As I said, I am the one that is willing to be open minded.

Pfft. Oh please...If he is arrogant, then surely you are ignorant.

Let's look at it this way, Mike, who really gives a cr@p if Ender likes the cut and paste function. Don't get me wrong, but you've used it in the past, and quite extensively too. And furthering this, he wouldn't have to resort to using the oh-so-dreadful-cut-and-paste-function if you didn't give him cause to. And besides, he is just answering your questions - you know, providing a counterpoint for a lot of the baseless stuff you have come up with.
Give up, man, who are you trying to fool?

Oh, and once again, thanks for answering my questions.

I'm sure you are most welcome

 

You like the cut and paste function, don't you? Is this how you do all your research, not think for yourself?



HA!

ENDER WINS! ENDER IS TEH WIN!!!1!

Gatherer, in this picture, you're the white guy, I'm Bruce Lee - GATH = PWN3D!

[image=http://swooh.com/peon/psykosnake38/ownedbruceleecrotch.gif]

E_S

 

Since when did Free Trade = stupid arguments about Aborigines?

 

Since someone brought it up...



Oh just shut up and look at Bruce Lee. Hee hee hee.

E_S

EDIT: Still pwned!

[image=http://www.rit.edu/~acw7898/owned.jpg]

 

Ender_Sai, you are an Australian.

Please refrain from using the term "Owned" or I will have to beat you savagely about the head and neck.

 

How about "owned mate"?

No?

See what this FTA is doing! It's undermining our culture!

E_S

 

Didn't the FTA collapse under the weight of the American negotiators anyway?

 

Since I won, I will shut up now.

 

Since I won, I will shut up now. /i]

You won nothing, since you can't argue and have no real point anyways. Go chow down on your Humble Pie quietly in the corner. You lost. Deal with it. Be responsible and mature and look upon your defeat as a learning exercise.

Hawk, I honestly haven't been following it for the last week.

E_S