Karnal wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 1:28pm:


Can he put them (his comments) concisely in one easy to read sentence?

Another point - already raised - is how you go about defining 'mockery'.

Now if a group in Singapore went around preaching that all Suylagati religious observers were monkeys and so forth - that would be a legitimate definition of mocking them and their religion.

When it comes to oddball 'definitions' that only suit one side - the one most interested in pursuing that issue - there is a problem developing, in that the definition is not one accepted by anyone else.  Nor should anyone else be forced to accept it.

A lot of current issues - gay rights, women's rights, religious rights.. and so forth - remind me in a startling fashion of the position of the Plains Indians in the US - who had no issue with legitimate rights of settlers and people passing through etc - as long as it didn't abrogate their treaties and their traditions and holy places etc.

We - The Indians - have no issue with alleged gay or women's or religious rights - everyone is allegedly covered by the same Rights and has allegedly the same legal and other rights that are protected - in some cases over-protected - by law and even sometimes Law.

These 'right's issues are foisted upon us and we are then brought to battle over them when we have no interest in them and are already cast as the villains of the piece.

That itself is abuse pure and simple - in more ways than one.

See my comparison with the North American Indians?  And why it is a clear comparison?

Nobody here wanted to engage in the Fem Wars (hence my book series Fem War II) - we were all dragged into them because someone else wanted it that way, cast as the villains of the piece, and punished through robbery and abuse and even direct violence and imprisonment just for being here and trying to get a fair shot at life.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 2:24pm:


Well said!

I often think that the same comparison can be drawn with the settlement of this country and its subsequent treatment of its indigenous peoples, always bearing in mind the time and technological differences between the two. And the available resources of the two countries at the time of settlement and expansion.

That being said, what is your opinion of the treatment doled out to the original indigenous of the USA when compared to our own? And how do they compare?

If we are to discuss freedom, whose freedom are we discussing? Those of the possessors, or those of the dispossessed?

Any claim by me for the traditional right to the lands of my Scottish/Irish ancestors would be laughed out of court, yet we grant such rights to our own indigenous.

The freedoms and rights extended to my ancestors do not apply to me, as I am now a citizen of another country.

Bearing that in mind, my loyalties are not torn when called upon to defend either country and its society and mores. I, an Australian, now owes his current existence to British imperialism and the brutality of colonialism.

I, and many others, are aware of that fact. Some, it would appear, tend to ignore it.

It would appear that freedom, like beauty, is merely in the eye of the beholder.

A bunch of stinky aborigines demonstrated their freedoms today when they burnt a bunch of Australian flags.

Are you seriously trying to claim they don't already? Really!

Rocketanski wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 3:47pm:


I’m not sure, H. Have Aboriginal Australians had an independence ballot?

What do others think?

Rocketanski wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 3:50pm:


Are you saying they use toilet paper? I’m confused.

Anyone else?

Don’t forget to vote in the survey if you haven’t already. So far, the answers are compelling.