In an effort to be more clear prompted by….
Quote:
Originally Posted by Argonavis
so you like to be contrary just to be contrary?
or do you like to be contrary because you have good solid reasons for doing so?
|
and Matts concern also
That seems a fair enough question
No I am agreeable and strangely unconcerned with the day to day stuff most worry about…
I care about the sheep however who mistakenly believe their Shepard has only their best interest in their mind.
My point simply was if one goes against the flow often rather than being confronted with sensible counter argument and further discussion one is accused of "being insane" or the like.. instead of argument and reasonable debate those pushing the yellow cake barrow are saying anyone offering opposition is a fool , a rat bag who won’t face the needs of the future.
They say any one who even questions the findings as to the evidence as to GW is a fool who wont look at the facts. I question some of these facts given that they are found to be fact by folk on someone’s payroll.. whose payroll, I ask. who asked for the research,. I often wonder????
I could offer examples ad infinitum as to calling one insane if one questions the prepacked view we are given, however if one recalls the PMs leap into the Global Warming field one can recall his comment that anyone not looking at Nuclear power was "un real" a term very close in that context to "insane" I would think..certainly such a statement must discourage any person wanting to be "real" from presenting a different view.
So with that in mind I recognize that by offering views on this matter and pointing out the obvious one will be labeled "unreal" or indeed "insane".
If any debate is allowed any opposition will be dealt with in this way. The evidence available to me is that any who stand in the way of a power seeking to turn the mind of the public will be held up for ridicule and labeled “insane” or a new one “unreal”. Think how that term must fill any debate on the matter from here on in…. It is not a new tactic by any means and easily observed if one takes the time observe the tactics of irrational argument.
So to answer the question I don’t see starting in a debate as a rat bag as any more than defusing a tactic that will be used.. I say being a rat bag has little to do with the debate so don’t bother to try to introduce it as I will save you the trouble and admit it freely. My words can be interpreted by all they can decide if I am a rat bag .. in a fist fight you know you will get hit before you land the killer punch so be prepared and welcome it I say.
That deals with my statement which I did not think indicated that being a rat bag meant being contrary.. however I say this I don’t like being contrary but if that is what is needed I will be that. in an effort to stand up for truth not in an effort to have truth questioned. So if I must be contrary it is not a reflection of having a chip on my shoulder, for I do not. In fact I am known as a mediator and smoother of troubled waters, a loyal friend to all, and an enemy to none, if that relationship demands input from both sides… that’s in my in the real world. Hit me in the head with a brick and I will feel concern for the troubles that motivated you to do so ..I will ask what is wrong and can I help?.. not seek a larger rock to destroy you. I will feel pain from the event but it will be the pain of the attacker, their fear or anguish that caused their action. I care about people I don’t like the way they are conned, by their Governments, by the folk who are supposed to look after their life savings or folk ripping them off with promise of easily made fortunes, playing on their decency and belief that all are decent, playing on their belief that when in power that lies will not be told, playing on their belief that if in power one does what is right for the general public. as they personally would if in such a position.
As to the Australian of the year award I am positive about it, not withstanding the intrigue behind the closed doors, but because such an appointment gives some credibility to the need to conserve resources (I hope) Maybe it will promote public concern and maybe personal choices will be made that result in folk being more careful with precious recourses. Maybe it will become less "cool" to drive big cars or will encourage folk to use Sun screen…. but lets face it behind the closed door that makes the choices and tell us such choices are indeed ours, do you really think the yellow cake lobby had nil input directly or indirectly on our Australian of the Year award. I hope I am wrong and step aside so others can debate the implications.. sane people however may find themselves sent to the rat bag side of the room and labeled “unreal”.
No if I say something it is because I believe whole heartedly in my carefully considered and deeply researched position not simply to be a pot stirrer. I hate injustice and vested interest propaganda is unjust. So I would make a very bad polly…
alex
, but I have never disagreed with that proposition
..it took a long time to free myself from convention and peer pressure to be able to form a view at odds with current popular thinking
.
. now we have the truth ..or closer to it. we need oil that why we are there..mmm
.. a solution that to my mind is too expensive and too dangerous... and I am not a greenie, a liberal or a union man and certainly not aligned with the religious right
