We love having you comment here at Pure Poison but it’s a little bit difficult for discussion to continue uninterrupted on specific posts when off-topic comments land in the middle of them. So each day we’ll launch an open thread where you can leave comments that don’t quite fit on one of the other posts. Remember that tip-offs can be made here.
Have at it!
71 Comments
Pages: [1] 2 » Show All
the fools at Fox and Friends discuss inter-racial marriage.
http://gawker.com/5310208/brian-kilmeade-would-like-species-and-ethnics-to-remain-pure
” inter-racial marriage. ”
Did anyone see Flight of the Conchords this week, where someone was giving one of the guys about inter-racial relationships because one of the guys was dating an Aussie? ROFL…. Good show, I recommend it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/08/murdoch-papers-phone-hacking
Andrew thinks that we should be able to climb Uluru. That we should not have to respect the local communitiy views.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/australias_rock/
With that in mind I am starting a rock climbing wall on the side of St Peter’s in melbourne. With new sites to start soon at the wailing wall in the middle east.
And before anyone asks, yes I have climbed St Peter’s Basilica in Rome and was astounded and aghast by people putting graffiti all over the top. The graffiti artists included some who were Roman Catholic (and no i am not). So if people cannot respect their own religion how can we expect them to respect other’s?
No shit Rob, ive never watched it before last week, but the suggestion that a mixing of kiwi and aussie blood would be an “abomination” hooked me!
“With that in mind I am starting a rock climbing wall on the side of St Peter’s in melbourne. ”
aaaah you missed wake Up Australias pathetic ra…. errrr I mean post!
“No shit Rob, ive never watched it before last week, but the suggestion that a mixing of kiwi and aussie blood would be an “abomination” hooked me!”
I don’t watch it much DBD but I should make an effort, it’s off the wall and very amusing to me.
Hi DBoP,
“Andrew thinks that we should be able to climb Uluru. That we should not have to respect the local communitiy views.”
It seems that Jeremy agrees with him:
http://anonymouslefty.wordpress.com/2009/07/09/its-not-yours-either/
Incidentally, so do I for precisely the same reasons Jeremy states.
I’ll have to disagree with you dam buster and agree with Bolt – unlike St Peter’s in Rome, or any other church, temple, mosque etc, Ayers Rock was not built by humans and has existed for millenia before humans walked on this earth.
I can respect someone’s religion but I don’t have to accept its views.
I’m not surprised at bolt’s take on the Uluru issue which like the LIberal party seems more about playing culture wars against the so-called labor ‘left’ than anything else. I just they would get their facts right. it’s not a policy much less anything that’s in action. It’s a draft for comment proposed management plan to replace the previous uluru plan that expired 2 years ago! comments are invited via submissions until 4th september, ie it’s not even policy!!.
The Punch has a different take from bolt:
Hi confessions,
Wow — I never thought my wife and I were different species !
I hope no-one tells my kids.
skeptic – calling it Ayers Rock? It has been Uluru for a while you know.
Why does a sacrid site have to be something specifically man made? We pay respect to cemeteries which consist of holes dug in the dirt.
I heard Turnbull on radio saying he based his attack on Rudd on “the sworn testimony of a senior public servant”
My recollection of that testimony is that Mr Grech made his statement( it was on TV) about the email highly conditional sayingthat his recollection may well be mistaken.
So this means Turnbull made his attack either on an email he hadn’t seen, didn’t know existed & hadn’t verified or on the testimony of someone who said they could be wrong.
The sooner this man is replaced the better
“Why does a sacrid site have to be something specifically man made? We pay respect to cemeteries which consist of holes dug in the dirt.”
Yes DBoP, but they are holes that are generally dug by people.
GavinM – Well ok, why should one viewpoint be consider more worthy than anothers? Why does a Christian believe in something that happened over 2000 years ago?
How can that be different to being in contact with nature?
If someone decided the view from your roof was excellent then why cant we start climbing on it? Then a few old german tourists have heart attacks and fall off.
How is that any different to how the traditional owners feel about Uluru?
The dual naming policy allows for both names and Uluru is the name used by the Pitjantjatjara.
As Gavin replied, graves are holes dug in the ground by humans. And I never said that sacred sites “have to be something specifically man made”.
skeptic – you say that you ‘respect someone’s reloigion’. So why not respect the local community viewpoint on not climbing Uluru?
GavinM: I love the idiocy that is fox news. I remember bolt had a post a few weeks ago where he asked “where’s our Fox News channel Rupert?” be careful what you wish for andy!
“I’ll have to disagree with you dam buster and agree with Bolt – unlike St Peter’s in Rome, or any other church, temple, mosque etc, Ayers Rock was not built by humans and has existed for millenia before humans walked on this earth.”
I don’t see what difference that makes, this is an issue of respect, I’m not saying you have to respect the traditional owners but if you don’t you’d be a bit rich expecting anybody else respecting anything of cultural significance to you.
Considering you are talking about semi nomadic people, its not suprising that they didn’t build on their sacred sites.
I don’t see what being skilled at construction and stonemasonry has to do with spirituality anyway.
dam – I know your comment is addressed to Gavin but I’d just like to post my thoughts.
I don’t consider one viewpoint – unsupported by evidence and reason to be more worthy than another. Religions can make claims for whatever they want and there is no difference, in my view, to believing that a man can rise from the dead or that a giant serpent created the landscape.
I will respect someone’s right to believe such nonsense but I don’t have to believe in it myself or allow others to dictate what I can or cannot do based soleley on their irrational faith.
With regard to Jeremy’s point on his blog, he says that Uluru has been around longer than the Aborigines, this is true but so has the rest of Australia, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t respect the wishes of the traditional owners? That is the first people who ever came here.
I guess it’s a personal choice, I for one would comply with the wishes of the traditional owners.
I guess traditional ownership has to count for something otherwise that ownership is just token. If traditional owners request visitors (to their land) not engage in activities that convey disrepect for their cultural traditions, then who are the visitors to do otherwise?
skeptic – I agree. I do not believe that people should ‘push’ their viewpoint onto others.
I have to ask then – would you take your shoes off if you visited a mosque? Would you wear long pants and cover yourself?
Would you talk while a minister is giving mass?
Do you object during weddings when the priest mentions that it is a union “in the eyes of god”?
Do you put up a Christmas tree? eat easter eggs?
Hi DBoP,
Well, the view from my roof isn’t too bad, pretty good vista looking up at Mount Dandenong — could be a potential money-spinner, thanks for the idea
More to the point, the difference is fairly simple – aside from the fact of wether they are the original owners of Ayers Rock being debatable…They agreed on the lease terms from the Hawke government, one of those terms being that the rock would be kept open for climbing by tourists.
“I will respect someone’s right to believe such nonsense but I don’t have to believe in it myself or allow others to dictate what I can or cannot do based soleley on their irrational faith.”
I’d say you ‘re confusing the meaning of the word respect, no-one said you have to believe the same stuff, that would be like me saying, I respect peoples right to be Muslims but I won’t take my shoes off to enter your mosque because after all it’s all nonsense.
“Ayers Rock” Oi! – it’s Uluru!
And if traditional owners requested that you do not swim at any beach in Australia because, you know, they were here first would you agree with that?
And anyway, I was here before a lot of other people, do my rights trump theirs?
See, it can get so silly.
“And if traditional owners requested that you do not swim at any beach in Australia because, you know, they were here first would you agree with that?”
Noone has said that though have they! For that matter I don’t think they are claiming that you can’t climb any landform, they aren’t, your exagerration isn’t helping your argument
“And anyway, I was here before a lot of other people, do my rights trump theirs?”
If someone stepped off a boat and attempted to evict you from their home because they didn’t have one I’m sure you’d be claiming exactly that. Do you deny it?
skeptic – they are not requesting that you stop swimming though are they?
I asked a legit question over what you called ‘irrational faith’. If you respect what others believe then you should respect their belief. They are not pushing it onto you though are they?
Silly as you think it is if you are not going to respect any religion via one community’s viewpoint then you cannot respect any. So no Christmas presents for you this year.
And if traditional owners requested that you do not swim at any beach in Australia because, you know, they were here first would you agree with that?
that is silly becuase we’re not talking about any beach in australia, or even any tourist site in australia. We’re talking about a specific site that is under the control and ownership of the Anangu people who request that visitors to their land do not climb a sacred site. the argument only gets silly when irrelevent analogies are introduced.
“….That is the first people who ever came here…”
Sorry Rob, it was Ayers Rock when I went to school — old habits die hard sometimes.
Perhaps Rob, but the aborigines weren’t the first people here — do an internet search on Mungo man if you want to know about who were really the first Australians.
RobJ @ 28: oops, must press refresh first – my bad!
I have to ask then – would you take your shoes off if you visited a mosque? Would you wear long pants and cover yourself?
Would you talk while a minister is giving mass?
Do you object during weddings when the priest mentions that it is a union “in the eyes of god”?
Do you put up a Christmas tree? eat easter eggs?
Yes, yes, no, no, yes, yes.
I also wouldn’t throw rubbish around the rock – or anywhere else – and if there are good ecological reasons for not climbing it, I’d be open to those reasons. Not to someone’s else’s belief based on faith.
It’s Uluru and Ayers Rock.
Ayers Rock/Uluru is a natural feature, a house is not. Just because I might climb the rock does not mean I’d walk uninvited into an aboriginal camp and attempt to evict them.
I recognise the difference between a home or a place to live and a natural part of the environment.
My exaggeration is meant to highlight the absurdity of thewhole notion that you can ban people from climbing a rock that is not owned by any one person or persons.
“And anyway, I was here before a lot of other people, do my rights trump theirs?”
If someone stepped off a boat and attempted to evict you from their home because they didn’t have one I’m sure you’d be claiming exactly that. Do you deny it?
Completely different, my rights here are not based on who was here first but on property and legal rights.
skeptic – you see the contradiction in your own argument there?
Why do you accept a pagan gift of easter eggs that represent fertility based on the seasons in northern europe and cannot accept that people in central Australia have strong beliefs about Uluru?
Ayers Rock/Uluru is a natural feature, a house is not. Just because I might climb the rock does not mean I’d walk uninvited into an aboriginal camp and attempt to evict them.
there is an Aboriginal camp at uluru – Mutijulu.
“Sorry Rob, it was Ayers Rock when I went to school — ”
Me too but Uluru sounds much better, who the fuck is ‘Ayers’ anyway and why was it his/her rock – I’d look it up but I couldn’t be bothered
“Perhaps Rob, but the aborigines weren’t the first people here — do an internet search on Mungo man if you want to know about who were really the first Australians.”
Were they here at the same time as the Aboriginals, or were they long gone, clearly they don’t exist so nor do their rights, Aborigines on the other hand. heh, I’m looking it up on Wiki now, very interesting, cheers, my point remains though, since they are extinct then so are their rights.
“My exaggeration is meant to highlight the absurdity of thewhole notion that you can ban people from climbing a rock that is not owned by any one person or persons.”
You know what? The crown jewels, they aren’t owned by any one person, or persons, go and stomp on them (I realise I’m exagerrating but what’s good for the goose)
“I recognise the difference between a home or a place to live and a natural part of the environment.”
So do I but you wrote:
“And anyway, I was here before a lot of other people, do my rights trump theirs?”
“RobJ @ 28: oops, must press refresh first – my bad!
”
No bad, it’s great to realise there are like minds, because I pretty much disagree with everybody IRL, yet I still likethem, work with them etc…
“must press refresh first ”
Nah, it gets depressing, sometimes posts take a while to get published
You may wear out your ‘F5′ key (or left mouse button)
a rock that is not owned by any one person or persons.
that is not true, Uluru and the national park environs are owned by the Anangu people.
since they are extinct then so are their rights.
i’ve seen bolt sheep referring to pygmies or something – don’t know if they are the same as mungo man – as some kind of argument against aboriginal rights. I’ve always thought it a silly argument, as if the rights of an extinct group can somehow take precedence over the rights of a group that do exist. Still, in bolt sheep land anything is arguable, no matter how absurd.
db
skeptic – you see the contradiction in your own argument there?
Why do you accept a pagan gift of easter eggs that represent fertility based on the seasons in northern europe and cannot accept that people in central Australia have strong beliefs about Uluru?
No, I’m indulging in a cultural act but I do not believe for one minute in the ‘truth’ of easter. I like chocolate, easter can be enjoyed as a holiday without indulging in religious acceptance. Where have I denied that “people in central Australia have strong beliefs about Uluru” – I haven’t, I accept that they do.
In neither case do I accept the truth of any religious claims.
RobJ –
“I recognise the difference between a home or a place to live and a natural part of the environment.”
So do I but you wrote:
“And anyway, I was here before a lot of other people, do my rights trump theirs?”
FFS, I was being ironic! My rights do not trump anyone else’s rights – as I posted above, my proerty rights are not based on an “I was here first” clause.
It was named in 1873 after Sir Henry Ayers who was the Chief Secretary of South Australia – (they didn’t have Premiers then) – at the time by William Gosse who was a surveyor who apparently explored a lot of central Australia.
“Were they here at the same time as the Aboriginals, or were they long gone, clearly they don’t exist so nor do their rights, Aborigines on the other hand…”
I’m not sure if they were here at the same time or not — there seems to be differing theories on that, but either way it proves that the Aborigines were not the first Australians as is claimed. and they therefore have no more right to call themselves the original owners of Australia than do the Europeans who arrived after them.
“Me too but Uluru sounds much better..”
It probably does sound better, but the official name is Uluru / Ayers Rock, so either is correct.
now what was those comments by Hartigan and Milne on the integrity of News Ltd again?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/08/murdoch-papers-phone-hacking
I have sent a copy of that article to both the AFP and ASIS, requesting, as a concerned citizen, that they immediately invetigate whether any occurences of -
has or is occurring in australia and whether it affects both our internal security and our external security.
I suggest other like minded individuals do the same.
When Hartigan said “If you want to attract readers, break stories people want to read,” and “give them something they can’t get anywhere else, make it relevant and useful and let them get involved.”
Do you think he had this in mind from his News group stable?
http://www.theage.com.au/world/murdoch-papers-paid-2m-over-phone-taps-20090709-ddsy.html
Gusface / dam buster – hee hee, I have just posted about this at Bolt’s blog, I’ll be interested to see if it is published and what response it may generate.
You can imagine the howls of outrage from News Corp if this was Fairfax.
skeptic – So you believe in your ‘cultural act’ of eating chocolate eggs in honour of a pagan ritual but are happy to literally walk all over someone else’s because they don’t deserve to have their own ‘cultural act’?
skeptic re news corp private eye – Not wrong. He would be on about it for weeks.
A rock is not a cultural act, it is a rock. Whatever the origins of easter eggs, I eat them because at that time of year they are a popular part of an increaingly secular society.
I know more think about jesus when eating an egg than I would think about the rainbow serpent whilst climbing the rock.
That’s the way I read it dam buster, Aboriginal culture isn’t as deserving of respect as other cultures. Like I say, it’s a personal choice, personally I’m not religious or spiritual, don’t believe it but I don’t care that others do, indeed they have every right IMO until it impedes me from going about my normal life, If people believe (rightly or wrongly) that Uluru has spiritual/cultural significance and they would be offended by people walking up it, I’m happy to not walk up it. I feel this is the same thing as removing shoes in a mosque, I’m not a Muslim, I don’t believe it though I’m happy to comply, that one ’sacred’ site happens to be a piece of human built real estate and another a natural feature has no bearing on the matter of respect. That’s just me though.
Oops, should be “I no more think about jesus when eating an egg …”
“I’m not sure if they were here at the same time or not — there seems to be differing theories on that, but either way it proves that the Aborigines were not the first Australians as is claimed. and they therefore have no more right to call themselves the original owners of Australia than do the Europeans who arrived after them”
Gavin, I disagree, if Mungo man were still around then I’d contend he may have more rights than or at least equal rights wih the Aboriginals but considering Mungo Man is extinct then so are his rights (No, I’m not advocating genocide
)
I suppose the crux is though, not that Aboriginals have more rights than the people that came after them but the fact that their rights were trampled on and to this day there are many who have little respect for Aboriginal Culture. I think respecting the wishes of the locals at Uluru is a tiny concession that I’m happy to make.
Pages: [1] 2 » Show All