20171224
Children and religion
Most religions have a special place for children.
In Christianity they are special to Jesus, and Jesus as a child is the centre of seasonal reflection.
In Islam they are raped, kidnapped, enslaved and tortured.
Clearly 'special' means different things to different people! Unlike Christianity, Islam follows Herod's example via the big Mo.
In Christianity they are special to Jesus, and Jesus as a child is the centre of seasonal reflection.
In Islam they are raped, kidnapped, enslaved and tortured.
Clearly 'special' means different things to different people! Unlike Christianity, Islam follows Herod's example via the big Mo.
20171223
Mis, not phob...
I'm not an Islamophobe, well, I am a bit, but really, I'm more a Misislamist: not so much pathologically afraid, as decidedly opposed. Sort of like I'm mishomo(sexual)ist, in the aggregate of course, not regarding individuals; probably misfeminist as well (irony an accident of the Latin prefix.)
20171218
20171208
How homosexual marriage works
Here's a tip: it doesn't, if 'work' means have your own offspring.
The T-shirts explain it.
The T-shirts explain it.
Policy merges with kindergarten
Hurray, finally, not ruled by biology.
So two legbiters of the same legbiting persuasion can marry.
And this is a moral triumph?
As soon as they want to make children (the basic point of marriage), they cannot, within their marriage; they must step outside it, producing a child that is someone else's, which they then have to use (well, it might be half theirs...one of theirs).
Thus do we have sham sex marriage and the used children market.
So two legbiters of the same legbiting persuasion can marry.
And this is a moral triumph?
As soon as they want to make children (the basic point of marriage), they cannot, within their marriage; they must step outside it, producing a child that is someone else's, which they then have to use (well, it might be half theirs...one of theirs).
Thus do we have sham sex marriage and the used children market.
20171206
Group life
Groups don't 'form, storm, norm, perform', rather they
Function
Understand
Cooperate
Know
and basic to group function is
Communication with
Uniform
Nomenclature and
Terms.
Function
Understand
Cooperate
Know
and basic to group function is
Communication with
Uniform
Nomenclature and
Terms.
20171128
A bunch of sensible people
Scipio Africanus: sensibly stopped the Carthiginians
Charles Martel: sensibly stopped the Muslim hordes
John Sobieski: sensibly stopped another lot of Muslim hordes
Oliver Cromwell: stopped the unsensible king of England being bossy
James Cook: found Australia by being sensible
Arthur Phillip: settled Australia (with sensible people)
Lachlan Macquarie (built sensible towns and buildings)
Robert Menzies: (led the sensible party)
Charles Martel: sensibly stopped the Muslim hordes
John Sobieski: sensibly stopped another lot of Muslim hordes
Oliver Cromwell: stopped the unsensible king of England being bossy
James Cook: found Australia by being sensible
Arthur Phillip: settled Australia (with sensible people)
Lachlan Macquarie (built sensible towns and buildings)
Robert Menzies: (led the sensible party)
20171123
Sorry...
Comment on a web story about teaching kids to do something in redress, rather than say 'sorry'.
"Reminds me of the Australian propensity to say sorry when it is not their fault. I think of Rudd's 'apology' to aboriginal Australians for their failed culture of child abuse and domestic violence, as part of the grand attempt by the aboriginal victim industry to lever $ out of the government. Better would have been to say 'sorry for the children we had to look after because you refused to'. But being a spineless narcissist, he didn't, of course."
20171030
phobic
I'm not homophobic, lesbophobic, islamophobic, gynophobic, transphobic...heck no, I'm just plain ol' phobicphobic.
And talk about the cool crowd's hate-speech against the mentally ill...calling everything they can't handle a 'phobia'. It's just their 'shut-up talk'.
And talk about the cool crowd's hate-speech against the mentally ill...calling everything they can't handle a 'phobia'. It's just their 'shut-up talk'.
20171026
I want your money!
“But one must say clearly that we redistribute de
facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of
coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free
oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is
environmental policy.”
20171024
Q&A massive fail
The public christians were out in force at the ABC's Q&A last night. A performance that was a risible tear jerker!
Risible tear jerker?
The archbishop was acting like he was debating which colour bible cover he should use at the parish fete. Not like he was debating a fundamental debasement of society and destruction of the beneficial childhoods of children!
Here are some proper responses:
"mate, we're not talking about your privilaged experience, we're talking about what research shows: it is well known that overall, children from broken families do worse on major life indicators. You want to condemn how many children to being worse off? Children who don't have the benefit of well-off multi-parents"
"Sharon, you're acting just like Sharon: your 10% is from Kinseys faked up propaganda based on the non sample of prisoners. A bloke who abused babies, and you think he's got something to say? Get real. The number is more 1-3%, but big deal; its an aberation that has no genetic meaning and therefore is a perversion."
"Not only are you factually wrong, Sharon, but what we do in our organisation by our system is none of your business. We aren't a public service, we are a private community group and we run the way we all agree to, and within the law. And here you are wanting us to back off your imagined private issues (because marriage by its nature is a public issue), and let us run your life the way you want, but YOU want to intrude on everyone else's life...typical lefty totalitarianism of convenience!"
"Sharon, youve missed the point again. The church is a loose community of belief, not a part of the public service. And why would you who repudiate our core beliefs want to participate in our beliefs? Strangely hypocritical of you is it not.
"Remember this: marriage is a human institution for the raising of children, it is not an invention of the Christian church, we simply have a way of celebrating marriage amongst our members. If you are not a member you are free to use the public facilities at the BDM office, but why would you want to align withsomething that has nothing to do with you. We aren't an event company for your entertainment, you know....although we could....let's see, starting at $100,000 to meet the costs over generations of developing our practices...
"Facts don't care about your feelings. Marriage is not about love, its social function is predominantly about the protected and orderly raising of children. As we all know two blokes or two women don't have sex: they can't produce a zygote, they can't RE-produce; so whatever they do with their sex organs it ain't sex!
"And the way same sex pairs (cause they ain't couples: no coupling gear) get kids is they get other peoples' and break the kid off from its parents...
"And don't give me the trumped up propaganda of self-selected middle class people...give me big studies like Sullins' who found the dreadful life outcomes of kids in ssm families.
To those who say the church doesn't have a voice because of child abuse:
"Get this straight. Firstly, it was a massive failure by society. Governments, the police, the judiciary, teachers, the school system, parents...none of them looked after the interests of children either. The police sat on their hands, the judiciary turned a blind eye, the governments turned their backs on institutional governance. The massive fail here is by governments, and that means, by society.
"Furthermore in a study by [get ref], it was shown that child abuse was perpertrated by religious in about 1% of cases, and by family, friends and neigbours in about 40% of cases. Get that? 40%, and more so by step parents than by natural parents; about double the rate, in fact. So on your analysis, we better not give the community particularly homosexuals any say in this debate...cause they can't do proper reproductive sex anyway.
Then, debate like Ben Shapiro
Risible tear jerker?
The archbishop was acting like he was debating which colour bible cover he should use at the parish fete. Not like he was debating a fundamental debasement of society and destruction of the beneficial childhoods of children!
Here are some proper responses:
- The bloke who claimed he had a great multi family upbringing:
"mate, we're not talking about your privilaged experience, we're talking about what research shows: it is well known that overall, children from broken families do worse on major life indicators. You want to condemn how many children to being worse off? Children who don't have the benefit of well-off multi-parents"
- Magda Szubanski and her 10% of population is homosexual:
"Sharon, you're acting just like Sharon: your 10% is from Kinseys faked up propaganda based on the non sample of prisoners. A bloke who abused babies, and you think he's got something to say? Get real. The number is more 1-3%, but big deal; its an aberation that has no genetic meaning and therefore is a perversion."
- MS on the church sacking a priest:
"Not only are you factually wrong, Sharon, but what we do in our organisation by our system is none of your business. We aren't a public service, we are a private community group and we run the way we all agree to, and within the law. And here you are wanting us to back off your imagined private issues (because marriage by its nature is a public issue), and let us run your life the way you want, but YOU want to intrude on everyone else's life...typical lefty totalitarianism of convenience!"
- MS on not being able to get married in a church:
"Sharon, youve missed the point again. The church is a loose community of belief, not a part of the public service. And why would you who repudiate our core beliefs want to participate in our beliefs? Strangely hypocritical of you is it not.
"Remember this: marriage is a human institution for the raising of children, it is not an invention of the Christian church, we simply have a way of celebrating marriage amongst our members. If you are not a member you are free to use the public facilities at the BDM office, but why would you want to align withsomething that has nothing to do with you. We aren't an event company for your entertainment, you know....although we could....let's see, starting at $100,000 to meet the costs over generations of developing our practices...
- To anyone who supported SSM:
"Facts don't care about your feelings. Marriage is not about love, its social function is predominantly about the protected and orderly raising of children. As we all know two blokes or two women don't have sex: they can't produce a zygote, they can't RE-produce; so whatever they do with their sex organs it ain't sex!
"And the way same sex pairs (cause they ain't couples: no coupling gear) get kids is they get other peoples' and break the kid off from its parents...
"And don't give me the trumped up propaganda of self-selected middle class people...give me big studies like Sullins' who found the dreadful life outcomes of kids in ssm families.
To those who say the church doesn't have a voice because of child abuse:
"Get this straight. Firstly, it was a massive failure by society. Governments, the police, the judiciary, teachers, the school system, parents...none of them looked after the interests of children either. The police sat on their hands, the judiciary turned a blind eye, the governments turned their backs on institutional governance. The massive fail here is by governments, and that means, by society.
"Furthermore in a study by [get ref], it was shown that child abuse was perpertrated by religious in about 1% of cases, and by family, friends and neigbours in about 40% of cases. Get that? 40%, and more so by step parents than by natural parents; about double the rate, in fact. So on your analysis, we better not give the community particularly homosexuals any say in this debate...cause they can't do proper reproductive sex anyway.
Then, debate like Ben Shapiro
20171017
Women at it
Thought I'd start keeping track of domestic violence perpetrated by females. Just to keep the balance.
20171007
Not bigoted
Nice comment in The Australian about allegations of bigotry, etc against homosexuals in the past:
Interesting how the majority were cast as bigots and 'homophobes' (whatever that neologism is supposed to connote), which is itself a tendentious claim. The vast majority in generations past were repelled by homosexuality because of its stifling of normal genetic progression, its denial of the essential status of a procreating family (and therefore in itself a social insult), and the preponderance of narcissistic sexual exploitation of the vulnerable and minors that was often associated with it. It was also prosecuted for its anti social posture thus illustrated.
There was no 'phobia' about it; but a measured disdain and repulsion: reasonable fear. There was no bigotry involved, it was the normal reaction of Dawkins genes seeking whole of species benefit from reproduction and asserting this against non-reproduction.
Interesting how the majority were cast as bigots and 'homophobes' (whatever that neologism is supposed to connote), which is itself a tendentious claim. The vast majority in generations past were repelled by homosexuality because of its stifling of normal genetic progression, its denial of the essential status of a procreating family (and therefore in itself a social insult), and the preponderance of narcissistic sexual exploitation of the vulnerable and minors that was often associated with it. It was also prosecuted for its anti social posture thus illustrated.
There was no 'phobia' about it; but a measured disdain and repulsion: reasonable fear. There was no bigotry involved, it was the normal reaction of Dawkins genes seeking whole of species benefit from reproduction and asserting this against non-reproduction.
20171006
Not 'stolen'; rescued!
Dear SBS
Major error!
You should issue a corrective when Australia is screened again. The scrolling text at the start talks about the 'stolen generation' and refers to part aboriginal children being taken by whites...what friend Baz fails to explain is that these children were rejected by their tribes, subject to 'moral danger' (that is they were being fucked without end by both blacks and whites), left desitute and often deprived of food, clothing and shelter.
We should be thankful for the humanity of government and missionaries who had compassion on the plight of these rejected and despised (by their tribes and white ruffians) children and provided for their needs.
The were not STOLEN, they were RESCUED.
There is no question we would do it differently these days...opps. We do: we leave them to their fate!
Remember Dean Shillingsworth. He should have been rescued before his addled mother killed him. Another part black kid sentenced for death to calm the nerves of the White cool class scared of the myth of 'stolen' generation, and not willing now to rescue anyone.
Major error!
You should issue a corrective when Australia is screened again. The scrolling text at the start talks about the 'stolen generation' and refers to part aboriginal children being taken by whites...what friend Baz fails to explain is that these children were rejected by their tribes, subject to 'moral danger' (that is they were being fucked without end by both blacks and whites), left desitute and often deprived of food, clothing and shelter.
We should be thankful for the humanity of government and missionaries who had compassion on the plight of these rejected and despised (by their tribes and white ruffians) children and provided for their needs.
The were not STOLEN, they were RESCUED.
There is no question we would do it differently these days...opps. We do: we leave them to their fate!
Remember Dean Shillingsworth. He should have been rescued before his addled mother killed him. Another part black kid sentenced for death to calm the nerves of the White cool class scared of the myth of 'stolen' generation, and not willing now to rescue anyone.
20170920
We can stop panicking
So, the science not so settled after all.
Think of all that money that's been wasted on a fantasy.
Think of all that money that's been wasted on a fantasy.
20170916
The only thing you need to know about global warming
Climate change, as we call it now...but the climate has always changed, and always will.
Nevertheless, the models fail to predict reality; I guess fiction is what they are for.
Nevertheless, the models fail to predict reality; I guess fiction is what they are for.
20170911
The LIGBIT crowd (pron leg-bite)
In the paper it was reported that the LIGBIT crowd are sad that they are being shown up for being queer.
This is the story: the propogating genes are in natural opposition to the genetic dead end seeking to have their lack of support for the species' future made equal to the propogation of the species. Its just natural: genes at work protecting the species.
This is the story: the propogating genes are in natural opposition to the genetic dead end seeking to have their lack of support for the species' future made equal to the propogation of the species. Its just natural: genes at work protecting the species.
20170825
Aristotle on why young people will vote for sham sex marriage
"young people live by feeling, and have a main eye to their own pleasure and to the present moment."
Nicomachean Ethics 1156 a. 31-3
Nicomachean Ethics 1156 a. 31-3
Slogans
A few anti same-sex marriage slogans for your delight and amusement:
1. I don't believe in marriage 'equality'. I believe in marriage diversity -- male and female.
2. Not real sex equals not real marriage.
3. No possible zygote = no possible marriage.
4. Same sex sex? Not likely. Same sex marriage? Same!
5. Marriage 'equality'? Not equal for children.
6. Sham-sex marriage? Exactly!
7. Same-sex marriage = no babies, just dirty sheets.
8. Same-sex marriage? As useful as same-sex plumbing.
And for the blue at heart:
9. Don't fuck with us, we can't even fuck with each other.
There, that'll do. Free to use.
1. I don't believe in marriage 'equality'. I believe in marriage diversity -- male and female.
2. Not real sex equals not real marriage.
3. No possible zygote = no possible marriage.
4. Same sex sex? Not likely. Same sex marriage? Same!
5. Marriage 'equality'? Not equal for children.
6. Sham-sex marriage? Exactly!
7. Same-sex marriage = no babies, just dirty sheets.
8. Same-sex marriage? As useful as same-sex plumbing.
And for the blue at heart:
9. Don't fuck with us, we can't even fuck with each other.
There, that'll do. Free to use.
20170805
Same sex sham marriage.
Why would anyone think that a lifestyle arrangement that stifled the
production of new life had a any evolutionary role? It is a genetic
dead end and thus socially inert.
Every time I see a child I am reminded of the mockery of marriage in same-sex marriage, and the falsity of the claim to marriage 'equality'. Every child is a clear demonstration of the very inequality between a couple than can procreate and one that can only make a mess of the sheets.
There is no public policy benefit in attempting to solve the 'acceptance' problem of adults who opt to be different, act different or live different from those of us who make the next generation that pays all our bills in retirement (through taxes, investment and consumption).
Every time I see a child I am reminded of the mockery of marriage in same-sex marriage, and the falsity of the claim to marriage 'equality'. Every child is a clear demonstration of the very inequality between a couple than can procreate and one that can only make a mess of the sheets.
There is no public policy benefit in attempting to solve the 'acceptance' problem of adults who opt to be different, act different or live different from those of us who make the next generation that pays all our bills in retirement (through taxes, investment and consumption).
20170716
The pathetic chasing the irrelevant
A reporter in The Australian mentioned "How hurtful the debate got for [the alphabet soup]" when SSM was discussed in Ireland.
Nothing compared to the hurt to children who are likely to be isolated from at least one parent by government fiat, for the surrogate mothers in third world countries who are exploited by homosexual couples who admit that they are sexually inert and cannot produce children; so have to buy them, for the people drawn into the commoditisation of children. They are the hurts, but there is a flip side:
The humour.
The humour of people who engage in sham sex thinking that their private gymnastics have the social significance of couples whose real sexual intercourse often produces new life and thus the next generation.
The sad.
Sad that people with aberrant sexual dysfunction which represents a genetic dead end need a little badge from the government to tell them they are really truly OK, just like non-aberrant people, who are really truly OK.
The pathetic.
First homosexual practitioners wanted the law out of their bedrooms. Now they force their bedroom antics into the main street at every turn.
Nothing compared to the hurt to children who are likely to be isolated from at least one parent by government fiat, for the surrogate mothers in third world countries who are exploited by homosexual couples who admit that they are sexually inert and cannot produce children; so have to buy them, for the people drawn into the commoditisation of children. They are the hurts, but there is a flip side:
The humour.
The humour of people who engage in sham sex thinking that their private gymnastics have the social significance of couples whose real sexual intercourse often produces new life and thus the next generation.
The sad.
Sad that people with aberrant sexual dysfunction which represents a genetic dead end need a little badge from the government to tell them they are really truly OK, just like non-aberrant people, who are really truly OK.
The pathetic.
First homosexual practitioners wanted the law out of their bedrooms. Now they force their bedroom antics into the main street at every turn.
20170628
Ramadan 2017
Once again, the bigoted, racist, Jewphobic, hate-speech spewing war-cult, Islam, won the bombathon stakes. It smoked the runner up, as usual.
For the full list of the joys of Islam check out Muhammad.
For the full list of the joys of Islam check out Muhammad.
20170603
A fifth column!
Minister for Defence
PO Box 6100
Senate
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Dear Minister,
The appointment of the defence imam is one of the craziest decisons defence has made. He must be removed, and the role redunded.
The Defence Force imam, Sheikh Mohamadu Nawas Saleem, has backed Hizb ut Tahrir and called for Sharia in Australia; this is Islamic law that includes such things as subjugation of women by men, perpetual insult and oppression of women, death for non-muslims, slaughter of Christians and Jews (by their definition, almost everyone in Australia is ‘christian’) and death for those who leave Islam.
He was a key member of the Australian National Imam’s Council when it opposed Defence operations against the Islamic State and criticised laws that prohibit the advocation of terrorism.
Yet he has been appointed to increase Islamic recruitment into our Army, Navy and Air Force, even though more Muslims from Australia have signed up to fight for the Islamic State than the Australian Defence Force.
You clearly have no understanding of Islam, which has a 1400 year history of bloodshed, slaughter, oppression and enslavement of women and blacks, and over its history has murdered over 200 million people in its effort to politically dominate the world.
To include a representative of this military death cult threatens the peace of Australia and our military capability. Why not just make the ‘fifth column’ a standard part of our order of battle? That’s what this amounts to.
Islam is not a religion like anything we know in the west, or indeed, south Asia, but it is one where its founder has said that he has ‘gained victory through terror’.
I don’t care if you delude yourself about this cult, but don’t take Australia down with you.
PO Box 6100
Senate
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Dear Minister,
The appointment of the defence imam is one of the craziest decisons defence has made. He must be removed, and the role redunded.
The Defence Force imam, Sheikh Mohamadu Nawas Saleem, has backed Hizb ut Tahrir and called for Sharia in Australia; this is Islamic law that includes such things as subjugation of women by men, perpetual insult and oppression of women, death for non-muslims, slaughter of Christians and Jews (by their definition, almost everyone in Australia is ‘christian’) and death for those who leave Islam.
He was a key member of the Australian National Imam’s Council when it opposed Defence operations against the Islamic State and criticised laws that prohibit the advocation of terrorism.
Yet he has been appointed to increase Islamic recruitment into our Army, Navy and Air Force, even though more Muslims from Australia have signed up to fight for the Islamic State than the Australian Defence Force.
You clearly have no understanding of Islam, which has a 1400 year history of bloodshed, slaughter, oppression and enslavement of women and blacks, and over its history has murdered over 200 million people in its effort to politically dominate the world.
To include a representative of this military death cult threatens the peace of Australia and our military capability. Why not just make the ‘fifth column’ a standard part of our order of battle? That’s what this amounts to.
Islam is not a religion like anything we know in the west, or indeed, south Asia, but it is one where its founder has said that he has ‘gained victory through terror’.
I don’t care if you delude yourself about this cult, but don’t take Australia down with you.
20170531
20170528
20170527
Sorry?
Once again, national 'sorry' day has passed, where pious public servants and media stooges bemoan the 'stealing' of aboriginal children from families because they were aboriginal.
Didn't happen of course. There was no government policy to do anything like this.
Sure governments have a track record of doing bad things, but this ain't one of them.
In fact, I am sorry.
I am sorry we didn't rescue more children from the stone age culture of child abuse, woman bashing, rape and assault that left them and still leaves them scared and disadvantaged for life.
Governments and missions might have not done as well as we would expect today (opps, hang on, governments still fail to protect the weak and the taxpayer), but they are the only ones who stood up for these children.
Didn't happen of course. There was no government policy to do anything like this.
Sure governments have a track record of doing bad things, but this ain't one of them.
In fact, I am sorry.
I am sorry we didn't rescue more children from the stone age culture of child abuse, woman bashing, rape and assault that left them and still leaves them scared and disadvantaged for life.
Governments and missions might have not done as well as we would expect today (opps, hang on, governments still fail to protect the weak and the taxpayer), but they are the only ones who stood up for these children.
20170503
Let the market sort it out
One of the risks of legalising same-sex (sham) marriage is that it will become illegal to refuse to support the idea through business relationships; for instance, if a pair of men or women about to enter into a sham marriage want a cake celebrating their event, they may well follow the examples set in the USA and upon disappointing refusal, take the baker to court. Baker thereupon looses livelihood (in the land of the used to be free).
Of course, the solution is the market. No longer price anything, except standard fare; all other prices by negotiation, timing is another variable.
So, if I was the baker, I'd say, "Sure, can do, would love to do. For specials we charge $10,000, in advance. Happy to have your business. Now, let me look at my schedule...opps, can't get to it for 18 months. Will that be OK?"
Wedding photos? My fee starts at $100,000. That's my fee; that's what I feel like charging. Take it or leave it.
What fun, and its all done by the market!
Of course, the solution is the market. No longer price anything, except standard fare; all other prices by negotiation, timing is another variable.
So, if I was the baker, I'd say, "Sure, can do, would love to do. For specials we charge $10,000, in advance. Happy to have your business. Now, let me look at my schedule...opps, can't get to it for 18 months. Will that be OK?"
Wedding photos? My fee starts at $100,000. That's my fee; that's what I feel like charging. Take it or leave it.
What fun, and its all done by the market!
20170429
Could it get worse?
Comment in a newspaper blog mentioning child abuse:
A cohort study of the ADHEALTH data set indicates that children in ssm families are 7 times more likely to suffer sexual abuse than those not. Pretty dreadful future awaits children caught in the 'marriages' of the 1% of homosexuals who bother. Even more parlous with Dennis Altman's disdain for exclusive sexual relationships in the homosexual community. Small numbers overall, but why condemn children to something so obviously fraught with risk.
Then of course, there is the systematic denial of a full parental relationship of such children with at least one of their living natural parents...it would be hard to design something worse on purpose.
A cohort study of the ADHEALTH data set indicates that children in ssm families are 7 times more likely to suffer sexual abuse than those not. Pretty dreadful future awaits children caught in the 'marriages' of the 1% of homosexuals who bother. Even more parlous with Dennis Altman's disdain for exclusive sexual relationships in the homosexual community. Small numbers overall, but why condemn children to something so obviously fraught with risk.
Then of course, there is the systematic denial of a full parental relationship of such children with at least one of their living natural parents...it would be hard to design something worse on purpose.
20170425
20170415
Weakness
Have you ever had the joy of an interview with a moron employer, one who thinks they are a clinical psychologist, and asks you to give your opinion of your greatest weakness/weaknesses?
Here's the answer:
On a serious note, you could start a dialog:
'Tell me, what are you looking for in this question? Are you looking for an answer that will elimate me from the job, are you seeking my approach to self-development or self-management?. You see, you have to be careful here as with some candidates you could invite an action for discrimination with this question. Imagine if I said that the colour of my skin is my greatest weaknesss in the job market, and you don't employ me...next meeting would be in court."
Here's the answer:
"You want me to state my weakness? That wouldn't be in my interest would it? I could trot out a cliche about how I'm a perfectionist, but you've heard those all before. I'm here to talk about my talents and strengths and how I can bring them to bear on this company's challenges"Read more at https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2017/04/killer-interview-question-what-is-your-biggest-weakness-thats-not-a-secret-strength/#Hr1Z7kjkC4ZdKX9S.99
You can also clarify...probe back: 'tell me about some of the challenges of this job so I can ensure that I tell you about appropraite weaknesses that will be sure to make me unemployable.'
'Sure, but would you first tell me some of the greatest weaknesses of this company.'
'That sounds a bit scary, but if you would tell me your greatest weaknesses, being that I'd be working for you' that would start me on the road'.
Or, to really go out on a bang: 'I go postal whenever people ask me stupid questions.'
On a serious note, you could start a dialog:
'Tell me, what are you looking for in this question? Are you looking for an answer that will elimate me from the job, are you seeking my approach to self-development or self-management?. You see, you have to be careful here as with some candidates you could invite an action for discrimination with this question. Imagine if I said that the colour of my skin is my greatest weaknesss in the job market, and you don't employ me...next meeting would be in court."
20170408
20170402
Absolutely!
Our highly paid, and presumable highly educated pals in the media (think: TV) have only one word to confirm statements: "Absolutely".
Here are some alternatives, so they can flourish their great education, flexible minds and acquaintance with English:
Yes
Sure
Certainly
That's right
Yes
I agree
Are you sure?
I think so too
Yes
Hopefully
I hope so
Yes...
The next episode of helpful tips on communicating will deal with the reflexive and redundant cant "in place" (except where used for books on shelves).
Here are some alternatives, so they can flourish their great education, flexible minds and acquaintance with English:
Yes
Sure
Certainly
That's right
Yes
I agree
Are you sure?
I think so too
Yes
Hopefully
I hope so
Yes...
The next episode of helpful tips on communicating will deal with the reflexive and redundant cant "in place" (except where used for books on shelves).
20170331
Dignity and respect??
Letter to a local paper on Trent Zimmerman's whinge for 'dignity and respect'.
Trent Zimmerman wants the same dignity and status for pairs of homosexuals as male and female couples who marry. He talks about marriage ‘equality’. But there can be no equality with obvious functional difference and the status of a pair that cannot reproduce will never be the same as couples that preponderantly marry with the prospect of family in view.
Very obviously, without reproductive capability (and I know some marry without this in mind, or possible) a homosexual marriage is hollow. Nor can I see the public interest in such a marriage which is reproductively inert.
The public interest in marriage is very real, as it brings order to the raising of children and ensures that the parents and their responsibilities are recognised. It also serves to promote the succour the mother during a child’s early years when she is less likely to be able to work.
The man and woman who marry also demonstrate a commitment to a complete change in their lives for their children, including providing their children with their life-long company. Thus the honour and dignity afforded them. None of this occurs with homosexuals, and any children brought into that arrangement are unavoidably deprived of the daily company of at least one parent; thus are they made the playthings of adult make-believe, condemned to unavoidable risk of the ‘cinderella’ syndrome.
Trent Zimmerman wants the same dignity and status for pairs of homosexuals as male and female couples who marry. He talks about marriage ‘equality’. But there can be no equality with obvious functional difference and the status of a pair that cannot reproduce will never be the same as couples that preponderantly marry with the prospect of family in view.
Very obviously, without reproductive capability (and I know some marry without this in mind, or possible) a homosexual marriage is hollow. Nor can I see the public interest in such a marriage which is reproductively inert.
The public interest in marriage is very real, as it brings order to the raising of children and ensures that the parents and their responsibilities are recognised. It also serves to promote the succour the mother during a child’s early years when she is less likely to be able to work.
The man and woman who marry also demonstrate a commitment to a complete change in their lives for their children, including providing their children with their life-long company. Thus the honour and dignity afforded them. None of this occurs with homosexuals, and any children brought into that arrangement are unavoidably deprived of the daily company of at least one parent; thus are they made the playthings of adult make-believe, condemned to unavoidable risk of the ‘cinderella’ syndrome.
20170207
The anti-bucket list
Some people have a bucket list; I don't I have an anti-bucket list. Things I plan to never do again.
Here goes:
Here goes:
- See another 'art' film
- Go to the ballet
- Go to a performance of Wagner's Ring Cycle...any of them!
- Read another novel, of any kind, but especially Science Fiction....except those by Phillip Dick, of course.
- Attend another art gallery pretending that it has any meaning to me. Paintings are great decoration...but, that's it, folks!
- Travel to Asia again; except maybe Japan (despite the misunderstanding in the early 1940s)
- Africa. Middle East. Central Asia. South America. Anywhere they don't speak English.
- Buy polyester clothing.
- Surf
- Get sunburnt
- Get drunk (it is a most unpleasant feeling)
- Pretend to listen to New Agers, The Kumbaya crowd, Same Sex Marriage campaigners, ABC news/current affairs/analysis; unless it once more gets real, of course.
20170124
Respect!
I attended to a couple of school functions late last year and at both there was an acknowledgement of traditional Aboriginal ownership of land and a statement of respect for Aboriginal culture and elders.
I found this puzzling. I initially wondered about the tradition of reference here. Obviously it was not mine, and not incorporated in any residual tradition that is significant in Australia generally, to my knowledge. It must, I conclude, be a purely Aboriginal tradition and therefore referentially irrelevant to most us who were in the room and to the culture that we have inherited; the one that provides our education, science, mathematics, art, literature, productivity, system of law, industry, economic capability and other social benefits. Nor is “ownership” meaningful in this context. Indeed it is completely misplaced and its use would seem to teach children that non-Aboriginals possess the land wrongly. I protest most strongly at this.
Whatever past events were, there was no ‘invasion’ as is popularly characterised by some, including, in a great display of political opportunism and historical ignorance, the current Prime Minister. Rather, the history is occupation by diffusion and absorption, indeed, by sharing, which has been universal in human history. In no way does this support the fantasy implied in the ‘respect’ homage. It may be worthy to recognise the Aboriginal occupants who predated the school’s use of the site, but suggesting that they ‘owned’ the land in the meaning of ‘owned’ we use today is erroneous, and not fitting for a major private school to entertain or promulgate, unless it is a contra-positive object lesson in culturally transmogrified anachronism.
Nor is it fitting to uncritically impose Aboriginal religious beliefs on our children, noting that Aboriginal people claim to have a ‘spiritual’ relationship with the land; whatever that could mean. Probably it simply indicates that it was ‘home’ to them! However, if we accept their concept of ‘spiritual’ then this is a religious matter. The school should eschew general imposition of religious matters without informed parental agreement.
Then there is the approbation of Aboriginal culture. This is irksome. No, revolting! Historically, and even today, Aboriginal culture features systematic enslavement and abuse of women (the first European settlers noted the ubiquitous disfigurement of Aboriginal women from the violence of their males), near universal abuse of children, including the pack rape, violent genital abuse and extended humiliation of young girls abuse of both boys and girls in parental neglect, and inter-tribal wars of annihilation. The idea of respecting this culture is idiotic and the elders who permitted this warrant our contempt, not acknowledgement.
A few relevant quotes:
Captain Tench wrote “They [women] are in all respects treated with savage barbarity; condemned not only to carry the children, but all other burthens, they meet in return for submission only with blows, kicks and every other mark of brutality”
He also wrote “When an Indian [sic] is provoked by a woman, he either spears her, or knocks her down on the spot; on this occasion he always strikes on the head, using indiscriminately a hatchet, a club, or any other weapon, which may chance to be in his hand.”
Peleopathologist Stephen Webb in 1995 published analysis of over 4500 individuals’ bones from mainland Australia going back 50,000 years. In the tropics female head trauma injuries, suggestive of deliberate attacks were evident in 20-33% of individuals, in contrast to 6.5-26% for males. In the south rates of female injury were higher at 40-45% of individuals.
Stephanie Jarrett in her introduction to “Liberating Aboriginal People from Violence”, says. “It is important to acknowledge [the] link between today’s Aboriginal violence and violent, pre-contact tradition, because until policy makers are honest in their assessment of the causes, Aboriginal people can never be liberated from traditional norms and practices of violence”
Bess Nungarrayi Price adds: “My own body is scarred by domestic violence...We Aboriginal people have to acknowledge the truth. We can’t blame all of our problems on the white man...This is our problem...”
Joan Kimm wrote: “The sexual use of young girls by older men, indeed often much older men, was an intrinsic part of Aboriginal culture, a heritage that cannot easily be denied.
And here’s an anthropologist’s description from the 1930s of how that ‘intrinsic part’ plays out:
“...when a Pitta-Pitta girl first showed signs of puberty, ‘several men would drag her into the bush and forcibly enlarge the vaginal orifice by tearing it downwards with the first three fingers wound round and round with opossum string. Other men came forward from all directions, and the struggling victim has to submit in rotation to promiscuous coition with all the ‘bucks’ present.”
This continues today:
The atmosphere in Aboriginal communities was described as one of “continuing fear from which there is no escape...Sexual abuse is an inadequate term for the incidence of horrific sexual offences committed against young girls and boys in a number of Community locations in Queensland over the last few years”
The elders who failed and continue to fail to lift Aboriginal people from the parlous lives they often lead and to protect children from abuse, neglect, fear and suffering deserve our condemnation. Naturally the Aboriginals working to bring the benefits of modern civilisation to this group deserve our support and applause. But enough of this misplaced and gullible celebration of a dead-end stone age culture: it is no more than one of those ‘stationary’, spook infested, unproductive, degrading and toxic primitive cultures that we are better off without. It has contributed nothing to anyone and deserves its evolutionary fate of complete expiration. Indeed, that is the benefit of evolution: eliminating the ineffective. Aboriginal culture cannot survive as a functioning culture and we should do nothing to prevent that outcome.
I found this puzzling. I initially wondered about the tradition of reference here. Obviously it was not mine, and not incorporated in any residual tradition that is significant in Australia generally, to my knowledge. It must, I conclude, be a purely Aboriginal tradition and therefore referentially irrelevant to most us who were in the room and to the culture that we have inherited; the one that provides our education, science, mathematics, art, literature, productivity, system of law, industry, economic capability and other social benefits. Nor is “ownership” meaningful in this context. Indeed it is completely misplaced and its use would seem to teach children that non-Aboriginals possess the land wrongly. I protest most strongly at this.
Whatever past events were, there was no ‘invasion’ as is popularly characterised by some, including, in a great display of political opportunism and historical ignorance, the current Prime Minister. Rather, the history is occupation by diffusion and absorption, indeed, by sharing, which has been universal in human history. In no way does this support the fantasy implied in the ‘respect’ homage. It may be worthy to recognise the Aboriginal occupants who predated the school’s use of the site, but suggesting that they ‘owned’ the land in the meaning of ‘owned’ we use today is erroneous, and not fitting for a major private school to entertain or promulgate, unless it is a contra-positive object lesson in culturally transmogrified anachronism.
Nor is it fitting to uncritically impose Aboriginal religious beliefs on our children, noting that Aboriginal people claim to have a ‘spiritual’ relationship with the land; whatever that could mean. Probably it simply indicates that it was ‘home’ to them! However, if we accept their concept of ‘spiritual’ then this is a religious matter. The school should eschew general imposition of religious matters without informed parental agreement.
Then there is the approbation of Aboriginal culture. This is irksome. No, revolting! Historically, and even today, Aboriginal culture features systematic enslavement and abuse of women (the first European settlers noted the ubiquitous disfigurement of Aboriginal women from the violence of their males), near universal abuse of children, including the pack rape, violent genital abuse and extended humiliation of young girls abuse of both boys and girls in parental neglect, and inter-tribal wars of annihilation. The idea of respecting this culture is idiotic and the elders who permitted this warrant our contempt, not acknowledgement.
A few relevant quotes:
Captain Tench wrote “They [women] are in all respects treated with savage barbarity; condemned not only to carry the children, but all other burthens, they meet in return for submission only with blows, kicks and every other mark of brutality”
He also wrote “When an Indian [sic] is provoked by a woman, he either spears her, or knocks her down on the spot; on this occasion he always strikes on the head, using indiscriminately a hatchet, a club, or any other weapon, which may chance to be in his hand.”
Peleopathologist Stephen Webb in 1995 published analysis of over 4500 individuals’ bones from mainland Australia going back 50,000 years. In the tropics female head trauma injuries, suggestive of deliberate attacks were evident in 20-33% of individuals, in contrast to 6.5-26% for males. In the south rates of female injury were higher at 40-45% of individuals.
Stephanie Jarrett in her introduction to “Liberating Aboriginal People from Violence”, says. “It is important to acknowledge [the] link between today’s Aboriginal violence and violent, pre-contact tradition, because until policy makers are honest in their assessment of the causes, Aboriginal people can never be liberated from traditional norms and practices of violence”
Bess Nungarrayi Price adds: “My own body is scarred by domestic violence...We Aboriginal people have to acknowledge the truth. We can’t blame all of our problems on the white man...This is our problem...”
Joan Kimm wrote: “The sexual use of young girls by older men, indeed often much older men, was an intrinsic part of Aboriginal culture, a heritage that cannot easily be denied.
And here’s an anthropologist’s description from the 1930s of how that ‘intrinsic part’ plays out:
“...when a Pitta-Pitta girl first showed signs of puberty, ‘several men would drag her into the bush and forcibly enlarge the vaginal orifice by tearing it downwards with the first three fingers wound round and round with opossum string. Other men came forward from all directions, and the struggling victim has to submit in rotation to promiscuous coition with all the ‘bucks’ present.”
This continues today:
The atmosphere in Aboriginal communities was described as one of “continuing fear from which there is no escape...Sexual abuse is an inadequate term for the incidence of horrific sexual offences committed against young girls and boys in a number of Community locations in Queensland over the last few years”
The elders who failed and continue to fail to lift Aboriginal people from the parlous lives they often lead and to protect children from abuse, neglect, fear and suffering deserve our condemnation. Naturally the Aboriginals working to bring the benefits of modern civilisation to this group deserve our support and applause. But enough of this misplaced and gullible celebration of a dead-end stone age culture: it is no more than one of those ‘stationary’, spook infested, unproductive, degrading and toxic primitive cultures that we are better off without. It has contributed nothing to anyone and deserves its evolutionary fate of complete expiration. Indeed, that is the benefit of evolution: eliminating the ineffective. Aboriginal culture cannot survive as a functioning culture and we should do nothing to prevent that outcome.
20170113
Same sex marriage bill
The Australian Senate committee on this Bill is seeking submissions from mere mug punters. Here's one that I came across.
The exemptions contained in the Bill in relation to ministers of religion, religious organisations and marriage celebrants are appropriate, but insufficient.
The free exercise of a religious view, or a moral or philosophical view held for other than religious reasons should be a part of normal civil society and should not be penalized in any way (except of course where the rights of others to freedom of speech, association, and freedom from malicious or negligent acts detrimental to their persons or affairs would be directly breached).
The Bill should also exempt from legal action any person who declines to trade with some one where that trade could reasonably be construed to suggest support for same sex marriage. This could include for example, a builder not wanting to build premises for people who were in a same sex marriage, or a real estate agent not taking instructions from persons in a same sex marriage, if that would offend the trader's views about marriage. This is pertinent given the long standing operation of marriage to be in respect of a couple of the opposite sex where marriage is in the normal course of events likely to result in procreation. Procreation is of course impossible for a same sex couple, they being sexually inert, making the social role of same sex marriage to be entirely different from that of marriage as it is historically known and practiced.
Moreover, section 116 of the Constitution of Australia precludes the Commonwealth of Australia (i.e., the federal parliament) from making laws for establishing any religion, imposing any religious observance, or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion.
The Bill, if passed in its present form would prohibit the free exercise of any religion by any adherent of that religion where their religious belief denied the possibility of same sex marriage. This law would be oppressive to vast numbers of Australians and permanently change the face of Australia introducing into our society a level of suspicion, resentment and distrust that would be damaging, if not disastrous.
The protections I support above would prevent opportunistic and vexatious use of the law by same sex marriage activists making 'targeted' approaches to businesses known to be operated by people opposed to same sex marriage for either religious or moral reasons. Such approaches are not to genuinely seek to trade, but are as retaliation against their reasonable views and to cruelly destroy their business, as has occurred in other jurisdictions.
The exemptions contained in the Bill in relation to ministers of religion, religious organisations and marriage celebrants are appropriate, but insufficient.
The free exercise of a religious view, or a moral or philosophical view held for other than religious reasons should be a part of normal civil society and should not be penalized in any way (except of course where the rights of others to freedom of speech, association, and freedom from malicious or negligent acts detrimental to their persons or affairs would be directly breached).
The Bill should also exempt from legal action any person who declines to trade with some one where that trade could reasonably be construed to suggest support for same sex marriage. This could include for example, a builder not wanting to build premises for people who were in a same sex marriage, or a real estate agent not taking instructions from persons in a same sex marriage, if that would offend the trader's views about marriage. This is pertinent given the long standing operation of marriage to be in respect of a couple of the opposite sex where marriage is in the normal course of events likely to result in procreation. Procreation is of course impossible for a same sex couple, they being sexually inert, making the social role of same sex marriage to be entirely different from that of marriage as it is historically known and practiced.
Moreover, section 116 of the Constitution of Australia precludes the Commonwealth of Australia (i.e., the federal parliament) from making laws for establishing any religion, imposing any religious observance, or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion.
The Bill, if passed in its present form would prohibit the free exercise of any religion by any adherent of that religion where their religious belief denied the possibility of same sex marriage. This law would be oppressive to vast numbers of Australians and permanently change the face of Australia introducing into our society a level of suspicion, resentment and distrust that would be damaging, if not disastrous.
The protections I support above would prevent opportunistic and vexatious use of the law by same sex marriage activists making 'targeted' approaches to businesses known to be operated by people opposed to same sex marriage for either religious or moral reasons. Such approaches are not to genuinely seek to trade, but are as retaliation against their reasonable views and to cruelly destroy their business, as has occurred in other jurisdictions.
20170110
Cyclists
We all have to be extra polite to cyclists now, keeping 1m from them. Fair enough.
Cyclists would assist their own safety if they
They often fail to realise that dark clothing makes them invisible in most cases, but particularly in shade and when drivers see them against the background of the road.
Knuckle-heads!
Cyclists would assist their own safety if they
- rode in single file, and
- dressed in conspicuous clothing.
They often fail to realise that dark clothing makes them invisible in most cases, but particularly in shade and when drivers see them against the background of the road.
Knuckle-heads!
Driving dozen
There are a few basic rules of the road that make driving pleasant and safe. From my limited experience these should be drummed into every driver, maybe every time registration and license are renewed:
1. Pedestrian crossings: slow down at them, stop for person crossing, don't pass a car stopped at a crossing.
2. Emergency vehicles: give way to them, pull to the left and stop.
3. STOP at amber traffic lights unless it is unsafe to do so and NEVER drive through a red traffic light.
4. ALWAYS stop and look both ways before you drive cross a pedestrian footpath.
5. Be patient with other drivers, its not the end of the world if you are delayed a few seconds.
6. NEVER use a mobile phone hands on while driving or in traffic.
7. Keep as much air as you can between the car in front of you and your car.
8. Keep left unless overtaking in multi-lane roads.
9. Don't park over footpaths, even if you think you are on a driveway.
10. Slow down in wet weather.
11. Don't drive on flooded roads
12. Keep checking in your rear vision mirrors (see 2 above).
1. Pedestrian crossings: slow down at them, stop for person crossing, don't pass a car stopped at a crossing.
2. Emergency vehicles: give way to them, pull to the left and stop.
3. STOP at amber traffic lights unless it is unsafe to do so and NEVER drive through a red traffic light.
4. ALWAYS stop and look both ways before you drive cross a pedestrian footpath.
5. Be patient with other drivers, its not the end of the world if you are delayed a few seconds.
6. NEVER use a mobile phone hands on while driving or in traffic.
7. Keep as much air as you can between the car in front of you and your car.
8. Keep left unless overtaking in multi-lane roads.
9. Don't park over footpaths, even if you think you are on a driveway.
10. Slow down in wet weather.
11. Don't drive on flooded roads
12. Keep checking in your rear vision mirrors (see 2 above).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)