Comments on: A letter to parents who are not gullible

By: MadJak

MadJak — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 10:33:08 +0000

Rod,

Well written and well said. Just as the generations who had the bitter experience of the depression era subside, the lessons learnt from that time are ignored again (and a taste of the consequences experienced).

The same goes with Totalitarianism, although I do think that whilst the net is free from significant influence at least people have the ability to find information from history and learn it’s lessons (maybe).

Personally, I think despite advances in communication mechanism, many many people are becoming almost delusionally naive. To put this in perspective, we have been seeing thousands of people getting arrested in Copenhagen for protesting to be Taxed more and to be partially governed by some form of Cabal. All for a problem that doesn’t exist.

Whether its the extreme left or the extreme right, it doesn’t make a lick of difference IMO. The consequences have and will be the same.

Report this

0 0

By: Rod

Rod — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 23:41:36 +0000

I’ve been reflecting on this alarmist climate change thing for a week or two, and wondering how it has got so out of hand that we can see the ugly head of totalitarianism emerge again so clearly in the debate.
To me it seems very strange that these people like Hamilton get air time and can get away with plying their nasty craft.
I was born just after WWII, and was bought up by a generation that knew a thing or two about the Nazis, the Stalin era and Mao, and how the operated to gain, retain and misuse political power.
Hamilton would have been immediately recognised for what he is.
Sadly, it seems to me a whole new generation that has greatly benefited from the removal of the totalitarian regimes has not learned how to recognise the face of totalitarianism. It is beginning to look like the fight for freedom will need to be fought all over again.
Every year I deliberately open my old copy of Hayek and the The Road To Serfdom, just to remind myself how gullible people can be. Its context is getting out of date, but the message remains frighteningly relevant with increasing modern parallels.
Thankfully, there are people like you, Andrew Bolt and many others who are prepared to speak out, and a means of communication through the internet as an alternative to the mainstream media that these people seem to have infiltrated.
Keep up the good work.
We need to be ever on our guard, or we will have to build more war memorials with long and sobering lists of names as can be seen at Canberra, and far to many other places.

Report this

1 0

By: Joanne Nova

Joanne Nova — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:28:46 +0000

The link is working again to the original Hamilton story. http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2765351.htm Thanks to deadman for pointing it out.

Report this

0 0

By: Baa Humbug

Baa Humbug — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:28:13 +0000

mmmm so let me see. I can write a whole book insinuating someone is worse than someone else, make analogies, veiled accusations, then in the very last line of the book say “well not really.” And all will be ok then will it?

So what was the point of the book?

Report this

0 0

By: Roy Hogue

Roy Hogue — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:13:29 +0000

UPDATE: I’m glad I kept a copy of his letter here, because the ABC has taken down his piece. Gone, “not found”. Thanks to Mal for pointing that out.

Jo,

This is the benefit of exposure. They hide from the light of day knowing they can’t withstand scrutiny.

Report this

0 0

By: Roy Hogue

Roy Hogue — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:05:41 +0000

I watch these debates closely and I find Deadman to be the more persuasive. One always considers the whole context, not just a part of it when making such judgments. But the broader point that Hamilton shamefully tried to use children against their parents should not get out of focus.

Here in the US this same thing has been going on for a long time and the venue is our public schools. Every cause — and there are many — will realize that if you indoctrinate the children you can win the war. In California some of it has been cast in the concrete of state law. It’s embarrassing to any critical thinker and extremely pernicious.

There is no end to intellectual dishonesty.

Report this

0 0

By: Dom

Dom — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:02:28 +0000

@ Deadman

Your response made me smile.

I’m glad you agree with me that Hamilton concludes his article very clearly, explicitly stating that they are not worse.

We could talk about what you think he infers, or considers dangerous (or the basis for your certainty that Nova read the whole article) until the cows come home, but that is his conclusion, clearly stated, as you say.

Report this

0 0

By: Deadman

Deadman — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:11:34 +0000

to Dov:
Hamilton explicitly says (I repeat) that sceptics “deserve greater moral censure [...] because their activities are more dangerous[,]” and that “Holocaust deniers are not responsible for the Holocaust [but] climate deniers [...] would share responsibility for the enormous suffering caused by global warming.”
This is saying that sceptics are worse than Holocaust-deniers: worse in causing more suffering (eventually, supposing his alarmist predictions come true) and bearing moral responsibility thereof. The entire tenor of his article is that sceptics are dangerously bad, and deserving of the utmost obloquy which the opprobrious term “denier” connotes. I am sorry if you cannot perceive that. Hamilton concludes his article, as you correctly say, by stating (disingenuously, in my view) that sceptics aren’t quite as bad as Holocaust-deniers in one respect, morally, but he qualifies that with the adverb “yet.” The clear inference is that by some far distant day they will be worse morally. Nova’s claims are correct and you needlessly calumniated her by querying whether she read an article which she clearly had.
One certainly should take care to attribute Hamilton’s views correctly. Reading an entire article and not being swayed by a slight, spurious concession at the end would help to do that.
An aggressive way to make a point? I gave an example, with Hamiltonian extravagance, of a claim I could make. Don’t you care for parody? I did indeed deliberately write “cannot discern nuance seemingly” and not “cannot seemingly discern nuance” for a reason: “seemingly’ functions as a sentence adverb and qualifies all three preceding words and not just the verb; your subsequent questioning of my nuanced adverbial placement is … well, I shall indulge in aposiopoesis…

Report this

0 0

By: Dom

Dom — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 06:27:10 +0000

@Deadman

Whatever nuance you can find, or whatever his words “suggest” to you, Hamilton concludes his article by specifically saying they are not worse. Nova claims he says they are worse. This is misrepresentation, and the question of whether the whole article was read is appropriate.

If you want to criticise Hamilton for his bizarre behaviour, you should take care to at least attribute his views correctly. Perhaps you disagree.

Unfortunately, you are wrong, regardless of whether I am yet a semi illiterate half wit. What an aggressive way to try to make your point! I assume you are really a nice person though, and just disagree with me (and the facts). That’s OK.

In terms of your baseless accusations of me making baseless claims and “cannot discern nuance seemingly” (did you mean cannot seemingly discern nuance?), I reject them and refer you to the answer given above.

Report this

0 0

By: Joanne Nova

Joanne Nova — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 06:14:38 +0000

UPDATE: I’m glad I kept a copy of his letter here, because the ABC has taken down his piece. Gone, “not found”. Thanks to Mal for pointing that out.

Report this

0 0