Trudy wrote:
>When I heard him say that last night, I thought it was a Howard inspired
cop-out. This is just the sort of
>thing Howard would say to confuse the issue and misdirect the focus of what
was really being discussed.
>IF, and it's a big 'if', politicians really behaved like that, there would
be no political parties, no
>government, nothing. However, we all know that politicians are not like
that and are in no danger of doing
>anything remotely like that so it is a furphy.
Okay, maybe. But how do "we all" know that? I might admire your certainty
that this is so, but what is it based on? Why are you so certain it's a
furphy? Just because "we all know that politicians are not like that"?
Trudy:
It is designed to do exactly what you just did, Tim...;-)
>People start thinking and getting wrapped up in the complications while he
walks away with his hypocrisy.
Give a person some credit, Trudy....;-) To engage with something and get
"wrapped up in the complications" is not to be blinded by the possible
hypocrisy. I understand that perfectly well, which was why I prefaced what
I wrote with "Even allowing for the rationalisation involved in his
comments...."
Trudy:
>What is really necessary is that on the rare occasions that it crops up -
as in this instance - politicians
>of conscience stand up to be counted. When they don't, and they put
whatever else first, then they deserve
>to be criticised for their cowardice.
No doubt this is true in the case of Nelson. We are yet to see with the
others.
>
>These politicians want all the praise and respect for having a conscience
while they do nothing to earn it.
>What have they done? They have talked about it. But what have they done?
When the crunch came and people
>counted on them they disappeared into the woodwork to save their political
hides. To me, this is far worse
>than those who are honest about their prejudice.
Well you'll probably be proved right, and none of us who follow these things
will be all that surprised I guess. But the issue hasn't gone yet and we'll
see. I'm sure you'd like to be proved wrong on this and have the laws
over-turned. My only point was really to address the question of how we
know we are right about something, but maybe that wasn't clear. To that
extent Nelson's comments were interesting, even if they apparently duped
people like me. I'm just interested in how people get their certainties
and why uncertainty is so often interpretted as weakness. I meant it as a
general observation and directed at no-one in particular. Maybe it's this
sort of thing Peter McGrath had in mind when he criticised us for being too
narrow-minded?
Tim
-------------------------------------------------------
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at
http://www.mail-archive.com/
To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
from the
copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
the "fair
use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
RecOzNet2 is archived for members @
http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/
