Dazz was right. This turns into a Left v Right argument everytime.
Our established view of the world (I'm resisting using the word paradigm with all of my might) has been formed over our entire lives and is the sum total of our upbringing, our experiences, our reading, and the people we mix with, listen to and interact with.
It cannot be changed at the drop of a hat. What someone writes or links to is usually a drop in the ocean compared with the weight of our view on the world.
There is usually large inspiration taken from successful exponents of our left / right views. If you are a lefty for example, then some successful guru in whatever field floats your boat and you acknowledge as inspirational will resonate heavily with you....and well, harping and name calling from someone you don't know espousing the opposite view won't carry much weight at all
We've seen this over and over, in many threads over many years....it never changes.
- I call someone lazy, the other person calls him cool and relaxed.
- I call someone courageous, the other person calls him a risk taker.
- I call someone confident, the other person calls him arrogant and pig headed.
- I call someone focussed, the other person calls him narrow minded.
- I call someone successful, the other person calls him a capitalist pig.
- I call someone smelly, the other person calls him wonderfully exotic
- I call someone a litterbug, the other person punches me.
- I view it as scribble that a 3 year could do, the other person calls it high art.
- I support employers, they support employees.
- I call it an old cluncker, they call it economical transport.
- I call it dangerous, they call it exhilirating.
It goes on and on and on....
Bolt and his employer printed untruths about nine or ten people, and they took him to court, which is their right. That Bolt got his facts VERY wrong was a major factor in the court finding against him.
Not sure I agree with this dan. Reading most of the links that OO posted, and the actual words of the limp wristed wet handbag judge, I don't subscribe to his definition of what constitutes that to which he relies upon as exactly what defines Aboriginality.
Time after time, he castigated and 'corrected' Bolt as his comments being wrong, but didn't define exactly what he definitively relied upon what constitutes calling oneself an Aboriginal. Bolt's comments clearly delineated a certain blood percentage as proof of being Aboriginal. That's what underscored Bolt's written article. The judge clearly disagreed....he was working off a different definition, obviously the same one that the Plaintiff was using.
Some time back, being a "full blood" was Aboriginal. Everything else wasn't. That was the norm. That's what all of Australian society recognised. Now apparently that has changed, and whomever decides these things ?????, apparently it doesn't matter what blood content you have, supposedly you can be born to Icelandic parents and be an albino, but if you merely consider yourself to be an Aboriginal, take a totem, and Aboriginal communities accept you....then apparently you are.
When did the courts representing HM the Queen and the Govt decide that was OK ??
Reading through the texts of the court, this seems to be the fundamental sticking point. Bolt's fact called people with a certain fraction of blood (16th, 32nd, 64th, 128ths) blood not Aboriginal, the judge disagreed and called his 'fact' incorrect. Given that, I'm very much inclining to agreeing with Bolt's facts, and calling the judge wrong.
But then, I view the world very very differently to most judges.
