Thread: Dear Jim Wallace... Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023782
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
... it's not a fucking "LIFESTYLE", OKAY?!!!
Hell's bells. Given this guy is within a reasonable physical distance of me, I really really want to get a large wooden plank and smack him in the head with it until he gains some sense.
No-one is born smoking, you fucking moron. And you won't find the heads of leading quit smoking programs acknowledging that no, actually, their programs don't truly work.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Is this Australian Christian Lobby really an Australian Christian Closet? You know what it's like with anti-Gay protestors.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Is this Australian Christian Lobby really an Australian Christian Closet? You know what it's like with anti-Gay protestors.
The thought did cross my mind. Actually, I recently met a gay guy who knew Wallace many, many years ago. No claims he's in the closet, but reportedly he turned from a reasonable person into a hard-edged loony when he got married. So the wife got to him in at least some respect.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
Whew. For a minute there I thought we were talking about this guy. But then I never could spell.
And yes, that word should probably be banned altogether. It gets applied not only to people of varying sexual orientations, but also to the homeless, to the poor, to the addicted, and even to my clients.
Schizophrenia or autism as a "lifestyle choice," anyone?
[ 07. September 2012, 00:55: Message edited by: Porridge ]
Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on
:
Yeah, people throw that stupid word around far too much. "The homosexual lifestyle" always set my teeth on edge. What the close-minded usually mean by that is Gay men who prance around in drag and have absolutely faaaaaaaaabulous fashion sense and perfect feng shui. The lesbian lifestyle is women who want to be men (of course! Every woman secretly wants a cock, right?! ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
), dress like men, be butch in bed and order the little ladies around. The "little ladies" are almost always confused straight women who have strayed from the "normal" path...
The hippie lifestyle is about smoking pot all day, pissing/shitting in your organic vegetable garden, overthrowing capitalism, and dancing around nude, worshiping trees.
What would be the right wing conservative Christian lifestyle? Being a staunch Republican, of course. Being against ANY thing that Obama or Clinton (Hilary or Bill) was in support of, believing that the liberals are hell-bent on turning the United States into a socialist gulag... but wait, where's the "lifestyle"? Monster trucks? No, that' for good ole boys, not necessarily right-wing conservative Christians. Having lots of pictures of a blond-haired blue-eyes Jesus in your home? Saying, "Thank you, Jesus!" and asking the great unwashed if they have found Jesus? It's all so confusing! How do right-wing conservatives decorate?
LOL.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
... it's not a fucking "LIFESTYLE", OKAY?!!!
Hell's bells. Given this guy is within a reasonable physical distance of me, I really really want to get a large wooden plank and smack him in the head with it until he gains some sense.
No-one is born smoking, you fucking moron. And you won't find the heads of leading quit smoking programs acknowledging that no, actually, their programs don't truly work.
Good God, what is going on with the GOP? It's like they are saying "Look, there's still some scrapings left in the Stupid Pot, tip it!"
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
had a guy earlier this summer say he doesn't "support my lifestyle" and I'm pretty sure he was talking about me being a single parent.
the one thing about humanity that makes me give up all hope is that every single one of us are people. and people suck.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
I think the problem here is the definition of "lifestyle".
I don't think Jim Wallace was talking about sexual preference as a lifestyle. He was talking about certain behaviors and health issues associated with some homosexuals (e.g. drug use, HIV) that can shorten your life.
Just like lack of exercise and low socioeconomic status are associated with smokers.
The argument assumes that all homosexuals are drug takers or don't have safe sex or whatever that leads to ill health.
Which is an incorrect assumption of course.
Just like assuming I, as a smoker, never excercise, am poor and have a poor diet.
I am a smoker, but I am none of the rest of those things.
(p.s. When I was in high school the stats certainly did imply a connection between drug use, HIV and homosexuality. Is that still true or not? That Jim Wallace chap seemed to say HIV is still highest amongst gays. Is that true?)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
That Jim Wallace chap seemed to say HIV is still highest amongst gays. Is that true?)
It is true in Australia, yes. Precisely because the containment strategies implemented in the 1980s in this country were outstandingly successful, possibly more successful than any other country in the Western world. I once saw a fascinating documentary about the superb job done by Neal Blewett and Minister for Health and his opposition counterpart, Peter Baume, at defusing the HIV-prevention measures as a political issue and ensuring that things were done purely on a health basis.
End result, here in Australia HIV has not tended to spread very far from the groups that happened to be the initial groups affected.
Meanwhile, millions upon millions of heterosexuals in Africa and Asia are infected with the 'gay disease'.
[ 07. September 2012, 07:07: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
The problem is everyone has a lifestyle. I have a lifestyle, some parts of which I have chosen, other parts I have not. Some parts, significantly, I have chosen from a small set of options.
For someone to judge me based on what they see now, on the results of many many choices, some good, some bad, without considering exactly what my choices were and why I made them is stupid.
What is more, others may be in similar positions but by completely different routes. To condemn my "aaaaaa" lifestyle, whatever that is, because you know other people who are arseholes who follow an "aaaaaa" lifestyle is like chopping down all trees because one was in my way once.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
One rarely hears the term "Heterosexual Lifestyle"
You know the one where men and women get pissed off with each-other, belt each-other , cheat on each-other and increasing indulge in general promiscuity .
Even when man/woman unions were locked into a dogmatic institution, as they were 100 years ago , it caused a build of latent anger and tension that exploded into Total War between Christian nations.
But hey, it's the way the majority of us are, so this lifestyle must be right..... Isn't it ?
[ 07. September 2012, 08:14: Message edited by: rolyn ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Whew. For a minute there I thought we were talking about this guy.
So did I.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
What I dislike is that the word 'Christian' gets linked to these people.
Perhaps, like a couple of UK universities and their Christian Unions, they should have 'Evangelical' placed before 'Christian' to make it clear that their views are not authoritatively Christian, and that there are many who would describe themselves as Christian but who do not share their particular slant on faith and morals.
Having said that, I am sure many evangelicals wouldn't wish to either.
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
Sebby
I would have the same problem with 'Evangelical'.
Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Whew. For a minute there I thought we were talking about this guy.
So did I.
No, this guy is pretty cool. Most of the time.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
... it's not a fucking "LIFESTYLE", OKAY?!!!
Hell's bells. Given this guy is within a reasonable physical distance of me, I really really want to get a large wooden plank and smack him in the head with it until he gains some sense.
No-one is born smoking, you fucking moron. And you won't find the heads of leading quit smoking programs acknowledging that no, actually, their programs don't truly work.
Good God, what is going on with the GOP? It's like they are saying "Look, there's still some scrapings left in the Stupid Pot, tip it!"
While I wouldn't disagree with that remark, this has nothing to do with the GOP or the US. This is one of our home grown loonies.
Wallace is a douchebag. I hope he has finally stepped over the line now, and will lose any support he once boasted. I am an Australian Christian, and the ACL does not represent me at all.
[ 08. September 2012, 08:57: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]
Posted by moron (# 206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The5thMary:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Whew. For a minute there I thought we were talking about this guy.
So did I.
No, this guy is pretty cool. Most of the time.
IIRC he might have been called to Hell once, though.
quote:
In 2010, Wallis admitted to accepting money for Sojourners from philanthropist George Soros after initially denying having done so. When conservative writer Marvin Olasky pointed this out, and that Soros also financed groups supporting abortion, atheism, and same-sex marriage, in a WORLD magazine column, Wallis said Olasky "lies for a living"; he subsequently apologized to Olasky for the comments.[32][33] In 2011, Wallis acknowledged that Sojourners had received another $150,000.00 from Soros' Open Society Foundation.[34]
In 2010, expressing concern about the growing polarization in American politics, Wallis and other Christian leaders signed on to a document entitled "A Covenant for Civility."[35
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
What I dislike is that the word 'Christian' gets linked to these people.
Exactly.
I no longer identify myself as 'Christian' because of this. If I'm asked the question 'Are you a Christian?' I reply 'What do you mean by Christian?' - and then, usually, my reply is an emphatic 'NO!'
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
That Jim Wallace chap seemed to say HIV is still highest amongst gays. Is that true?)
It is true in Australia, yes.
Why?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Why?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I take it you'll be able to read a maximum of one line of my post, per day? Given that I answered this in the bit you had to cut out to do your quote!
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on
:
And Wallace has done it again.
Jeff Kennett is a former Liberal (ie right of spectrum) Premier of Victoria and Chair of the depression charity beyondblue. Some of Kennett's pronouncements on parenting in particular led to lobbying and to boycotts of beyondblue, including its annual Movember facial hair fundraiser. Kennett has now, in response to that lobbying, changed his attitude; hooray for him.
When the PM pulled out of speaking at the ACL's conference, Kennett offered to step in, saying that he would address the anti-gay rhetoric head-on. He is no longer in politics and so able to do that without fear of electoral repercussions; so should the PM as few of the ACL types would be likely to vote for her anyway. But Jeff Kennett has gone up majorly in my estimation as a result of his change of heart to the point that he's willing to go in and bat against Wallace and that bunch.
Now the ACL has declined the offer. I hardly think that the kind of accusations leveled at Kennett come under the classification of "politely" declining his offer. ACL's media release is rude and arrogant. And if Wallace wants to see "aggressive activist bullying" I don't think he needs to look outside his own organisation.
What a tosser. Further words fail me.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Why?
I take it you'll be able to read a maximum of one line of my post, per day? Given that I answered this in the bit you had to cut out to do your quote!
Your answer was about containment. I was curious as to why the gay population were the initial subset affected.
i.e. you said:
quote:
End result, here in Australia HIV has not tended to spread very far from the groups that happened to be the initial groups affected.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Do be careful you don't trip over the dead horse in the corner. I.E. be sure not to get into a discussion of the rights and wrongs of homosexuality.
Doublethink
Hellhost
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
I wasn't going there.
I was just wondering if this Jim Wallace character had any grounds to believe things that homosexuals might do (as opposed to their sexual orientation) might put them at greater risk for certain health issues (i.e. recreational drug use, unprotected sex etc).
Personally, I suspect that's kind of where he is coming from.
But his mistake was to attempt to argue his theological point (i.e. God thinks being gay is wrong) using a rational (i.e. your lifespan may be cut short by association ) basis.
*shrug*
[ 09. September 2012, 07:31: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Wallace is described in the secularist press here as "an Australian Christian leader". He's not anything like that. At best, he could be described as a leader of a group which calls itself Christian - much the same as the Phelps mob in the US. Just to clarify for those who live elsewhere.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Evensong
You appear young to me, internationally when AIDS first started making headlines it was predominantly spreading in two communities Gay men and drug users. That was going on before we got anywhere near treating it or even knowing how the contagion was spreading. Here read the history and you will see why containments means confinement largely to the Gay population.
Jengie
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I was curious as to why the gay population were the initial subset affected.
Statistical fluke. "Patient zero" in the West just happened to be a man who had sex with men.
Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Wallace is described in the secularist press here as "an Australian Christian leader". He's not anything like that. At best, he could be described as a leader of a group which calls itself Christian - much the same as the Phelps mob in the US. Just to clarify for those who live elsewhere.
It is a clarification that our local newspapers would do well to heed too. The press love to cite the ACL as spokesmen (sexism intended) for "the Church" at large.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I was curious as to why the gay population were the initial subset affected.
Statistical fluke. "Patient zero" in the West just happened to be a man who had sex with men.
Thank you.
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Wallace is described in the secularist press here as "an Australian Christian leader". He's not anything like that. At best, he could be described as a leader of a group which calls itself Christian - much the same as the Phelps mob in the US. Just to clarify for those who live elsewhere.
It is a clarification that our local newspapers would do well to heed too. The press love to cite the ACL as spokesmen (sexism intended) for "the Church" at large.
There's no reason for them to do that.
Controversy sells papers, not truth.
Btw, a shipmate (who must not be named) was interviewed on ABC radio a few days ago on this very topic. Said shipmate is not keen on the ACL, and is a priest to boot.
[ 09. September 2012, 12:47: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
Just for clarification:
quote:
Originally HOSTED by Doublethink:
be sure not to get into a discussion of the rights and wrongs of homosexuality
...followed by:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
theological point (i.e. God thinks being gay is wrong)
Reads a whole lot like a Commandment 6 violation. Take more care.
-RooK
Evil Admin who will suspend/ban people with the slightest excuse
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I was curious as to why the gay population were the initial subset affected.
Statistical fluke. "Patient zero" in the West just happened to be a man who had sex with men.
And was part of a subculture of gay men in which rampant promiscuity and (to a breeder) mindbogglingly high partner counts were the norm. (Dugas' partner count alone was in the thousands.) Recipe for very effective dispersal of a sexually-transmitted disease.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Yea, the early history of AIDS is a sad mix of pandemic stupidity and sporadic, reckless heroism. Mainstream folk didn't want to talk about sex, gay folk didn't want to talk about condoms. Gay Leaders were savaged for calling for bath house closures, things like that. Nobody was pure. The only people keeping it real at the time were the scientists, and even some of them were assholes. (Looking at you, Gallo.)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I was curious as to why the gay population were the initial subset affected.
Statistical fluke. "Patient zero" in the West just happened to be a man who had sex with men.
And was part of a subculture of gay men in which rampant promiscuity and (to a breeder) mindbogglingly high partner counts were the norm. (Dugas' partner count alone was in the thousands.) Recipe for very effective dispersal of a sexually-transmitted disease.
Indeed, there's evidence that "patient zero" WASN'T literally patient zero, but that earlier cases weren't nearly as effective at spreading the disease around.
Meanwhile, from that earlier link to the history of AIDS, there was this whole 'other' epidemic spreading in central Africa where promiscuous heterosexuality was listed as a risk factor. It took a while for the 2 epidemics to be linked.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Indeed, there's evidence that "patient zero" WASN'T literally patient zero, but that earlier cases weren't nearly as effective at spreading the disease around.
Oh, loads of it. The only reason Dugas got so much attention (both popularly and epidemiologically) was that 1. He was told he had the disease and actively chose to ignore it, and 2. Other patients at CDC clinics came in complaining about him, because he got into the habit of having sex with people and telling them they were infected after the fact. He was Patient Zero because the had a lot of other case studies they could confidently connect him with.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
^ I think the fact that he'd travelled to Africa came into it as well.
That history really is interesting. I didn't know that being Haitian got listed as a risk factor early on in the USA. THAT must have been fun.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
(I'm not making this up) TONS of bad Haitian jokes back in the day...
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
In the 80s, the vulnerable groups were referred to as the 4 H`s: homosexuals, hemophiliacs, heroin users and Haitians. As pointed out above, the extent and spread of AIDS in Africa among heterosexuals was not appreciated at the time.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Just for clarification:
quote:
Originally HOSTED by Doublethink:
be sure not to get into a discussion of the rights and wrongs of homosexuality
...followed by:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
theological point (i.e. God thinks being gay is wrong)
Reads a whole lot like a Commandment 6 violation. Take more care.
-RooK
Evil Admin who will suspend/ban people with the slightest excuse
Sorry!
Just repeating the article's viewpoint. Not mine!
Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on
:
This article from Eureka Street puts another Christian perspective on Jim Wallace and the ACL.
http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=33116
The author is a Jesuit.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
Ooh look, he has a friend.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on
:
That would surprise no one in Australia, Demas. Peter Jensen and Jim Wallace would be coming from a very similar place theologically.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
I remain unsure about what point Wallace thinks he is making. This seems tob
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
Sorry about that. Here is what I was trying to say.
I remain unsure about what point Wallace thinks he is making. This seems to be the 'logic':
1. Enthymeme: If being is gay is wrong or bad, it will mean that if you are straight you live longer than if you are gay.
2. Straight people live longer on average than gay people.
3. Therefore, being gay is wrong or bad.
The unstated premise seems to be entirely unqualified or unsubstantiated. The reasons for the second premise, as others have pointed out, are not explored. Disease may be a factor; stress anxiety and depression (perhaps from living in an unaccepting society populated by troglodytes like Jim Wallace) may be another.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Dark Knight sez something about:
Enthymeme
Oooh. Lucky me. I just picked up Lanham's A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms! Just in time.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Sorry about that. Here is what I was trying to say.
I remain unsure about what point Wallace thinks he is making. This seems to be the 'logic':
1. Enthymeme: If being is gay is wrong or bad, it will mean that if you are straight you live longer than if you are gay.
2. Straight people live longer on average than gay people.
3. Therefore, being gay is wrong or bad.
The unstated premise seems to be entirely unqualified or unsubstantiated. The reasons for the second premise, as others have pointed out, are not explored. Disease may be a factor; stress anxiety and depression (perhaps from living in an unaccepting society populated by troglodytes like Jim Wallace) may be another.
One of the best responses to Wallace I've seen is basically that he draws a false conclusion from his evidence, because of the premises that lie behind his statement.
The response (in a newspaper letters page) was basically that "Being gay involves risks, so be careful" would possibly be valid. But instead Wallace says "Being gay involves risks, so don't be gay".
Which is about as helpful as my optometrist telling me that because severe short-sightedness carries a higher risk of glaucoma, I shouldn't be severely short-sighted.
Wallace, of course, doesn't see it like that. The interview in the OP has him acknowledging 'friends that have struggled' with their sexuality. Presumably these friends are now ex-gays who, just like ex-smokers have successfully fought off their 'habit'.
By the way, I've also seen a remark (without being able to examine the primary sources myself yet) that Wallace's figure of 20 years loss of life expectancy comes from an old and roundly criticised study based on obituary notices in San Francisco. If this is from the height of the AIDS crisis than the answer is "well, duh".
I give some credence to this remark simply because it fits with Wallace's MO. At one time (and maybe still now, if he didn't shut up after I posted him a link to real facts) he was very fond of saying that marriages lasted for 30 years and same-sex relationships only lasted for 2 years. The 2 years figure is based on a study of gay men in their 20s in non-monogamous relationships. This sleight of hand isn't originally Wallace's, it's originally from a Christian magazine in the USA, but Wallace is more than happy to parrot such stuff without any context.
[ 11. September 2012, 03:34: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
Thank you, orfeo. That makes more sense.
BTW, this:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The response (in a newspaper letters page) was basically that "Being gay involves risks, so be careful" would possibly be valid. But instead Wallace says "Being gay involves risks, so don't be gay".
Which is about as helpful as my optometrist telling me that because severe short-sightedness carries a higher risk of glaucoma, I shouldn't be severely short-sighted.
Nice! ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
Did you see Lateline tonight btw?
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
In case you didn't, or if anyone else is interested, here is the lateline report.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on
:
One of the things which needs to be observed and stated is that Peter Jensen and Jim Wallace are both superb communicators. Possibly better than their public opponents so far. I think their opposition probably need far better and more experienced public performers. This is a very divisive issue in this country and the opposition really need to put forward their best case via the best presenters.
It is also possible that Jensen and Wallace have the sophistic skills to avoid any real debate as seemed to happen on last Monday's "Four Corners".
Despite the press beat up I don't think a real public debate has started. As so often here the issues are fudged and the important ones sidelined.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
You are there and understand the cuture and mileau best.
But to add from far away, to get strong perfomrers to engage in debate might be to make Jensen and Wallace into serious characters and not the absurdities they must appear given a moment's thought. I would suggest humour and satire - the Private Eye effect as the best method of undermining their postion.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
In case you didn't, or if anyone else is interested, here is the lateline report.
Hooray. Rational people with facts. Or in some cases, acknowledged lack of them.
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on
:
One issue with the ACL and Jim Wallace is the single-issue focus. They do media monitoring that results in a daily digest of news articles on a range of matters of interest, including homelessness, sexualisation of children/society and more. But the vast majority of their output on specific issues is on one specific issue, suggesting to the population is general that homosexuality, particularly gay marriage, is the primary concern of Christians in political discourse.
When they do speak on other matters, such as their media release last month on asylum seeker policy, they maintain a sustained attack on the Green Party. A key part of the ACL's public argument is to depict the Green Party (which holds influence through balance-of-power in various parliamentary houses) as immoral/amoral secularists with an agenda to destroy the fabric of life as we know it.
In fat, that contribution on the asylum seeker debate irked me more than the ACL's ongoing input to the marriage equality debate. I dispute that the majority of Christians agree with the ACL on the matter of marriage equality; I think in the linked media release above the ACL would have been even more out of line with Christian thinking. Qualification: my opinion and I have no statistics to back it up.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Bloody hell. And why, pray tell, do they not condemn the Coalition for being similarly stubborn about not implementing those recommendations they don't like? ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
One of the things which needs to be observed and stated is that Peter Jensen and Jim Wallace are both superb communicators. Possibly better than their public opponents so far. I think their opposition probably need far better and more experienced public performers. This is a very divisive issue in this country and the opposition really need to put forward their best case via the best presenters.
It is also possible that Jensen and Wallace have the sophistic skills to avoid any real debate as seemed to happen on last Monday's "Four Corners".
Despite the press beat up I don't think a real public debate has started. As so often here the issues are fudged and the important ones sidelined.
I agree re Jensen. He is a gifted communicator who often ends up appearing sympathetic, until you remember he is talking bollocks. I don't think even Wallace's closest friends and admirers could call him a solid communicator, so I don't know what you're seeing there. He looks dumb, sounds dumb and is dumb.
As the Lateline story linked shows, I don't think a 'debate' can start. Most agree on the facts - on average gay life expectancy is shorter than straight. The arguments based on these facts differ, and probably always will. What are we supposed to debate?
And I think you may be referring to Q&A, not 4 Corners. The latter did a very troubling piece on youth suicide in Australia. I couldn't watch either of them for long. I turned off Q&A after one of the arseclowns from the audience asked a racist question about asylum seekers, cloaking it in the usual nonsense about caring about human life.
Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Which is about as helpful as my optometrist telling me that because severe short-sightedness carries a higher risk of glaucoma, I shouldn't be severely short-sighted.
Clearly we need to organise against the forces that are promoting a severely short-sighted lifestyle and undermining the sanctity of our 20-20 vision.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
In my case it's Winnie the Pooh's fault.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on
:
Most Australians would probably neither understand nor empathise with "Private Eye" style treatment of Messrs Jensen and Wallace, sebby. I suspect, in this milieu, it would be counterproductive.
Any opposition mounted to them publicly faces a daunting task. They have an incredibly powerful and organised support base in the Anglican Archdiocese of Sydney and the Australian Christian Lobby. This is, away from certain inner city areas, essentially a conservative country. The issues which motivate their opposition don't resonate in suburbia and are seen as pet hobby horses of the inner city left.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
The issues which motivate their opposition don't resonate in suburbia and are seen as pet hobby horses of the inner city left.
Unsubstantiated bullshit.
63% of respondents to a recent parliamentary survey support marriage equality.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on
:
I think the issues are far deeper and wider than marriage equality, Dark Night. That is the current flashpoint.
Did you read the article "Truth a Victim in Unholy Row" subtitled "The ill effects of discrimination appear to be the main homosexual health issues" by Adam Cresswell in today's Australian?
It would appear that Wallace and Jensen have succeeded wonderfully with sidetracking the debate.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
Now I'm confused. What point are you actually trying to make?
You claim that the issues which Wallace et al's opponents are supporting are hobby horses of the inner city left - which you did not substantiate. Then, I point out that you did not substantiate this, and point to an example of one of those issues - same sex marriage - which was supported by the majority of respondents to a survey (a survey which had a healthy response rate).
Now you are saying that the issue is deeper and wider than same sex marriage. Well ... der!
Of course it is likely that one of the major reasons for short life expectancy among gays is discrimination. That is what I have been saying. What in buggeration are you saying?
And it's Dark 'Knight'. I await your suitably apologetic gesture.
[ 13. September 2012, 10:04: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
Clearly we need to organise against the forces that are promoting a severely short-sighted lifestyle and undermining the sanctity of our 20-20 vision.
Kinsey would have of it that few of us really have 20/20 vision.
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
Clearly we need to organise against the forces that are promoting a severely short-sighted lifestyle and undermining the sanctity of our 20-20 vision.
Kinsey would have of it that few of us really have 20/20 vision.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
But Kinsey was criticised for sampling bias, wasn't he? The sort of people who are interested in participating in a study about their eyesight are likely to be the sort of people who talk about it a lot - old ladies, speccy geeks and Donald Pleasence. It's likely that a truly representative sample would have included many more people with 20/20 vision and produced less sensational results.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
The sort of people who are interested in participating in a study about their eyesight are likely to be the sort of people who talk about it a lot - old ladies, speccy geeks and Donald Pleasence.
( ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
)
Notice that they kill the blind guy at the end of the movie. Vito Russell had so much to say about that in his seminal work, The Celluloid Tapping-Cane
Posted by CJS (# 3503) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
You are there and understand the cuture and mileau best.
But to add from far away, to get strong perfomrers to engage in debate might be to make Jensen and Wallace into serious characters and not the absurdities they must appear given a moment's thought. I would suggest humour and satire - the Private Eye effect as the best method of undermining their postion.
A comedian (or at least I'm told she's a comedian) tried that on Monday night against Peter Jensen on The ABC's Q&A programme and most people I talk to (pro and anti) and most of the on-line commentary suggests it went down like a lead balloon. Peter is a gracious individual who delights in mocking himself and an experienced debater of people who hate him and he knows a thing or two about the media. He wasn't the one looking like a baffoon on Monday night and he got exactly what he wanted. Whether you agree with him or despise him Peter Jensen IS a serious character.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CJS:
A comedian (or at least I'm told she's a comedian) tried that on Monday night against Peter Jensen on The ABC's Q&A programme and most people I talk to (pro and anti) and most of the on-line commentary suggests it went down like a lead balloon. Peter is a gracious individual who delights in mocking himself and an experienced debater of people who hate him and he knows a thing or two about the media. He wasn't the one looking like a baffoon on Monday night and he got exactly what he wanted. Whether you agree with him or despise him Peter Jensen IS a serious character.
Yes, that seems to be the consensus of many viewers, particularly the conservative ones.
The facts, however, do not bear this interpretation.
Jensen certainly seems to have some kind of gift. He spouts utter shit, yet somehow manages to smell like roses.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on
:
The comedian, who actually made some very good points, like Dark Night in some of his posts here, possibly suffered from overkill. Consequently Peter Jensen appeared to show grace under fire.
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on
:
The reaction to Deveny has been interesting. I watched Q and A for the first time partly because it had been tipped as a Deveny-Jensen duel; in fact it was the first time I'd encountered either of them in non-written form, I think. And whatever the facts of the analysis in the blog post to which DK linked, I share some of the perceptions; Jensen was calm, though sneaky and underhand IMHO, and Deveny was...disrespectful, perhaps, or abrupt. Certainly not a conflation of all the descriptions that have been applied to her, but something off putting to supporters and opponents alike. One of the comments on the blog post summed it up for me when it said that she used polemic instead of debate. She came out with a couple of "Comment, comment, comment. That's the way I see it." statements rather then engaging in discussion.
Jensen was able to leave people with the suggestion that there is an open debate on gay lifespans that the gays/left are trying to shut down and censor because no-one said, "You're being disingenuous. You know the research that Wallace was relying on and you know it's been discredited."
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
The comedian, who actually made some very good points, like Dark Night in some of his posts here, possibly suffered from overkill. Consequently Peter Jensen appeared to show grace under fire.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
And it's Dark 'Knight'. I await your suitably apologetic gesture.
Read much?
Posted by Cryptic (# 16917) on
:
I'm coming into this discussion late as I have only just seen the Q&A repeat last on Saturday night.
Jensen was polite and gracious. He also seemed to me to be ill-at-ease, and I see this as him using the current kerfuffle as a way of raising his media profile. You might think this an odd comment, but Jensen, although well known to churchgoers I think has a pretty ordinary media profile outside of the official mouthpiece of Anglican Media. I think a lot of this was due to hammering that he took in his early days as archbishop in the mainstream media, some of this was his own doing, and a lot of it was the reflected glory of his idiot brother (who appears to have been gagged in the press since then).
Tony Jones gave Jensen plenty of air time at the expense of the other panelists, but after he stated his case, he quickly reverted to his patronising circular waffle.
Although Deveny made some valid points (and they were just that, points, not debate) her boorishness outweighed anything she said.
The ABC probably cheekily put Deveny up against Jensen for the "TV factor", but it was cheap stunt. A liberal theologian would have been a much better opponent and might have created some true debate.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on
:
I'm not sure Deveny was boorish as a little bit over-the-top. Probably the way she does her stage act. It backfired.
It is interesting that, in selecting the panel, a liberal theologian, or someone like Justice Michael Kirby, a theologically astute Anglican layman, who could have very effectively opposed Jensen, was not chosen.
Posted by CJS (# 3503) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by CJS:
A comedian (or at least I'm told she's a comedian) tried that on Monday night against Peter Jensen on The ABC's Q&A programme and most people I talk to (pro and anti) and most of the on-line commentary suggests it went down like a lead balloon. Peter is a gracious individual who delights in mocking himself and an experienced debater of people who hate him and he knows a thing or two about the media. He wasn't the one looking like a baffoon on Monday night and he got exactly what he wanted. Whether you agree with him or despise him Peter Jensen IS a serious character.
Yes, that seems to be the consensus of many viewers, particularly the conservative ones.
The facts, however, do not bear this interpretation.
Like it or not, in these contexts the perception is the fact.
Posted by CJS (# 3503) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cryptic:
...He also seemed to me to be ill-at-ease, and I see this as him using the current kerfuffle as a way of raising his media profile. You might think this an odd comment, but Jensen, although well known to churchgoers I think has a pretty ordinary media profile outside of the official mouthpiece of Anglican Media...
I guess it is only a minor point, but Peter Jensen will be retiring in less that 12 months, and I think it unlikely that he has any interest in raising his media profile. He saw an opportunity that would let him talk about Jesus, live on national television and he took it.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CJS:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by CJS:
A comedian (or at least I'm told she's a comedian) tried that on Monday night against Peter Jensen on The ABC's Q&A programme and most people I talk to (pro and anti) and most of the on-line commentary suggests it went down like a lead balloon. Peter is a gracious individual who delights in mocking himself and an experienced debater of people who hate him and he knows a thing or two about the media. He wasn't the one looking like a baffoon on Monday night and he got exactly what he wanted. Whether you agree with him or despise him Peter Jensen IS a serious character.
Yes, that seems to be the consensus of many viewers, particularly the conservative ones.
The facts, however, do not bear this interpretation.
Like it or not, in these contexts the perception is the fact.
Aha. That clears it up. Your perception is the fact. If only you could bring it to bear on everything, and sort out all of our problems for us.
Your last post is risible. First of all, Jensen was not just 'talking about Jesus,' and I think you know that. He was talking about homosexuality, a topic Jesus never actually addressed in any of the sayings we have attributed to him.
Secondly, if you really think anyone here believes that Sydney's political agenda is limited to Jensen's tenure, you are sadly fucking mistaken. It was there before him, and it will probably be motoring along after him.
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on
:
Is there any chance Jensen's detested brother will be annointed in succession? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Wouldn't it be great if they appointed our own Arebella Purity Winterbourne as the next AB of Sydney? She would be just what the place needs!
Posted by Cryptic (# 16917) on
:
Good point CJS, I wasn' t so much thinking about his profile personally, but getting his agenda back into the mainstream media. The marriage vow thing and agreeing with the dipstick Wallace were media gifts that he knew would put him back into the spotlight. See my earlier comments about his early days in office, after some cracking media gaffes, mainly from the other Jensen, the Sydney diocese often appeared reluctant engage with the media at all. Peter Jensen has a reputation as a media-savvy communicator, but I think that this reputation is not entirely deserved, he has built up much of his media persona through his acolytes at Anglican Media.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Secondly, if you really think anyone here believes that Sydney's political agenda is limited to Jensen's tenure, you are sadly fucking mistaken. It was there before him, and it will probably be motoring along after him. [/QB]
Agree. I'm sure that the goons and number crunchers of the Anglican Church League have a successor ready to go. It wouldn't surprise me if was somebody more hardline than Jensen.
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Is there any chance Jensen's detested brother will be annointed in succession?
I doubt that even Sydney Diocese would be that stupid. The detested brother's role has been to minister to a particularly looney section of the cult, and of course to make sure that any of those old fashioned reactionaries were driven from the cathedral.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Is there any chance Jensen's detested brother will be annointed in succession?
God forbid, Pete. Hopefully the Sydney Anglican Archdiocese would not be that stupid.
There are many in the archdiocese, both clerical and lay, who, whilst being very much in the traditional Conservative Evangelical tradition of the place, have misgivings about the Jensens' time in their current roles.
Clergy from Sydney have gone to other dioceses in that time as bishops. Gippsland and Canberra Goulburn spring readily to mind. Neither incumbent has attempted to overturn the more pluralistic practices of those dioceses.
The previous incumbent as Archbishop of Sydney, Harry Goodhew, was, albeit a Conservative Evangelical, much more popular with those in Sydney who did not follow the Moore College line. I hope we see a return to someone like that.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
Clergy from Sydney have gone to other dioceses in that time as bishops. Gippsland and Canberra Goulburn spring readily to mind. Neither incumbent has attempted to overturn the more pluralistic practices of those Dioceses.
if they want one of them back, I wouldn't complain. Not a fan.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
Clergy from Sydney have gone to other dioceses in that time as bishops. Gippsland and Canberra Goulburn spring readily to mind. Neither incumbent has attempted to overturn the more pluralistic practices of those Dioceses.
if they want one of them back, I wouldn't complain. Not a fan.
What would be your reasons for dissatisfaction? Has he attempted to change the general ethos of the diocese?
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
If they want one of them back, I wouldn't complain. Not a fan.
What would be your reasons for dissatisfaction? Has he attempted to change the general ethos of the diocese?
There does seem to be a drift to more (Moore?) evangelical clergy appointments. We have new bishops, so now a total of five, all broadly evangelical (the first female bishop in NSW was Moore College trained), plus the Director of St Mark's.
The bishop also gave inappropriate direction during our interregnum (in the parish I've now left) in relation to SRE, supporting the witch who'd been teaching for years over the parish leadership. She ended up having to withdraw from teaching SRE before the school could invoke the Inclosed Lands Act to bar her from the premises. I wouldn't say that his intervention enboldened her but... well, yes I would.
The language of Diocesan publications is subtly changing. Teenagers are going on missions overseas to cast out demons. I remember the bishop making multiple references to 'persecuted Christians' at home and abroad. While the language of persecution is sometimes appropriate, I find that in the western world it is typically code for Christians no longer receiving special privileges rather than any actual persecution.
Oh, and if a member of the clergy with no diocesan role has actively (though unsuccesfully) agitated for gay people to be removed from ministry roles in the parish in which he resides, do you think it's appropriate to appoint that same member of clergy as an assistant priest in that same parish? I don't, but clearly our bishop thinks it's fine.
[ 19. September 2012, 05:40: Message edited by: Vulpior ]
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
I found the episode of Q&A disturbing mainly because of the way in which the programme was conducted. I'm not a fan of Jensen, but I felt annoyed at the way he was treated by the moderator,Tony Jones,who was pushing his own opinions and bias. The moderator gave time and encouragement to those who wanted to attack Jensen, but gave him little chance to respond.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on
:
Thanks for your information, Vulpior.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
bib's post is nonsense, and a great example of people seeing what they want to see. As I posted earlier, Jensen spoke more than anyone else on the show, and more than Jones himself. It may as well have been a pulpit for him.
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on
:
From a heathen who really doesn't care what Jensen thinks and who had never seen him speak before, I thought that (a) he was treated no differently than any other panelist who goes on Q&A (b) he came across as very well mannered and measured and erudite - he knows how to address an audience, (c) Catherine Deveny was no match for him, because she is a vulgar, self-important skank and (d) what he said was bollocks.
[ 20. September 2012, 11:16: Message edited by: Left at the Altar ]
Posted by CJS (# 3503) on
:
As happy as I would be to have Phillip Jensen as archbishop, he will also be retiring within the next 18 months or so.
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
Dark Knight, what I was objecting to was the way Tony Jones behaved in that he didn't act as a moderator, rather as a protagonist. I always understood that the moderator was supposed to be neutral and not show bias. Most people I have spoken to feel the same, so maybe you were watching a different programme.
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on
:
I don't think he showed any bias. He tested him. As he tests most panelists. As he should do. As a good journalist.
Posted by CJS (# 3503) on
:
I didn't think Jones moderated any more poorly on that particular episode than he normally does.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Dark Knight, what I was objecting to was the way Tony Jones behaved in that he didn't act as a moderator, rather as a protagonist. I always understood that the moderator was supposed to be neutral and not show bias. Most people I have spoken to feel the same, so maybe you were watching a different programme.
Is this the first time you've watched Q&A, or something?
To be honest I avoid the show most of the time, more often than not they create panels that are designed to be insufferable. If I want serious debate of a topic I'll go watch Insight on SBS.
Posted by Reuben (# 11361) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
The language of Diocesan publications is subtly changing. Teenagers are going on missions overseas to cast out demons.
Vulpior sorry but this type of conduct is not coming from Sydney / Moore College vernacular to invade your Diocese. 99% of Sydney Anglicans consider demon casting the preserve of the loony pentecostals and don't go near it.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Such a shame when Anglican Sydneyites post credible sounding comments.
I wish you would all go away and let us continue to live in our little bubbles of bias and dislike.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on
:
I idly wonder if someone could cast Tony Jones out of Q&A?
He used to be like that when he hosted the 7.30 Report. Finds it hard not to see himself as a participant rather than a compère or reporter.
Though he seems less hyped up than in his 7.30 Report days.
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on
:
Tony Jones on 7.30 Report? When was that?
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Reuben:
quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
The language of Diocesan publications is subtly changing. Teenagers are going on missions overseas to cast out demons.
Vulpior sorry but this type of conduct is not coming from Sydney / Moore College vernacular to invade your Diocese. 99% of Sydney Anglicans consider demon casting the preserve of the loony pentecostals and don't go near it.
Yes, I realise that Sydney doesn't "do" charismo-penty. Free from the strictures of Diocesan theology, anything can happen!
Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
Tony Jones on 7.30 Report? When was that?
FYI, Sir Pellinore.
Sales and Uhlmann host 7:30 report after Kerry leaves.
[ 22. September 2012, 01:24: Message edited by: Lothlorien ]
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Dark Knight, what I was objecting to was the way Tony Jones behaved in that he didn't act as a moderator, rather as a protagonist. I always understood that the moderator was supposed to be neutral and not show bias. Most people I have spoken to feel the same, so maybe you were watching a different programme.
Have you read this thread at all? I posted a link in which the speaking time on the show is broken down, demonstrating that Jensen spoke more than anyone in the show, and more than Jones.
And like orfeo said, have you never watched the show before? I am starting to wonder if you saw the show yourself.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
Tony Jones on 7.30 Report? When was that?
You're right. I was thinking of his hosting of Lateline.
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
I have frequently watched Q&A and I reiterate that my objection was the protagonist attitude of the moderator which is nothing to do with the amount of time either he or Jensen spoke. I also find that the audience tends to be stacked to present a particular point of view. When Q&A visited my state we also found that only specially chosen people were allowed to ask questions of the panel The whole show is rigged. I much prefer Insight on SBS.
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on
:
That's what Collingwood are saying about the umpiring on Friday. Rigged.
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
That's what Collingwood are saying about the umpiring on Friday. Rigged.
Not at all. It was perfect. So perfect that I'm not feeling particularly hellish about anything or anyone anymore.
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on
:
Don't get ahead of yourself. There's still next week.
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
Don't get ahead of yourself. There's still next week.
Continuing mention of this vital national matter on the Trans-Tasman thread over in All Saints...
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CJS:
As happy as I would be to have Phillip Jensen as archbishop, he will also be retiring within the next 18 months or so.
Really? But doesn't the ABC have to be an Anglican?
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on
:
Stupidity and thread necromancy gets threads closed.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0