On Sun, 25 Nov 2012, Carl Turney <carl(a)boms.com.au> wrote:
The issue is
not the overall survival rate but whether children were
removed from safe family environments for no good reason.
Hmm, "no good reason". I personally consider saving as many children's
lives as possible, using the most effective remedies known of at the
time, as being a fairly good reason.
Removing children from safe environments is not "saving lives", it's
recklessly putting their lives at risk given the possibilities of orphanages
etc not working out well.
So I guess "they were all a pack of filthy
racists, hell-bent on
eradicating the Aboriginal People" must be much more logically patent
and better-supported by the body of evidence.
It was a racially based policy.
> > In spite of the numerous accounts of
> > in foster homes and orphanages, I understand it was still significantly
> > better for them (overall) than if they had not been removed.
The issue is
not whether the damage that was done to the entire
Aboriginal population by removing children from their families was worse
than the damage that would have been done if no child had ever been
removed from abusive parents.
Thank you for rephrasing my statement to its exact opposite, and then
discounting it as irrelevant. Quite entertaining.
That is a false claim, I've pasted in your original text to keep the context.
Feel free to address my point if you wish, but don't just delete your original
claim and make stuff up.
My apologies... I had NO idea that you (or any other
group) had been empowered with deciding what is or isn't an issue to
consider when addressing one of the most emotionally-charged and
divisive topics of today's Australia.
I have the same right to make such decisions as you do. If you were less
arrogant you would realise it.
There is also
the issue of whether there are other interventions that
could be done to improve things which didn't involve removing children
from their parents.
How evil and sadistic of our elders, 50-100 years ago (?), to not have
accurately predicted and employed modern-day preferred social service
solutions. Thank you for the inspiration and new standards to follow.
I merely believe that they should have treated everyone equally regardless of
skin colour. I don't think I'm being at all unreasonable.
> > But that's probably because I'm a
Mensan with multiple and diverse
> > degrees.
abilities are required to
be successful in the FOSS community before trying to boast about such
It's true, as a mere (l)user in the FOSS community, I'm ill-equipped to
comment in this forum on The Stolen Generation. My general
I was obviously too subtle. I disagree with your arrogance. You seem to
think that being in the top 2% according to an IQ test makes you special in
some way. Around here that's not the case at all. Anyone who is good enough
at computer programming to be well regarded for it in the FOSS community will
make that grade easily.
Your implication that I might be impressed by Mensa membership is insulting.
childhood of psychological abuse, Masters in Public
Policy, and 59-year lifetime as the member of minorities much smaller
than the Aboriginal one, are useless.
In discussions about treatment of minority groups that's referred to as
Oppression Olympics. The above URL is one of many addressing it, I suggest
you do a Google search and read a few others too.
Being a member of a minority group can help give you a better insight on the
disadvantages that other groups have. But that's not guaranteed. Sometimes
members of minority groups are epically unsympathetic to members of other
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/