Random Discussion Thread 138- Irregular Trumpet Talk

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this ad.

Yeah should have been more thorough when looking into them
Third party booking agencies for flights are a nightmare if something goes wrong or you want to change something. Better off paying a bit more and book directly and keep all your rights. I have used some of the bigger companies like expedia before, but I have always felt uncomfortable even up to checking into the flight as to whether I will actually have my ticket.
 
Third party booking agencies for flights are a nightmare if something goes wrong or you want to change something. Better off paying a bit more and book directly and keep all your rights. I have used some of the bigger companies like expedia before, but I have always felt uncomfortable even up to checking into the flight as to whether I will actually have my ticket.
Yeah I have to agree with this, although I’m still a sucker for it, even if it’s only a saving of like $20-30.

Only ever had one issue which was some defunct site when I was younger. That was an international flight and they double debited the total cost from my credit card (something around $1500), which meant I had no spending money at all for a few days in Berlin and had to borrow money off someone I was staying with just to get to my next destination

The site blamed the airline, the airline blamed the credit card company, and so on. Adding another link in the chain makes accountability even more difficult

Also you usually can’t change your booking afterwards (eg add luggage, choose seats, etc)
 
It's an extremely technical legal point. As such, I should be a fan of it but I'm not.

Imagine going up to an Aboriginal protester on January 26th and saying "It's OK, you weren't invaded, the High Court said so. There's no need to protest. You've even got native title rights!" What reaction do you think you'd get?
 
It's an extremely technical legal point. As such, I should be a fan of it but I'm not.

Imagine going up to an Aboriginal protester on January 26th and saying "It's OK, you weren't invaded, the High Court said so. There's no need to protest. You've even got native title rights!" What reaction do you think you'd get?
$native title rights$
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

It's an extremely technical legal point. As such, I should be a fan of it but I'm not.

Imagine going up to an Aboriginal protester on January 26th and saying "It's OK, you weren't invaded, the High Court said so. There's no need to protest. You've even got native title rights!" What reaction do you think you'd get?

To be fair, aside from the never ending “invasion day” narrative it’s not as tho the aboriginals were perfect, yet we never hear about that..(Narrative)..

And I’m not sure if this a “technical legal point”, but it does sound a little “disturbing and unnerving “ as you would say..

Quote-
According to Bronislaw Malinowski, who wrote a book on indigenous Australians in the early 1960s, "infanticide is practiced among all Australian natives."[59] The practice has been reported in Tasmania, Western Australia, Central Australia, South Australia, in the Northern Territory, Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. Anthropologist Géza Róheim wrote:
When the Yumu, Pindupi, Ngali, or Nambutji were hungry, they ate small children with neither ceremonial nor animistic motives. Among the southern tribes, the Matuntara, Mularatara, or Pitjentara, every second child was eaten in the belief that the strength of the first child would be doubled by such a procedure.[60]
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Infanticide#Australia


Bronislaw Malinowski
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronisław_Malinowski
Malinowski is often considered one of anthropology's most skilled ethnographers,” etc
 
To be fair, aside from the never ending “invasion day” narrative it’s not as tho the aboriginals were perfect, yet we never hear about that..(Narrative)..

And I’m not sure if this a “technical legal point”, but it does sound a little “disturbing and unnerving “ as you would say..

Quote-
According to Bronislaw Malinowski, who wrote a book on indigenous Australians in the early 1960s, "infanticide is practiced among all Australian natives."[59] The practice has been reported in Tasmania, Western Australia, Central Australia, South Australia, in the Northern Territory, Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. Anthropologist Géza Róheim wrote:
When the Yumu, Pindupi, Ngali, or Nambutji were hungry, they ate small children with neither ceremonial nor animistic motives. Among the southern tribes, the Matuntara, Mularatara, or Pitjentara, every second child was eaten in the belief that the strength of the first child would be doubled by such a procedure.[60]
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Infanticide#Australia


Bronislaw Malinowski
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronisław_Malinowski
Malinowski is often considered one of anthropology's most skilled ethnographers,” etc

Further, same link -
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Infanticide#Australia

Thomas Robert Malthus wrote that, in the New South Wales region, when the mother died sucking infants were buried alive with her.[63] In the Darling River region, infanticide was practiced "by a blow on the back of the head, by strangling with a rope, or chocking with sand".[64]

Aram Yengoyan calculated that, in Western Australia, the Pitjandjara people killed 19% of their newborns.[69]

According to James George Frazer, in the Beltana tribes in South Australia it was customary to kill the first-born.[67]

Etc, etc ..........
 
Impressive for Malinowski to be writing books in the 60s, after dying 20 years earlier.

Bronisław Kasper Malinowski (/ˈbrɒnɪslɑːf ˌmælɪˈnɒfski/; Polish: [brɔˈɲiswaf maliˈnɔfski]; 7 April 1884 – 16 May 1942)

I have to admit, when the first sentence on a website I’ve never visited is so easily, verifiably wrong it does make me question the purpose and accuracy of the rest.
 
Last edited:
Impressive for Malinowski to be writing books in the 60s, after dying 20 years earlier.

Bronisław Kasper Malinowski (/ˈbrɒnɪslɑːf ˌmælɪˈnɒfski/; Polish: [brɔˈɲiswaf maliˈnɔfski]; 7 April 1884 – 16 May 1942)

[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Nimbus Sans L, Arial, Liberation Sans, sans-serif]I have to admit, when the first sentence on a website I’ve never visited is so easily, verifiably wrong it does make me question the purpose and accuracy of the rest. [/FONT]

Haven't you ever heard of a ghostwriter? :babyangel:
 
Impressive for Malinowski to be writing books in the 60s, after dying 20 years earlier.

Bronisław Kasper Malinowski (/ˈbrɒnɪslɑːf ˌmælɪˈnɒfski/; Polish: [brɔˈɲiswaf maliˈnɔfski]; 7 April 1884 – 16 May 1942)

[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Nimbus Sans L, Arial, Liberation Sans, sans-serif]I have to admit, when the first sentence on a website I’ve never visited is so easily, verifiably wrong it does make me question the purpose and accuracy of the rest. [/FONT]

Link......
https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/ma...among-the-australian-aborigines/chapter7.html

Infanticide is carried on among the Lower Darling natives to prevent the toils and troubles of carrying and caring for too many children. The mother’s brother decides if the child should be killed or not.
653


Amongst the Adelaide tribes “female infants at birth are not infrequently put to death for the sake of more valuable boys who are still being suckled.”
655


plus plenty more examples at link.......
 
What!!!!
Just a little while ago you were talking about a “technical point”
Completely disingenuous

I don't see the point you're trying to make.

The "technical point" I was referring to was that the European colonisation of Australia was considered "settlement" and not "invasion" from a legal standpoint. That doesn't in any way change how the indigenous people were treated, and how their descendants feel about it now in the context of a national holiday marking the date that began.

Your response is "well some of them killed their own kids, why does no one talk about that?" How the hell is that relevant to when and how we celebrate Australia Day?
 
I don't see the point you're trying to make.

The "technical point" I was referring to was that the European colonisation of Australia was considered "settlement" and not "invasion" from a legal standpoint. That doesn't in any way change how the indigenous people were treated, and how their descendants feel about it now in the context of a national holiday marking the date that began.

Your response is "well some of them killed their own kids, why does no one talk about that?" How the hell is that relevant to when and how we celebrate Australia Day?

My response was -it’s not as tho the aboriginals were perfect- and provided links showing that..
The point I’m trying to make is that calling something “invasion day” (technicality’s aside) is IMO unhelpful. And Undermines. And I’ve been saying that since my original comment yesterday....
If people want continually look back (in a negative light) then do so evenly, with balance
The European colonisation, And also the aboriginal practices
The “invasion day” narrative is IMO intentionally divisive
 
My response was -it’s not as tho the aboriginals were perfect- and provided links showing that..
The point I’m trying to make is that calling something “invasion day” (technicality’s aside) is IMO unhelpful. And Undermines. And I’ve been saying that since my original comment yesterday....
If people want continually look back (in a negative light) then do so evenly, with balance
The European colonisation, And also the aboriginal practices
The “invasion day” narrative is IMO intentionally divisive

I don't think anyone's claiming to be perfect.

How do you suggest they protest against a day they consider disrespectful, while remaining balanced and avoiding divisiveness?
 
Bit pissed that the AFL rate AFLX so much that they wanna air the AFLX draft on FTA but the national draft is still shown on foxtel. They have definitely got their priorities wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top