I've been debating with Iain recently about his tendency to read just a tad too much into other peoples writings, or even lack thereof. Iain has this uncanny ability to see the 'implicit' meaning behind everything you write, or don't write, and is thus able to attribute opinions or thoughts to you even though you've never voiced them!!!! It's truly unnerving!!! To illustrate this shocking ability I'll give a few examples.
A few days ago Iain argued on his blog that I'd "written a piece denouncing the governments vote against this pernicious (U.N) declaration." Yet if anyone would care to look at the post below the next, I clearly affirm no position. The post outlines what I believe are the real reasons why the Government didn't sign the U.N Declaration (and the politics involved), and nowhere in it do I offer my opinion on anything else. Yet even though I hadn't expressed a view, this is a moot point to Iain because he knows what I really think!
'the reason he want’s to see the UN declaration as an instrument of justice and virtue has more to do with an over active guilt chip than any consistent principle.'
Bravo!! There goes that straw man. Well done old chap. How did he deduce this?
'I will concede that you did not explicitly affirm a position but there certainly seems to be an implicit condemnation of the governments vote on this matter'
So I didn't say it, but in order to write about it it was necessary that he attribute that opinion to me.
But this is actually a bit of a habit of old Iain's. The words he employs to stuff you into a box of his own design are 'tacit' and 'implicit'. So you may not actually say that you support terrorists, but in not expressing your outrage at them at least once a day you are 'tacitly' supporting them. Like the ALP 'tacitly' supports attacks on the indigenous intervention:
'MM - There’s been very little in the way of ALP support for any of the attacks Iain. They’ve come, in the main, from Indigenous groups and the Greens.
Iain - I did characterise said attacks as being tacitly supported by the ALP MM'
So they didn't actually support the attacks (meaning they didn't say anything about them at all) they 'tacitly' supported them. Why Iain would expect the ALP to defend the Coalition while it's being attacked I'm not sure.
Iain has taken the use of 'tacit' and 'implicit' to great new heights and now deploys them wherever he finds himself in a pinch. Hap and Jeremy, 'tacitly' support Jihadists for example (in fact Iain probably thinks we all do) because they don't argue for the annihilation of Muslims like his friends at A Western Heart and Crusader Rabbit do, therefore they 'tacitly' support Islamic terror:
'Read Osama’s latest anti-west rant and tell me if it is that far away from any number of far left bloggers, like my old pal Jeremy for example (another rich kid gone bad, sigh) or perhaps my fairly regular visitor Hap. Like the Islamists the far left are great haters who wish death upon all of those who would stand against them.'
My reply was predictable, 'WTF!!!!' and so was Iains:
'I was not making any allegations of explicit support for Jihadists in relation to either Jeremy or even Hap but I was pointing out that they both have been willing to make excuses for them none the less.'
Iain can even be threatened implicitly:
'However when you have threats explicit and implicit against you or your family, which accompany the publication of your home address...'
As you can see it's full of endless opportunity.In fact it's so full of opportunity that I'm starting to believe it's a valid call. So while exploring the potential of my new found ability at Iain's blog I made a startling discovery. Iain tacitly supports ritual human sacrifice!!! Not once did I find a single post in denunciation of it!!!! As you can imagine I was blown away by this discovery and had to immediately write of it.
But while writing I realised that I've also been tacitly supporting ritual human sacrifice, and many other grievous crimes!! So to make sure I'm not denounced as a hypocrite let me make one thing clear.
I DON'T SUPPORT RITUAL HUMAN SACRIFICE.
But on the my points concerning the U.N Declaration, it seems that my reading of the said document was fairly on the money as this article in The Australian showed today:
'Professor Sampford said the declaration could raise concerns among some governments because it appears to require the consent of indigenous people to approve projects on their lands and raise the issue of compensation for lands taken.
He also said the tone of the declaration was not "particularly consistent" with the Government's legal framework for its Northern Territory intervention.
The fast-tracked intervention, backed by Labor, aims to fight alcohol and child abuse in indigenous communities.
But Professor Sampford said he was less convinced of the argument, used by Mr Brough, that the declaration could give customary law precedence over national law.
"That would be an unlikely interpretation by any sovereign government," he said'
If you didn't notice, Professor Sampford 'tacitly' supports ratifying the Declaration as well.
|