Comments by "Philip Rayment" (@PJRayment) on "Morrison’s attitude to China ‘based on conviction’" video.

And yet you don't point out anything wrong with it. So your comment is laughable.
2
Then maybe China should soften it's aggressive stance.
2
Yes, there have been numerous estimates of 100 million plus Christians in China.
1
@bobegan2865 "It is not my job to educate you..." It IS your job to back your claims when challenged on them. Failure to do so means that your claims can be dismissed as baseless. "If it's you decision to go through life ignorant, ..." It's not. I asked for evidence. That's not action of someone who wants to remain ignorant.
1
Hans Otto Kroeger Kaethler The very fact that you say that shows that you have a conviction that facts are important. But facts are not important without a conviction that they are. You need to start with a conviction.
1
Hans Otto Kroeger Kaethler I never said that all convictions have equal merit. But as I've said, you've started with the conviction that facts are important.
1
Hans Otto Kroeger Kaethler "I started with the claim that facts are essential, and: - that any conviction without facts, is nonsense." No, you didn't. You started with the claim that Morrison acted on conviction, not facts, as though the two were mutually exclusive. You never even hinted that he might have acted on conviction based on facts, as you now say should be done. "If there is already a conviction, facts are useless." The other problem here is the type of conviction we are talking about. A conviction that China is an aggressor (which I agree should be based on facts), or a conviction that the right way to deal with an aggressor is not to appease or ignore them? That latter conviction is based on a sense of right and wrong, not on facts of the sort you're talking about. I believe that it's clear that the conviction being discussed in this video is the latter sort.
1
Hans Otto Kroeger Kaethler So you ignore my rebuttals and simply make a new claim. That's intellectually dishonest. Facts and convictions are two different things. That facts are more important is your conviction. That's why I said that you can start with convictions: you have a conviction that facts are not only important, but more important. Does that conviction come from facts? If so, what facts? Facts can't be wrong by definition. But our understanding of what is fact and what is not can be wrong, and "are far too often wrong". But again, you're ignoring the distinction between a factual assessment and what is the right thing to do about the facts once you've determined what they are.
1
Hans Otto Kroeger Kaethler "Conviction is this: "I know that the Earth is flat, and nobody, no facts, no arguments can convince me otherwise, anymore." No, that is just one example of a conviction. And yes, some people are like that. But it's not inherent in having a conviction that you are then close minded on the issue. That is, other people will not be closed to counter-arguments or facts. " 'Convinced' people don't even understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory." Are you convinced of that? "But, obviously, fact won't convince you, since you already are "convinced"." Nor will counter-examples, it seems, given that you are quite convinced of that and yet you ignore the counter-examples I provide. That you are so convinced that convinced people are closed to facts seems to be based on yourself, being so convinced of what you are saying that you're ignoring my counter-examples and my questions asking what facts led to you being so convinced.
1
Hans Otto Kroeger Kaethler The very fact that you say that shows that you have a conviction that facts are important. But facts are not important without a conviction that they are. You need to start with a conviction.
1
Hans Otto Kroeger Kaethler The very fact that you say that shows that you have a conviction that facts are important. But facts are not important without a conviction that they are. You need to start with a conviction.
1
Hans Otto Kroeger Kaethler "If you start with conviction, then facts aren't important anymore." That is simply not true. What if, as I alluded to, you have the conviction that facts are important? What facts is that conviction based on? Sure, you can also gain a conviction about other things once you have facts.
1
Hans Otto Kroeger Kaethler There's more I should have said. You said that "You have to start with facts, to form a healthy and reasonable conviction,". Okay, lets work with that. So you're saying that you can have a conviction, based on the facts. The problem is that your original comment treated conviction and facts as mutually exclusive: "Morrison acts based on "conviction", and not on proven facts.". But you're now saying that you can have both.
1
Hans Otto Kroeger Kaethler "No, that's not true." What's not? What particular thing I said is supposedly not true? "Facts are, what is leading to knowledge, therefore for reasonable conviction." That ignores my point that you started off by indicating that facts and conviction are mutually exclusive. "(Facts don't matter anymore)" So you're quoting a hypothetical person who is making a different argument to me. So basically you're attacking a straw-man. "... if you put convictions before facts, facts don't matter anymore." As I have already said, that doesn't follow. A person who is convinced that 2 + 2 = 3 could still be open to being shown to be wrong.
1
Hans Otto Kroeger Kaethler "It seems you didn't understand what I said: If you already have "convictions" facts don't matter." No, you misunderstood me. I understand you, but disagree with you. "Facts don't matter" simply does not follow from already having convictions. It's a non-sequitur. "You are saying that "convictions come before facts"..." I'm saying that some convictions do. Such as your conviction that facts are more important. You've never explained what facts led you to that conviction. "If that was true, then he is still not convinced." Not true. Consider a prosecutor. He is convinced, from the evidence, that the defendant is guilty, and argues that case in court, and gets a conviction. Later, he learns of new evidence, and realises that his previous conviction of the person's guilt was wrong. He was convinced, but is still was till open to evidence changing his mind. Or you can think of the detective novel, where it gradually becomes obvious that "the butler did it". As the chapters continue, you become even more convinced that the butler did it. Until the final chapter, where new evidence is revealed that shows that it wasn't the butler after all. So what facts led to your conviction that facts are more important?
1
Hans Otto Kroeger Kaethler "...Is based on my effort to first gather information, ..." That you feel you should gather information first is itself a conviction. "People were convinced that the Earth is flat." That's a bad example. People weren't convinced of that. Rather, the idea that they thought that was an atheist invention. But to the point, you can give as many examples as you like of people who can have a conviction such that they then ignore facts, but others people can have a conviction yet still be open to facts, per the examples I gave. "Facts are more important than convictions." You have a conviction that facts are more important. That conviction may be correct, but it's a conviction nevertheless, and, to support your point, you don't seem open to seeing things differently. "Therefore, convictions must rely on facts, and not the other way around." You still haven't given an answer as to what facts led to your conviction on that. "EXACTLY!!! That's why facts are more important than convictions!" I wasn't arguing about which was more important. And again, it depends on the topic. I already said that facts should be the basis of a question such as "Is China being aggressive", but not the basis of a question "What is the right approach to dealing with that". "CONVICTION HAS BEEN WRONG, NOT THE FACTS!" You're missing the point. That was an example of someone who had a conviction that the accused was guilty, but was still open to facts, contrary to your claim. "But, a convinced individual will never be convinced otherwise by facts." The prosecutor in my example WAS convinced otherwise by the facts. "Prosecutors oppose even clear DNA facts." That is a separate issue, but perhaps that's sometimes with good reason. DNA evidence is not infallible. There was a case in Victoria where the clothing of a child murdered in Gippsland was found to have DNA from a woman who lived in Geelong. But this DNA was dismissed as being due to contamination in the police laboratory (despite there supposedly being a lot of care taken against contamination), and not on the basis of any contrary scientific evidence. (And perhaps it's sometimes for no good reason at all.)
1
@bobegan2865 Seriously? You've actually got the gall to say that a one-party system is democratic? Sure you're not a satirist? In case you are serious, this is from the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, in October 2012: "The Communist Party of China (CPC) takes Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory and the important thought of Three Represents as its guide to action and theoretical bases."
1
@frankwren8215 "the entire video, as said in the OP. " Nope. Too sweeping a claim. "Scomo doesn't even govern his own country with principles, happy to allow illegal lockdowns and mandates for no reason other than bribes." You cite one problem, and even that without evidence, I believe. The Federal government has, in principle, no power over the states, which are the ones that have been having the lockdowns and mandates, which have been legal as far as I can tell (but immoral, being a denial of our God-given rights). (Closing state borders was illegal, I believe though.) However, I do accept that he could have spoken out more against that and even applied pressure, so I'm not actually defending his actions there. But I see no evidence of bribes. I suspect that part of the problem, however, was the principle that he should work in conjunction with the states, rather than leaving everything to them or trying to do it all himself, and therefore set up the special cabinet. But I believe that approach, although well-intentioned, has backfired. "The dude has never had a principle in his life,..." One example of doing the wrong thing does not show that. And you've still not pointed out anything wrong in the video.
1
I'm not sure of the relevance of that in this conversation.
1
And yet you show no evidence for your claim. Imagination?
1
@bobegan2865 So still no evidence? Just more insult instead. Your opinions can be dismissed as baseless.
1
@bobegan2865 No. You made the claim, the onus is on you to support it. Not on me to hunt down support for your claim. If it's so easy to find, then you should have no problem providing the evidence. That you continue to refuse to is telling.
1
Some of those minor and independent ones are as bad as the Greens and Labor, though. You need to be a bit more selective than that.
1
@countyorga764 So your only contribution to this is to mock. Typical of the left.
1
@bobegan2865 "Most likely by someone who has never been to China!" Most likely that's not true. "It is amazing how people like Shari Markson, for example, know more about China and how Chinese people think and act than Chinese people themselves!" You seem to think that all the Chinese people think and act the same, and that Markson is speaking about more than just the Dictatorial Marxist leadership. I'd suggest neither is true.
1
@bobegan2865 "China is sick of the [nonsense] leveled against it by the Australian government and media." Various nations are sick of the actions and attitudes of China. So which one is in the wrong? The various democracies or Marxist dictatorship? And why? "China has merely reacted to the constant stream of slander from the pathetic failing hegemony of USA and repeated by the servile population of Australia." No, China started this, with it's attempted takeover of the South China Sea, it's theft of intellectual property, it's computer attacks, it's attempted cover-up of the source of covid, etc. Plus as Mitch James said.
1
@bobegan2865 So instead of disputing my claim of a take-over of the South China Sea, you try and trivialise it as though it doesn't matter because Australian tourists don't go there! This action affects the rights of ships of various nations to travel that way, and is of concern to numerous nations in the area, but you ignore all that and blame concern on a supposed "evil" US government. The attempted cover-up of it actually coming from the lab in Wuhan, not from the market as that story claimed, including the attempts to hinder investigation of the origins of the virus.
1
Hans Otto Kroeger Kaethler 'Another example is the title of the video: 'Morrison's attitude to China is based on conviction' (therefore, not on facts.)" The parenthetical part is your addition and is not implied by the actual title. "There are NO FACTS AT ALL, supporting the claim that China is committing any type of genocide." His conviction, according to the title, is the basis of his attitude, not the basis of his understanding. The description says "when making a decision about China’s threat to Australia he made it “based on conviction,” " He didn't base his understanding of China's threat on conviction (or at least it doesn't claim that). He based his decision on what to do about it on his convictions. You can gather as many facts as you like, but then you have to decide what to do with those facts. And that decision on what to do is what the reference to conviction is about. Listening to what is said in the video itself only supports that point. "There are NO FACTS AT ALL, supporting the claim that China is committing any type of genocide." Genocide wasn't mentioned in the video, so I'm not sure why you're bringing that into it. Plus, as I have just explained, his conviction is about what to do about China, not on what China is like. "No, you didn't provide a counterexample." I provided two, in the other thread, which I know you've read. "And that's what is being done by all the Anti-China propaganda." You're changing topics from Morrison's conviction on how to respond to China to whether or not claims about China have merit. "But, it seems, you are still more inclined to be convicted by Morrison's "convictions" as by facts." I'm not convicted by Morrison's convictions. I'm convicted by my understand of English and of conceptions such as facts and convictions. "And there is nothing that can change your convictions." So you claim, but then all you've got to go on is me not being convinced by your claims.
1