Buzzo
Well-Known Member
Cormac with all due respect, I understand the dynamic of political debate. While I look forward to your engagement on these issues, I find this shit a little patronising.
How this (like any) political debate tends to get so caught up in semantics and other bullshit, often obscures the human experiences that drive people to advocate for change and engage in political debate in the first place.
A prime example of this shit that always strikes me is the comfort zone (white, straight, male, economically advantaged) from which many politicians/people who hold power* argue and legislate on the matters in which they have absolutely no experience but make presumptions on what is best. For example, I'm often tickled pink by the irony of white business class men deciding what funding/services/etc are appropriate for drug addicts without ever having had substantial engagement with problem drug users or their families.
I think many posts here represent the crux of the problem surrounding this issue: the presumption by a majority of the population that a particular minority doesn't quite understand why things should be a certain way and feel they, the wiser majority, should decide what's best for them. Democracy in it's current incarnation ain't flawless I guess.
Regardless of the political backdrop to this, historically, policies like this have often proven to be massive scarlets (Traveller integration techniques in the 1980s for one.. et je parle, as we say).
Billy- big love, you always make tons of sense, but..... my mate got pregnant having used johnnies and taken the pill. Is this reasonably extreme? How would you prove it so or who would decide it?
*politicians, medical professionals, those in the echelons of the medical profession, priests, community leaders etc....
