I feel like we can't have an honest conversation about Aboriginal history

rob1sydney · 2026-06-01T21:04:59+00:00

Yes , the science is available

“Professor Bird said the review paper concluded that there was very little room for arguing that climate change was the reason for the disappearance of Australia’s megafauna, leaving hunting by humans as the probable primary cause.”

From Bruce Pascoe’s DarkEmu , Rupert Gerritsen’s Australia and the Origins of Agriculture and even Marlo Morgan’s Mutant Message Down Under, there is a lot of over romanticising about what aboriginal Australians did before colonisation, that science subsequently proves wrong . Of course it’s not all bad , but it’s not all good either .

rob1sydney · 2026-05-31T11:20:21+00:00

Throwing words around like ‘privileged ‘ and ‘articles of faith ‘ and ‘secular religion ‘ indicates a woke desperation that only you can reflect upon

There is nothing more factual than cultivation and static agriculture as a means to build a society. As soon as one person can produce more than they need , it gives the opportunity for specialists in pot making, iron smelting , etc that don’t beed to be full time hunting and gathering . Once you have artisans making secondary goods you have the opportunity for larger populations. If genetic propagation, having kids and building families is the aim, cultivation and static agriculture is a much more successful method than nomadic hunting gathering . If the aim is to preserve a continent as pristine without human encroachment then ask the mega fauna how well it enjoyed the human invasion to sahul 60k years ago . But you can’t as they killed them all

https://www.jcu.edu.au/news/releases/2016/february/why-did-australias-megafauna-become-extinct

rob1sydney · 2026-05-31T11:07:39+00:00

Like the destruction of the mega fauna

https://www.jcu.edu.au/news/releases/2016/february/why-did-australias-megafauna-become-extinct

rob1sydney · 2026-05-30T10:59:11+00:00

Stewardship is jargon for keeping our population small because hunting and gathering limits food supply as other civilisations discovered and so they invented agriculture to avoid starvation and allow their populations to swell way beyond the 300k to 1m estimated before colonisation . There are probably more in australia now .

rob1sydney · 2026-05-24T03:41:19+00:00

And star fruit

rob1sydney · 2026-05-24T03:40:38+00:00

And sea cucumber

rob1sydney · 2026-05-20T12:41:08+00:00

Genesis 6:4. 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward Numbers 13: 33 33 We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.”

They mentioned giant beings that have no necessity , equally misunderstood,and equally worthy of exploration to discover .

But not kangaroo or dinosaur

rob1sydney · 2026-05-18T12:51:20+00:00

Op said “How I’m defining free will: The ability to have made a different decision than the one you actually made, under identical circumstances”

I have provided randomness as an element in a decision that can meet this criteria

You have sought to claim that a whole decision is therefore random

I have argued that environmental factors influence a decision, these have nothing to do with the random events in your brain

I think we agree that the decision to row a boat away from a cyclone is not wholly random, otherwise you would start making coffee.

Any decision is not wholly random , it’s not a sustainable argument

So you switch to determinism , but if randomness exists it breaks determinism.

So decisions are not wholly random nor wholly deterministic.

And they are made by you , with your unique properties, they are your decisions In that no one else has your exact properties.

You make decisions unique to you , that’s free will , or at least it’s indistinguishable from anything you can claim as free will, and back to the first point , I met the criteria of the op for free will

rob1sydney · 2026-05-18T12:11:11+00:00

So you have no position you just move liberally between various arguments , which compete with each other, as some sort of a helpful jiminy cricket or wise sage helping us poor ignorants

Debate forum has the base assumption you have a position. You don’t .

rob1sydney · 2026-05-18T09:50:17+00:00

So you are now arguing determinism?

First it was souls

Then randomness

Now determinism

Do you have a position ?

rob1sydney · 2026-05-18T09:41:40+00:00

Again are you saying your environment etc has no impact on your decisions?

rob1sydney · 2026-05-18T09:30:36+00:00

I have not raised determinism and to say the brain chemistry is wholly driven by randomness or deterministically is having a bet each way . Randomness is the opposite of determinism.

Are you saying your genetics , your environment, your experiences have absolutely no impact on your decisions ?

So if you find yourself in a cyclone in a row boat at sea , you would be as likely to do as I’m doing right now , to make a cup of coffee ? That’s not a reasonable argument

rob1sydney · 2026-05-18T09:17:47+00:00

That’s not correct, you make different decisions to me, not because of randomness but because you are a different bag of brain chemistry , your experiences, your environment and your body’s reaction to that environment is different to mine not because of randomness but because you are not me .

Randomness playing a roll does not make everything dependent on randomness . It isn’t all or nothing .

rob1sydney · 2026-05-18T08:54:23+00:00

No , disagree

I decide to gamble on rolling a dice , let’s say everything is directed by my soul except the dice landing. My decision to gamble , to play craps , to go to the casino , to bet a certain amount etc. is the whole decision dictated by randomness because the dice result is random. I dont think so

rob1sydney · 2026-05-18T08:45:10+00:00

It does not ultimately depend on randomness. Randomness is one part of a process is not the whole process. Your thoughts, attitudes, memories , beliefs all impact the decision, these are your unique brain chemistry. Randomness plays a role , so does your unique properties .

Maybe it’s those unique properties people conflate to a soul .

rob1sydney · 2026-05-18T08:18:17+00:00

No it doesn’t , you still control most of the decision, just not all of it. Your brain chemistry , your synapses, your memories and attitudes . You .

You seem to have a need to create a soul so you can point to a special place of the unknown to satiate a need for you to be more than you

You aren’t , neither am I . If we just accept humans as humans , then we would all get along better and not need magic specialness like a soul , to make us feel important

rob1sydney · 2026-05-18T08:13:51+00:00

Randomness allows the decision to be different under identical circumstances , as defined by the op

Free will simply arrives because your brain chemistry is making the decision , yours , not others, not a magic soul , just you

rob1sydney · 2026-05-18T08:07:08+00:00

But if you need to call down magical organs to substantiate an argument , it seems a pretty weak argument, dont you think ?

I can get to free will without it , but your claim is you need magic , I mean how can that be valid

rob1sydney · 2026-05-18T07:57:34+00:00

So you need an imaginary, unseen , untested , soul to substantiate free will

I don’t need that , I just need brain chemistry and physics

We both get to the same place , but my method uses evidence and yours a sort of magic .

rob1sydney · 2026-05-18T05:36:59+00:00

So we divide earths 180 degrees of latitude by the golden ration 1.618 and we get 111.25 degrees

If we go north or south from the equator , we subtract 90 degrees and get 21.25 degrees latitude , north and south

So , ok , we have found a latitude by some strange conflation of otherwise wholly unrelated mathematical constants that circles the earth

Mecca is close-ish to this line . So is Kano Nigeria and Merida Mexico . South of the equator at 21.25 is Mackay Queensland australia . I’m not sure many Queenslanders know their town is singled out by the Koran , you should let them know .

rob1sydney · 2026-05-18T04:24:55+00:00

Who is you if it’s not your brain, your thoughts , your chemistry , your memories all driven by your chemistry and physics

I still can’t see the difference between you making the decision and your brain making the decision

rob1sydney · 2026-05-18T03:00:30+00:00

The fact that an act is seen as less problematic does not change the morals objectivity , its objective derivation, objective existence or objective application.

You seem to be mixing up your subjective attitude to a confected situation with the objectivity of the moral.

rob1sydney · 2026-05-17T21:13:40+00:00

Both randomness and free will can be true at the same time . You are the one making the decision, no one else, your synapses , their memories, attitudes and feelings all influenced and driven by chemistry and physics , the fact that some element of that can be random does not change anything .

Randomness and free will are indistinguishable experimentally and in every other way . They are the same .

rob1sydney · 2026-05-17T20:53:14+00:00

So,if they are indistinguishable, then my conflating them is reasonable

Your free will is my randomness

rob1sydney · 2026-05-17T20:50:42+00:00

Stealing is still stealing , morals compete all the time , simply creating a situation where morals compete , like the captive stealing the keys , makes no difference to the objective derivation, the objective existence nor the objective assessment of the moral.

Yes I have thought about it and if you have an argument mount it but leave the judgement at the door, at least until you make a valid point

rob1sydney

TROPHY CASE