Auspol: Not with a bang but with a whisper

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol: Not with a bang but with a whisper

«‹›87 »

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

There's no prohibition on conflicts of interest for MPs, is there? They just have to disclose it?

# ? Oct 13, 2015 03:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 05:21

nyerf: Feb 12, 2010; An elephant never forgets...TO KILL!

Redcordial posted:

Tonight's Q&A is quite decent to be honest, the couple 1950's assimilation questions were some nice laughs, top notch.

Bandt didn't point out the time when it came to the lower house to view on indefinite detention all but Wilkie and himself voted for it. Made me seethe that the comment that the Greens were complicit somehow in indefinite offshore detention of children was allowed to stand.

# ? Oct 13, 2015 03:26

Starshark: Dec 22, 2005; Doctor Rope

quote:

It is hoped a population of rare marsupials released to an island haven off the West Australian south-coast holds the key to the species' survival.

Thirty dibblers were released onto Gunton Island, about 17 kilometres off the coast of Esperance, last Friday.

Native to Western Australia and South Australia, the dibbler is a small carnivorous marsupial about 15 centimetres long, weighing less than 100 grams and sporting distinctive white rings around its eyes.

It was thought to be extinct until it was rediscovered at Cheynes Beach east of Albany in 1967.

There were five locations in WA and SA where dibblers could be found in populations varying in size from 50 to 150 animals, but the marsupial was still considered critically endangered.

Almost all of the animals released last week were the product of a successful breeding program run by the WA Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPAW) and Perth Zoo.

One of the dibblers was relocated from another population.

We can't expect them all to survive - dibblers produce a lot of young, and if they all survive we'd be knee-deep in dibblers.
Tony Friend, WA Department of Parks and Wildlife

The repopulation program aimed to release a further 150 dibblers onto Gunton Island over the next two years.

DPAW's Tony Friend said hopes were high this would significantly boost the animal's numbers.

"As long as a few get through to breeding and we're hoping about half make it through to breeding next year, then we'll have an ongoing population," he said.

"We can't expect them all to survive - dibblers produce a lot of young, and if they all survive we'd be knee-deep in dibblers.

"We know from previous releases that there is a certain amount of mortality, which sort of sorts them out a bit too, because you end up with smarter ones and ones that are better able to survive in the world."

The dibblers, which were all micro-chipped, would be monitored through motion activated cameras and traps baited with peanut butter and sardines, located across the island.

Dr Friend said there were a few ways the community could help protect the species.

"Cats are a major predator as well as foxes," he said.

"We have fox control in the reserves but I guess cats are a bigger problem and that's where we'd like people to help by keeping their cats under control and not having them roam in the bush or let them breed and have kittens heading out into the bush as well."

The dibbler population on Gunton Island would be re-assessed in May during their breeding season.

Ban cats.

# ? Oct 13, 2015 07:05

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Ban pets altogether. They're terrible for the environment in more ways than just killing wildlife.

# ? Oct 13, 2015 07:15

Zenithe: Feb 25, 2013; _{Ask not to whom the Anidavatar belongs; it belongs to thee.}

open24hours posted:

Ban pets altogether. They're terrible for the environment in more ways than just killing wildlife.

Really? Like what?

# ? Oct 13, 2015 07:19

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/nov/13/ethical-living-carbon-emissions

# ? Oct 13, 2015 07:21

Zenithe: Feb 25, 2013; _{Ask not to whom the Anidavatar belongs; it belongs to thee.}

open24hours posted:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/nov/13/ethical-living-carbon-emissions

Nothing in this article could possibly be seen as a good enough reason to ban all pets. Have you read it?

# ? Oct 13, 2015 07:29

turdbucket: Oct 30, 2011

open24hours posted:

Ban pets altogether. They're terrible for the environment in more ways than just killing wildlife.

We shouldn't ban pets but we should probably ban the sale of pets for profit.

# ? Oct 13, 2015 07:40

Les Affaires: Nov 15, 2004

Huh, turns out pet ownership is ridiculously ostenatious. Especially cat ownership, given they're not even able to be trained to work like a Kelpie or a Guide dog. I guess that means owning a cat puts a person in league with the blue bloods. Shame, really.

# ? Oct 13, 2015 07:46

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Zenithe posted:

Nothing in this article could possibly be seen as a good enough reason to ban all pets. Have you read it?

Well, it's a question of values. Maybe it's not enough to make you consider banning all pets.

Maybe license them like guns. If you want one show that you have a better reason than 'it makes me feel good'.

# ? Oct 13, 2015 07:56

Zenithe: Feb 25, 2013; _{Ask not to whom the Anidavatar belongs; it belongs to thee.}

open24hours posted:

Well, it's a question of values. Maybe it's not enough to make you consider banning all pets.

Maybe license them like guns. If you want one show that you have a better reason than 'it makes me feel good'.

What based on that article makes you think all pet ownership should be banned?

# ? Oct 13, 2015 08:00

Les Affaires: Nov 15, 2004

Zenithe posted:

What based on that article makes you think all pet ownership should be banned?

There are individual people in the world who use far less resources than individual pets with owners in the developed world. The argument is that by choosing to distribute those finite resources to pets, we are depriving them from poorer countries.

Basically pet ownership is bourgeois as hell unless those pets are providing a useful function to society, such as working dogs, and even then if they're being fed food from resource-intensive industries there's a strong argument that they shouldn't be.

So, again:
- cats are useless, therefore they should be banned
- feed your pets food that is not resource intensive such as fish or chicken.

# ? Oct 13, 2015 08:05

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Yeah basically what Les Affairs said.

I have a cat but I find it difficult to justify on a utilitarian level.

# ? Oct 13, 2015 08:10

tithin: Nov 14, 2003; [Grandmaster Tactician]

Tink is gonna be here soon to gently caress y'all up.

# ? Oct 13, 2015 08:10

Zenithe: Feb 25, 2013; _{Ask not to whom the Anidavatar belongs; it belongs to thee.}

....Did you guys read it? Or just the title?

quote:

Far from being unsustainable, pet-food manufacturing uses material from animals which are inspected by vets as fit for human consumption but which are surplus to the requirements of the human food industry

So make sure your pet is eating food that would otherwise not have been eaten.

As for cats being useless:

quote:

That we greatly benefit from the presence of pets isn't really disputed.

There are good arguments for making sure that pet food is ecologically sustainable and ethical in the article, as well as making sure that your pet isn't killing native wildlife, but I'm surprised you would skip to pet genocide so quickly based on such poor evidence

Zenithe fucked around with this message at 08:14 on Oct 13, 2015

# ? Oct 13, 2015 08:12

Zenithe: Feb 25, 2013; _{Ask not to whom the Anidavatar belongs; it belongs to thee.}

open24hours posted:

Yeah basically what Les Affairs said.

I have a cat but I find it difficult to justify on a utilitarian level.

So keep it indoors and don't feed it unethical food?

# ? Oct 13, 2015 08:13

Seagull: Oct 9, 2012; give me a chip

it's too bad cats are just not as good dogs

# ? Oct 13, 2015 08:15

Les Affaires: Nov 15, 2004

Zenithe posted:

....Did you guys read it? Or just the title?

So make sure your pet is eating food that would otherwise not have been eaten.

As for cats being useless:

There are good arguments for making sure that pet food is ecologically sustainable and ethical in the article, as well as making sure that your pet isn't killing native wildlife, but I'm surprised you would skip to pet genocide so quicly based on such poor evidence

Woah woah woah slow down there pal, you're the first person to bring up cat genocide. I think it's a win just to recognise that pet ownership, especially cat ownership, is bourgeois as hell. How about we just go from there first, shall we?

Sure you could feed pets food that is not fit for human consumption, but you could also recycle it back into the production chain to produce human-suitable food for feeding the third world. The fact that we don't just drives another stake into the capitalist system of infinite resource consumption and excess, and the hammer driving it is being held by cat owners (and to a significantly lesser extent poodle owners).

# ? Oct 13, 2015 08:16

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Even if the food is ethical and the cat is kept indoors it still requires substantial resources to keep it alive which could probably be spent in a way that generates more utility.

There's also the environmental impact. If I didn't own a cat I could drive a Land Cruiser guilt free.

# ? Oct 13, 2015 08:17

Synthbuttrange: May 6, 2007

You cant keep dogs in an apartment. My cats keep me sane.

Also infest my brain with toxoplasmosis.

# ? Oct 13, 2015 08:17

Les Affaires: Nov 15, 2004

SynthOrange posted:

You cant keep dogs in an apartment. My cats keep me sane.

Also infest my brain with toxoplasmosis.

Feed/water/house a cat 24/7, or use the same resources to sustain a therapist who you see once a week to discuss things with.

Really the choice is obvious, especially if you're asleep and at work for 12-16 hours a day.

# ? Oct 13, 2015 08:19

Zenithe: Feb 25, 2013; _{Ask not to whom the Anidavatar belongs; it belongs to thee.}

Les Affaires posted:

Woah woah woah slow down there pal, you're the first person to bring up cat genocide.

Sorry, that was open24hours.

quote:

but you could also recycle it back into the production chain to produce human-suitable food for feeding the third world.

OK, how?

# ? Oct 13, 2015 08:21

Negligent: Aug 20, 2013; Its just lovely here this time of year.

All this time cats that look like Hitler has been making a legit political point, and not, you know, funny cats. Thanks auspol thread

# ? Oct 13, 2015 08:24

Synthbuttrange: May 6, 2007

Even with state subsidies a therapist visit costs as much as it takes to care for a cat for two months. Besides, I am doing both. Kitties are extremely beneficial to my wellbeing.

Also if I didnt have cats I might have children.

# ? Oct 13, 2015 08:24

Pickled Tink: Apr 28, 2012; Have you heard about First Dog? It's a very good comic I just love.

Also, wear your bike helmets kids. I copped several blows to the head but my helmet left me totally unscathed.

Finally you should check out First Dog as it's a good comic I like it very much.; Fun Shoe

Cats provide companionship, comfort, entertainment, and are a valuable source of cuteonium. You shouldn't let them outside though, unless you have built up an enclosed area that can actually contain them where they can't harm wildlife, and you should definitely spay or neuter them.

Should bike helmets be compulsory? Lessons from Seattle and Amsterdam

quote:

Every day, Elizabeth Kiker cycles to her work through the streets of Seattle. As the executive director of a big bicycle club, she wants to show people that you don�t need fancy gear to ride a bike � so she rides in her skirt and office shoes. But she does wear a helmet. If she didn�t, she would risk a $102 (�67) fine.

Seattle is one of the few big cities in the world where cyclists of all ages are legally required to wear a helmet. �There�s an interesting conversation going on about this, because it could dissuade people from cycling,� says Kiker. �And yet, it is safer if you fall. I once slipped with my bike and fell on my helmet and I was glad I was wearing it.�

Five thousand miles to the east, Marco te Br�mmelstroet cycles to his job as director of the Urban Cycling Institute of the University of Amsterdam. The wind is blowing freely through his hair. �Cycling without a helmet is something I take for granted, I never give it any thought,� he says. �But it does amplify the feeling of ultimate freedom.�

In Amsterdam, adults don�t wear helmets while riding city bikes � they don�t even consider it an option. Helmets are mainly worn by tourists and expats, whom the Dutch regard with bemusement, even ridicule. They know their country is a very safe place to ride a bike: in the Netherlands, the number of cyclists killed per travelled mile is the lowest in the world.

Should cyclists in cities wear helmets? And should there be such a thing as a helmet law? Only last week, Britain�s transport minister Robert Goodwill was criticised because he urged cyclists to wear helmets � while admitting he rides bareheaded through London himself. The helmet question has stirred up a heated debate for a long time and it�s not likely to end very soon. Both critics and advocates seem to have a point.

�Helmets are very effective in preventing head injuries and there are many studies to prove it,� maintains Randy Swart of the American Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute. �These are medical studies, some of them based on emergency room data, some of them based on crash data from accident scenes. Just as important is the information that comes from bicycle clubs and organisations. From their experience, they confirm what the medical studies show: that helmets are effective. There�s a lot of argument about the precentage of injuries that can be prevented by wearing a helmet, but I estimate it to be somewhere around two thirds.�

Te Br�mmelstroet does not agree. �The problem is precisely that there are not so many studies and that most of the existing studies are methodologically not very sound,� he says. According to him, there only are a limited amount of scenarios in which helmets provide protection. �That is when the cyclist falls without being involved in a crash. But when you collide with a car that drives faster than 20 miles an hour, a helmet does nothing to save you.�

In the US, where rules on helmets vary from state to state, Seattle made them mandatory 12 years ago. The helmet law came about mainly due to pressure from people who worked in local health care. �It didn�t come about because Seattle would be more dangerous for cyclists than other cities,� Kiker says. �There has been some debate lately, because it was feared the helmet law would hurt our new bike share programme, but it hasn�t. They have been very innovative about how to incorporate the helmet law into the programme. You can now check out a helmet when you check out a bike.�

The answer to the helmet question is not as simple as it seems, says Te Br�mmelstroet. �It is important to realise that wearing a helmet can have negative effects. It does not always make cycling safer. Cyclists with helmets are liable to take more risks because they consider themselves safe. And an English study has shown that motorists give considerably less space whilst overtaking cyclists with helmets than when they overtake cyclists that go bareheaded. If you look at it this way, wearing a helmet could lead to more injuries than not wearing one.��

That wearing a helmet can lead to more aggression from motorists, at least in the Netherlands, is something Te Br�mmelstroet knows from experience. �I cycle to work on a city bike without a helmet, but at the weekends, I wear one while riding my racing bicycle. In the last case, I encounter more aggression. I suddenly seem to belong to a group that triggers a lot of anger.��

Although they disagree on the safety that helmets provide, Swart, Kiker and Te Br�mmelstroet all agree on one thing: it�s not helmets that make cycling truly safe, but the amount of cyclists on the road. �In all American cities where bike riding has gone up, crashes have come down,� says Kiker.

The big question here, of course, is: do cycle helmets increase or decrease the number of cyclists in a city? �If you want to encourage cycling, helmet laws are certainly not a good idea,� says Te Br�mmelstroet. �When you make helmets mandatory, people will think that cycling is impractical and even dangerous. For example, in Australia the number of cyclists went down drastically after helmets became mandatory.�

�If a helmet law were going to reduce cycling significantly, I would say you�d have to think very seriously before passing it. It is a valid consideration,� Swart agrees. �But Australia is half a world away. Compulsory helmets might start a revolution in one place but can be just fine in another. A lot of what we are talking about is simply cultural. In the US, we do not have any documented situations where passing a helmet law reduced cycling.�

�In Seattle, the amount of cyclists has definitely gone up,� says Kiker. �Of course, there are fewer bikes on the road than in Dutch cities. But I do feel safe while riding through the city. And I ride everywhere. My bike is how I get around.�

When the numbers of cyclist go up, there is a clear impact on how drivers treats cyclists. Swart explains: �In most cities in the United States, drivers are not expecting bicycles. So they aren�t looking in the right direction when they overtake one. In some places, drivers don�t even know how to react to a cyclist. When more people cycle in a city, drivers become accustomed to them, they accept them and they learn how to safely deal with them. More cyclists means greater safety, so we should do all we can to encourage cycling.

�In cities where there is a lot of cycling, the majority of the motorists also often ride a bicycle. So they are much more aware of the impact of their driving style on cyclists,� says Te Br�mmelstroet. �Car speeds come down in cities where cycling is important, and this opens opportunities to mix traffic in such a way that motorists behave as guests. In the Netherlands, you can see this in so-called fietsstraten, or bicycle-streets, where cyclists are the dominant mode of transport.�

The problem is not only that helmet laws would reduce cycling, he says. �When governments make helmets compulsory, they leave the responsibility for safety in the hands of the cyclists. They are blaming the victim. Whereas in the Netherlands, we believe in the responsibility of the motorist. That�s why our government has introduced strict liability.�

This means that in Amsterdam, in case of a crash, the motorist is liable for financial damage, unless he can prove that the cyclist was at fault � but then he still will be liable for half of the damage.

Swart is not totally convinced whether this is a good measure: �There are two considerations here. One is: it will make the motorist more careful. And that is very good. But secondly, I can also imagine that the motorist will consider it unfair when the cyclist didn�t wear a helmet and is then subject to an injury that would not have happened if he were wearing one.�

�As a scientist and as a father, I am not against helmets,� says Te Br�mmelstroet. �But I am certainly against helmet laws. If you want to make cycling safer, start with good infrastructure: build segregated cyclepaths. I am against the false idea of security that helmets offer. They may have some protective value, but not as much as people tend to think. And why all this focus on protecting the head?�� he adds jokingly. �If you want to be really safe, you should also consider elbow, knee and back protection. And why all this emphasis on the need to wear helmets on bikes? The majority of head injuries occur in cars, but motorist wouldn�t dream of wearing a helmet!�

# ? Oct 13, 2015 08:25

EvilElmo: May 10, 2009

Oh man puritan Greens will never stop amusing me.

# ? Oct 13, 2015 08:27

Synthbuttrange: May 6, 2007

Spay cats and put bike helmets on them.

# ? Oct 13, 2015 08:28

Negligent: Aug 20, 2013; Its just lovely here this time of year.

Oh you have a cat, how terribly gauche

*eats quinoa, sips coffee*

# ? Oct 13, 2015 08:30

Synthbuttrange: May 6, 2007

Seriously though the quoll does offer a good alternative, apparently?

http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2015/03/19/4200500.htm

# ? Oct 13, 2015 08:31

Les Affaires: Nov 15, 2004

Pickled Tink posted:

Cats provide companionship, comfort, entertainment, and are a valuable source of cuteonium. You shouldn't let them outside though, unless you have built up an enclosed area that can actually contain them where they can't harm wildlife, and you should definitely spay or neuter them.

Should bike helmets be compulsory? Lessons from Seattle and Amsterdam

How is this anything unlike a court jester? The King doesn't spend all of his time watching him juggle, he is only called in when beckoned out of boredom (or when he wants somebody to execute).

The rest of the time the jester is waiting to be beckoned. How do you consider this an efficient or even worthwhile use of finite resources?

# ? Oct 13, 2015 08:31

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Add a pet section to public libraries. We have public parks so not everyone needs to have their own wasteful backyard, seems reasonable to do the same thing with cats.

# ? Oct 13, 2015 08:33

Zenithe: Feb 25, 2013; _{Ask not to whom the Anidavatar belongs; it belongs to thee.}

Les Affaires posted:

he is only called in when beckoned out of boredom

Yes, you clearly know lots about cats and your opinion on them should be valued.

# ? Oct 13, 2015 08:33

Les Affaires: Nov 15, 2004

Zenithe posted:

Yes, you clearly know lots about cats and your opinion on them should be valued.

Granted the author of the article did say that it made a lot of pet owners uncomfortable. It's not nice to have to consider these things.

# ? Oct 13, 2015 08:35

Negligent: Aug 20, 2013; Its just lovely here this time of year.

In some places a system of 'you give food to dog, it's your dog' exists, like a form of proto-communism. Like all communism it can only end badly.

# ? Oct 13, 2015 08:39

Synthbuttrange: May 6, 2007

Pet cat, get purrs, this is loving awesome.

# ? Oct 13, 2015 08:40

Negligent: Aug 20, 2013; Its just lovely here this time of year.

Private pet ownership is simply a specific form of private property and thus oppression of the working class. Full communism now

# ? Oct 13, 2015 08:41

Synthbuttrange: May 6, 2007

Its more a form of slavery since animals do not give consent. :3:

# ? Oct 13, 2015 08:42

Zenithe: Feb 25, 2013; _{Ask not to whom the Anidavatar belongs; it belongs to thee.}

Les Affaires posted:

Granted the author of the article did say that it made a lot of pet owners uncomfortable. It's not nice to have to consider these things.

What exactly was he discussing with that line though? Because it pretty clearly says this literally just before it:

quote:

Vale does not � as some of his critics seem to assume � advocate a mass cull of the world's pets.

What is then talked about is feeding your pets vermin:

quote:

For example, the book suggests catching vermin such as rats and processing them into a "natural" cat food

I personally have no issue with this, although you would have to have worming treatment more often.

and this:

quote:

Equally, the book proposes a return to the days when families would � hence the book's title � have edible pets.

Which in context would be worse for the environment than most responsible pet owners (that have neutered pets and don't let them wreck the environment etc.)

# ? Oct 13, 2015 08:42

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

The workers must seize control of the means of purr-duction.

# ? Oct 13, 2015 08:49

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 05:21

GoldStandardConure: Jun 11, 2010; I have to kill fast
and mayflies too slow; Pillbug

The only ethically correct pet:

# ? Oct 13, 2015 08:49

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol: Not with a bang but with a whisper

«‹›87 »