|
Being able to take booze home after 10pm would be a nice start.
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 22:27 |
|
|
freebooter posted:There is something fundamentally authoritarian in the Australian DNA that leads to this level of nanny stating. It's like no liquor in supermarkets, or everybody having to park at the edge of the street facing the same way. You just don't see it in other countries. It feels cliche to chalk it up to our beginnings as a penal colony but I'm hard-pressed to think of what else it could be. MonoAus posted:Yeah, I really don't think we need less alcohol regulation, at least not here. Maybe people in Victoria or NSW could handle it but I have no faith in WA. Extreme pessimism?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
Do Australian act like children because of the nanny state, or do we need the nanny state precisely because we're unable to behave like adults? BRB, going to sink all my super into a timber plantation, gorge myself on processed meat and then work it all off by riding my bike on the footpath without a helmet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
Drinking booze in NZ was loving amazing in that I could go to any old supermarket and buy booze. Australia is a paranoid mess where you're treated like a child or a criminal instantly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 04:07
|
|
|
Mr Chips posted:Do Australian act like children because of the nanny state, or do we need the nanny state precisely because we're unable to behave like adults? It's the third option. We have been so successful at dismantling the social structures that would keep individual excesses at bay that they are rearing their head despite what laws we do or don't implement. Perhaps people act like children because there aren't enough mediating social forces around to force them to behave like adults?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
freebooter posted:There is something fundamentally authoritarian in the Australian DNA that leads to this level of nanny stating. It's like no liquor in supermarkets, or everybody having to park at the edge of the street facing the same way. You just don't see it in other countries. It feels cliche to chalk it up to our beginnings as a penal colony but I'm hard-pressed to think of what else it could be. As soon as anyone starts talking about nanny state they lend their argument all the credibility as someone saying SJW. What exactly is the point of state? Why do we have laws? Why do we establish government at all? Seriously, the whole point of government is that humans as individuals are notoriously lovely at making decisions about themselves or others that are in the greater interest of society. This is why we don't have pokies on every street corner, this is why we have a bunch of food safety laws. We create the loving state with the entire purpose of nannying us. If we don't what is the loving point?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
hooman posted:As soon as anyone starts talking about nanny state they lend their argument all the credibility as someone saying SJW. Wouldn't the point be to provide a backup in case our culture fails us?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
Les Affaires posted:It's the third option. We have been so successful at dismantling the social structures that would keep individual excesses at bay that they are rearing their head despite what laws we do or don't implement. Perhaps people act like children because there aren't enough mediating social forces around to force them to behave like adults? Nah, we're just a country of busybodies who despise pluralism and want everyone to be beaten until they fall into line. We're also highly skilled in using 'public health' as a justification for authoritarianism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
Ban smoking imo
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
Les Affaires posted:Wouldn't the point be to provide a backup in case our culture fails us? The idea that our culture can succeed in a place where there are not limitations and consequences is naive dream. As soon as you remove the restrictions humans of any culture go loving hog wild. Look at any failed state, look at the aftermath of any natural disaster, look at any collapse of law and order.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
hooman posted:As soon as anyone starts talking about nanny state they lend their argument all the credibility as someone saying SJW. You say this like life has some higher purpose than gambling and getting food poisoning.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
open24hours posted:You say this like life has some higher purpose than gambling and getting food poisoning. All my gambling is on food poisoning. I like to live dangerously *eats from street vendor cart*
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
hooman posted:All my gambling is on food poisoning. Mexican grilled street corn. yes please. *Later* 
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
I don't think I'd mind our authoritarian streak so much if people actually had a say in how they were regulated. No one votes for any of this stuff though, it's all decided by a very small group of people in a completely undemocratic way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
open24hours posted:Nah, we're just a country of busybodies who despise pluralism and want everyone to be beaten until they fall into line. We're also highly skilled in using 'public health' as a justification for authoritarianism. Also this is crap. I'm pro a lot of what you would call "Authoritarian" measures because they have a positive impact on safety, and as such, have a positive impact on healthcare costs, and as such have a positive impact on our healthcare system. People make dumb decisions constantly and are terrible at managing and assessing risk. Balancing liberty and the needs of a society isn't an easy thing to do. People aren't free in WA to be exploited by pokies, do you think that should change? Do you think people should be able to make the "choice" about skinner box exploitation that preys on our weaknesses? What about guns, what about fireworks, things that do tangible harm to people because they're poo poo at proper use. Why don't we legalise hand grenades, they seem fun as poo poo to be honest. I'm 95% sure that I won't blow myself up with one if I'm allowed to play with them, but I'm not such an entitled child that I'll whine about them being illegal because I recognise the cost to society that allowing any idiot to have hand grenades will result in. Is that Authoritarian? Is that busybody? Is that me waving my finger and going TUT TUT TUT I DON'T APPROVE? Or is that looking at the capability of humanity to make the right choices and ceeding some of those choices to government because gently caress us we're bad at it for the most part. open24hours posted:I don't think I'd mind our authoritarian streak so much if people actually had a say in how they were regulated. No one votes for any of this stuff though, it's all decided by a very small group of people in a completely undemocratic way. So you don't mind regulation but you think our methods of implementing it need to be improved? Fine. What you're talking about isn't nanny state but "Father Knows Best" policy making. I agree, often these decisions are made at the behest of special interest groups rather than the general view of the Australian population about what should and shouldn't be up to a person to decide (see: smoking, gambling). I think more regulation policy should be based on research, but I don't agree that regulation of dangerous poo poo to prevent societal costs and consequences is bad in and of itself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
Adelaide.txt: http://m.indaily.com.au/news/2015/10/27/haese-urged-to-skip-climate-conference-for-christmas-party/ Lord Mayor Martin Haese is facing a backlash within his council over plans to attend the UN Climate Conference in Paris and miss the annual Lord Mayor’s Christmas Party.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
I don't think we really have any kind of major philosophical disagreement. It's not like I'm suggesting we return to a state of nature. We probably only differ in where the line between acceptable and unacceptable risks should be drawn. Policy based on 'research' is just as biased as any other kind of policy. So called evidence based policy only works when everyone agrees about what the policy should be trying to achieve, but are unsure about the best way to go about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
Give me the ability to buy a bottle of scotch at woolies while pissed off my face at 5am or give me death
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
The whole bike helmet battle is literally the front line of the libertarians war on government here. Everything is better with less rules because people are generally nice to each other and smart enough to make the best decisions. Always. Especially when they aren't. Which is also always.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
Speaking of wildly inappropriate alcohol consumption, I'm running an Archer-based mafia game. I know some of you hang in this thread not the other one, so link is here if you're interested.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
Uhm, well gently caress getting home's going to be a bit more difficult now. http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/armed-siege-underway-in-latrobe-street-in-melbournes-cbd-20151027-gkjkh1.html quote:Armed siege under way in La Trobe Street in Melbourne's CBD
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
SynthOrange posted:Uhm, well gently caress getting home's going to be a bit more difficult now. Where are all the Imams denouncing this sort of Islamic violence?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
"He has used the weapon to smash two windows, injuring his hand, and has at times dangled his legs out the window. He has also asked for his mother." There's your scary terrorist people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
hooman posted:To me the entirety of the bike helmets thing is a cost benefit analysis. You're 100% right there, but you (and everyone else in the thread) is using the wrong costs and benefits. Because you can have all the facts and figures in the world supporting your pro-helmet or anti-helmet stance and it won't make the slightest bit of difference. If helmets are no longer required by law, then there will eventually be a child not wearing a helmet who gets hurt and dies while riding their bike. Maybe they would have been totally safe if only they were wearing a helmet, maybe not. But no politician in the world is going to be the person whose decision "killed a child". Politician cost: Change helmet laws, maybe appear on the news being spat on by a grieving mother screaming that you killed her baby. Politician benefit: Do nothing, bikes are someone else's problem. No worries.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
 lol what is he doing
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
TheIllestVillain posted:
having some kind of catastrophic psychotic episode
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...026-gkiv5v.htmlquote:Education Minister Simon Birmingham an advocate for school vouchers oh hell yeah. This will likely stealthily make its way though both houses while the media fellates Turnbull over his office decor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
I don't know if this was the article that kicked off the latest round of helmet chat, but here is a source people were asking for linking mandatory helmet laws with lower cycling rates:quote:Avoid the mistakes of Melbourne and Brisbane and bike-sharing in Sydney can work Anecdotally, when I was in Melbourne for business last week, I saw some of the bikes, thought sweet that's perfect, then went over and it said "go and hire a helmet from 7/11 first", so I thought gently caress it, cos I didn't want to be fined. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Helmets are great and I wore one all the time when I cycled, but the reality is that making them mandatory is a barrier to the successful take up of cycling in cities, and we need greater take up of cycling in cities, and so re-thinking the blanket mandatory helmet laws will help them edge closer to a tipping point. So why not, like the above article suggests, trial exemption zones? What about not needing helmets on bike paths, or designated routes between paths? cartoon posted:So without legislation between 11 and 26% of Danes choose to wear helmets despite 'emotional propaganda' about head injury reduction. What's your point here exactly? 11% of 10,734 cyclists were wearing helmets that day, without any legislation. Right. Good for them? Are you saying that's high or low? The question is, what would that total of 10,734 be if helmets were mandated. The evidence suggests it would be lower. Here's a video of trips in New york, 75,000 rides in 2 days: https://vimeo.com/89305412 If it can work that well in a city as busy as NYC, in a society as litigious as USA, it's gotta be worth a shot here. Solemn Sloth posted:If there's one thing australia needs it's less regulation of alcohol. You don't live in NSW do you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
Is the machete plastic
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
TheIllestVillain posted:lol what is he doing quote:The man is behaving erratically; smashing windows, throwing glass, a smart phone and an apple to the ground outside the business near the corner of Queen and La Trobe streets. Apples are not smartphones. - ABC.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:You're 100% right there, but you (and everyone else in the thread) is using the wrong costs and benefits. Because you can have all the facts and figures in the world supporting your pro-helmet or anti-helmet stance and it won't make the slightest bit of difference. Sure if we're going to talk realism, rather than you know some kind of platonic idea. Realistically Labor will slide right and the Libs will poo poo up everything else until the sea rises and consumes us all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:If helmets are no longer required by law, then there will eventually be a child not wearing a helmet who gets hurt and dies while riding their bike. Maybe they would have been totally safe if only they were wearing a helmet, maybe not. But no politician in the world is going to be the person whose decision "killed a child". Keep them mandatory for kids then. Not particularly hard.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
They don't care because there's no votes in it. People only get one vote, can't vote for individual issues, and virtually no one is going to change their vote because of bicycle helmet policy, so why bother talking about it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
The actual truth about bicycles is that it's too late. Australia hosed it up and our culture and our cities are incompatible with commuting to work on a bike, unless you're happy to breathe fumes and endure an extremely unpleasant daily commute.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 05:31
|
|
|
why not have manned kiosks where you can hire bikes and also helmets?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
hooman posted:As soon as anyone starts talking about nanny state they lend their argument all the credibility as someone saying SJW. I agree that "nanny state" is a problematic term which is often hijacked by dickheads but I don't think it's as hijacked as "SJW," and I think it's still useful. I'd say it's for describing the authoritarian stuff a government does which is annoying but not actually fundamentally dangerous to our broader freedom. Liquor licensing is nanny state stuff, but data retention deserves a more serious moniker. That sort of thing. With regards to all your hand-flailing "without regulation we're BACK IN THE JUNGLE PEOPLE," I'm not talking about tearing down the state. I'm not even talking about some kind of bold, dangerous new experiment that has never been seen before. My entire point was that Australia is the only country I've ever been to where you can't buy liquor in a corner store or supermarket, and that includes Muslim countries like Malaysia and Turkey. This isn't uncharted territory; Britain and Germany and the United States and Iceland and New Zealand and any other country you care to name all sell liquor in supermarkets and corner stores without the foundations of their society crumbling around them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/linzcom/status/658445557724131328/photo/1 I'm actually starting to dislike him more than Abbott, somehow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
Solemn Sloth posted:having some kind of catastrophic psychotic episode A crazy person internalised and co-opted our national psychosis about TERROR? Never. Terror. TERROR.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
In WA it is illegal to ride a bicycle on the footpath, unless you are under 12 years old. Yet literally everyone does it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 22:27 |
|
|
freebooter posted:I agree that "nanny state" is a problematic term which is often hijacked by dickheads but I don't think it's as hijacked as "SJW," and I think it's still useful. I'd say it's for describing the authoritarian stuff a government does which is annoying but not actually fundamentally dangerous to our broader freedom. Liquor licensing is nanny state stuff, but data retention deserves a more serious moniker. That sort of thing. Why is not being able to buy alcohol in a supermarket a big thing? One thing we need to work on is less exposure to alcohol. Having seperate alcohol shops is a good start. A ban on alcohol advertising would be a great next step. Maybe then even plain packaging.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2015 05:48
|
|
