freebooter posted:

Despite how terrible living in London was, I'm proud I never sank to this:

BCR posted:

I took it to save me typing. I knew Pennsylvania and a couple of other US states have government only alcohol shops. The point is you were wrong to say its only Australia that has dedicated alcohol shops.

BCR posted:

Principle of social justice re health care and managing preventable differences in health among a population of people.

freebooter posted:

Conceded. I haven't been everywhere. But it's still very rare and very nannying. No Australian who's travelled abroad can have failed to notice this.


No no no, a thousand times no. Providing universal healthcare does not mean the state gets to meddle in every aspect of people's lives which could be deemed unhealthy or dangerous. What about red meat? Riding a motorcycle? Playing rugby? This always comes up in any discussion about alcohol, tobacco or fatty foods, but there's nowhere to draw the line.

I'm not saying the government has no responsibility whatsoever to regulate dangerous products, but using the universal healthcare system as justification for it would lead us down a bad road.

gay picnic defence posted:

If healthcare costs are used to decide what activities should and shouldn't be banned then we'd all be on a government enforced vegetarian diet and travelling between our crossfit/pilates/yoga classes wrapped in bubble wrap. I guess you could draw a line at addictive activities like smoking, pokies and gaming because addicts aren't really in control of their decision making.

freebooter posted:

No no no, a thousand times no. Providing universal healthcare does not mean the state gets to meddle in every aspect of people's lives which could be deemed unhealthy or dangerous. What about red meat? Riding a motorcycle? Playing rugby? This always comes up in any discussion about alcohol, tobacco or fatty foods, but there's nowhere to draw the line.

I'm not saying the government has no responsibility whatsoever to regulate dangerous products, but using the universal healthcare system as justification for it would lead us down a bad road.

thatbastardken posted:

only for weaklings

quote:

Alcoholism and alcohol abuse are due to many interconnected factors, including genetics, how you were raised, your social environment, and your emotional health. Some racial groups, such as American Indians and Native Alaskans, are more at risk than others of developing alcohol addiction. People who have a family history of alcoholism or who associate closely with heavy drinkers are more likely to develop drinking problems. Finally, those who suffer from a mental health problem such as anxiety, depression, or bipolar disorder are also particularly at risk, because alcohol may be used to self-medicate.

freebooter posted:

In a medical sense no. It has other benefits and has always been an important component of our society.

Are you a teetotaller? How do you feel about the legalisation of other drugs?

freebooter posted:

Despite how terrible living in London was, I'm proud I never sank to this:

BCR posted:

I drink socially. I believe alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, etc should be legal and controlled. Same deal. Plain packaging in a separate shop.

norp posted:

Lots of problem drinkers buy plain packaged booze already

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanskin_(wine)

Les Affaires posted:

Sure thing, let's just remove a needed revenue source from the major sports codes.

Les Affaires posted:

Sure thing, let's just remove a needed revenue source from the major sports codes.

BCR posted:

Nationalise the balls. Bonus points for loving off Murdoch.

Jumpingmanjim posted:

Melbourne Goon Meet?

quote:

The recent papal Encyclical was on climate and the environment. This book criticises the Encyclical and shows that we have never lived in better times, that cheap fossil fuel energy has and is continuing to bring hundreds of millions of people from peasant poverty to the middle class and that the alleged dangerous global warming is a myth.

I have great respect for the Pope’s sincere wishes to end pollution and poverty. We all share the same sentiments. The solution is to use cheap coal-fired electricity and not to demonise coal and other fossil fuels. The Industrial Revolution and the growth of East Asia and India shows that with cheap coal-fired electricity, people are brought out of poverty. It has happened to hundreds of millions of people over the last 20 years.

Burning coal releases CO2. This is the gas of life. Plants feed on CO2 and there has been a greening of the Earth with the slight increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. The food for all life on Earth has been wrongly demonised as a pollutant. Some 97% of CO2 emissions are natural.

It has yet to be shown that CO2 drives global warming and all models of future climate based increases in CO2 have failed. Despite hysterical predictions based on models, planet Earth has not deteriorated due to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Nature and humans add traces of a trace gas CO2 to the atmosphere

The planet has not warmed for more than 18 years, models predicted a steady temperature increase over this time and a predicted hot spot over the equator has not eventuated. The models are not in accord with measured reality and are rejected. The science on climate change is far from settled, there is no consensus and there is no demonstrated evidence of human-induced global warming.

In the past when the Earth had a much higher atmospheric CO2 concentration than now, there was no tipping point, no run away global warming, no accelerated extinction and ecosystems thrived. When the past atmospheric CO2 content was up to 1,000 times higher than now, there were ice ages, no acid oceans, no correlation between temperature and atmospheric CO2 and no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and sea level

This high atmospheric CO2 content was removed into sediments via living organisms and was eventually sequestered in sedimentary rocks. There has been no compelling case made for the need to reduce CO2 emissions by humans, models of future climate have overestimated the projected rate of warning and have totally ignored the possibility of global cooling. Geology and history show us that global cooling kills people and destroys ecosystems.

The Pope’s promotion of renewable energy shows that he was poorly advised. The Pope has only listened to a small group of green left environmental activists and atheists, some who are in a warm embrace with communism. Wind, solar, wave and tidal forces do not have the energy density to keep modern society alive. Construction of wind and solar industrial complexes release more CO2 than they save and are inefficient, unreliable and need back up 24/7 from coal, gas, nuclear or hydro. In order to try to make renewable energy more competitive, governments have increased the costs of conventional electricity to the point where there is fuel poverty in Western countries and employment-generating businesses are closing down or moving to countries with cheaper coal-fired electricity. The Pope’s solution to perceived problems is agrarian socialism using wind and solar power.

No Third World country trying to escape from poverty can afford renewable energy and it is only Western countries that use renewable energy because they are wealthy. Wealthy countries didn’t become wealthy overnight and centuries of the evolution of free trade, democracy, creativity, resource utilisation and property rights made wealth creation possible. Governments, collectives or international treaties did not create this wealth. Individuals created it. By denying poor countries access to fossil fuels, Pope Francis condemns them to permanent poverty with the associated disease, short life and unemployment.

The Pope seems to have swallowed hook, line and sinker the new environmental religion that competes with Catholicism. The Encyclical is an anti-development, anti-market enthusiastic embrace of global green left environmental ideology and much of the Encyclical is a denunciation of free markets dressed up as religious instruction.

Most Encyclicals are about hope whereas Laudato Si’ is actually a depressing doomsday view of the future without evidence, science and discussions about uncertainty. The Pope shows concerns for the poor yet only offers constraints that would make the poor poorer. There are no scientific references in the Encyclical even though much of it is supposedly about science and it attempts to use science to make comments about the future.

Global living standards have improved, people are wealthier, fewer people live in abject poverty and more people have access to sanitation, clean water and electricity. There is still a lot to achieve. The toll from diseases has decreased, people live longer, fewer people are killed from extreme weather events and there has been no increase in economic damage from extreme weather events.

All in all, the world is a better place. A slight increase in CO2 in the atmosphere had increased crop yields and has increased forest area and productivity. The net impact of a slight increase in atmospheric CO2 has been beneficial to the biosphere.

The Third World and the developing countries desperately need to escape from poverty. The Pope’s concern for the world’s poor will amount to nothing unless they can have safe drinking water and affordable and reliable electricity for heating and cooking. No longer should the poor die from the smoke emitted by burning dung, leaves and twigs in huts.

Only when Third World children can do homework at night using cheap coal-fired electricity can they escape from poverty. Abundant cheap electricity can be used to pump water and treat sewage. Separate reticulated water and waste water systems have saved more lives on Earth than any other invention. Cheap electricity powers civilisation and creates wealth and jobs.

Zetsubou-san posted:

Mithranderp posted:

Julian Burnside QC in a lecture tonight revealed that many asylum seekers choose to come to Australia simply because it is often the cheapest (or only affordable) option that the people smugglers offer.

quote:

While very little qualitative research has been done in the Australian context, one study found that the majority (25 out of 27) of asylum seekers interviewed had Australia chosen as their destination by the smuggler they engaged.[32]

Negligent posted:

did you know that Indonesia canceled the ability of Iranians to get a visa on arrival at Australia's request?

Why do that? because so many of them were flying in and hopping straight on a boat. We're talking wealthy, educated, English-speaking people who in most cases did not even attempt to register with the UNHCR in Indonesia because they knew they were not refugees.

Negligent posted:

did you know that Indonesia canceled the ability of Iranians to get a visa on arrival at Australia's request?

Why do that? because so many of them were flying in and hopping straight on a boat. We're talking wealthy, educated, English-speaking people who in most cases did not even attempt to register with the UNHCR in Indonesia because they knew they were not refugees.