|
Do the BOM actually keep their data and methodology secret? What data do they want that they can't have?
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 23:58 |
|
|
Nah mate I'm in favour of gay marriage and wind farms so I'm obviously a leftist.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
*makes heart shape with hands* OK that's enough for one day, let's get back to cutting welfare.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
 Our ~secular~ society.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
Fireworks were banned years ago due to the meddling of the RSPCA.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
If they were interested in that they'd be trying to get pets banned altogether.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
Zenithe posted:Yes, because house pets are true cruelty, unlike the peaceful happy lifestyle that feral cats and dogs exist in. Are you suggesting owning a pet is cruel or harmful to them. I'm suggesting that the culture of pet ownership results in unnecessary harm to animals. 1. Some pet animals are harmed. 2. If there were no pet animals that harm could not occur.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
Zenithe posted:Yes, because my cat, who isn't exposed to ticks, cars, FIV, starvation, random kids, further pregnancies like she was before she was rescued is being caused unnecessary harm. That's not the argument I'm making. Your cat probably wouldn't even exist, and wouldn't have had to have been rescued from further harm, if it weren't for the culture of pet ownership.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
No, but your cat is almost certainly descended from pet cats.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Do you think it's likely that your cat is descended from cats brought here, not as pets, in the 1800s, with no interbreeding with pet or former-pet cats in the intervening period? Even if that is the case I don't see how it's relevant. I think the argument you're trying to make is that the suffering incurred by some pet animals is negligible compared to the benefits they provide to their owners, and that the suffering is something we're going to have to accept if we want to benefit from their company. That's probably an arguable position, but it's a separate argument.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
Bring back fireworks.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
I don't hate kittens and I didn't attack them. I said that the existence of pets enables their suffering. Do you think that something that doesn't exist is capable of suffering, or do you think that the suffering of pets is necessary?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
I thought it was pretty obvious too.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
Zenithe posted:House pets suffer less (in the vast majority of cases) than feral animals, which exist in their thousands in this country. How about you address issues in the real world instead of some weird alternate reality you are considering where pets aren't and never have been a thing. If I wanted to talk about real world problems I would talk about real world problems.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
SadisTech posted:e: You know the more I think about it, the more I love that you're literally arguing "X exists, therefore X can suffer, therefore X should not exist" which, if you follow the logic, implies that nothing capable of suffering should exist. End all life higher than bacteria FTW That X exists therefore X can suffer is not, or at least doesn't have to be, an argument against the existence of X.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure people would call you that anyway. Do you disagree with the argument, Amethyst?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
Well it's not one I would expect people to disagree with.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
I don't think that's true. People complain about not having things that don't exist all the time.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
Well I'm responsible with my gun.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:Ah yes, pet ownership is exactly like gun ownership. This is a new frontier of thought on The Pet Issue. Tell me about the differences between pet and gun ownership, Amethyst.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:So you're saying to fix Australia's problem with racism against Aborigines we should forcibly sterilise them? ...no? Are you? [EDIT: If Aboriginal people were being kept as pets I'd be calling for an end to the practice though.] open24hours fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Feb 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
That's not true. People are scared of and hateful towards witches and the Devil and various other entities that don't exist. More effective to get rid of the racists, or, ideally, the racism. Besides, getting rid of racism towards Aboriginal people and only Aboriginal people is a pretty weak goal and even if you succeeded the racism would manifest in some other form and you'd be back where you started. open24hours fucked around with this message at 05:35 on Feb 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
Well if your goal was reduce racism towards Aboriginal people and that was it then yes, I guess your plan might work in a kind of superficial way. I'd imagine the process of extermination would involve quite a bit of racism so I guess you'd have to work out whether the additional racism you've created would be matched by potential future racism you eliminate.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:That's open24hours' personal belief. I'm just trying to show him how stupid it is It's really not though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
Does that say that I think they shouldn't exist? I mean I know it's tempting to assume that, but it's not what I said.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:It's a non argument that accomplishes nothing which is the entirety of my point. It's a truism. I don't see why people get so riled up by it. I'm not trying to take your pets away.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 05:54
|
|
|
They're just distractions to take the focus off the undue political influence wielded by the RSPCA.
open24hours fucked around with this message at 06:14 on Feb 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
Probably in league with the RSPCA.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
An end to preferences meaning a first past the post system? The idea that changing the rules around preferences will make our system 'more democratic' is a bit of a stretch. What will it achieve except making it easier for the major parties to say one thing before the election and do the opposite afterwards?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
In some countries the constitution forbids retrospective legislation. Shame we don't live in one.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
More Amethyst please.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
quote:If the Government was truly interested in your safety and not purely on a moralistic crusade
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
The CSIRO might be getting cut but at least we can rely on the private sector to answer the important questions. http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/beauty/scientists-have-discovered-what-causes-resting-bitch-face-20160203-gml6em.html
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
I hadn't heard of this guy before so I looked him up. He seems pretty inoffensive? What's he done?quote:http://robert-simms.greensmps.org.au/sites/default/files/higher_education_update_edition_1_january_2016.pdf I still don't understand the opposition to this. I mean I'm all for free education and whatnot but it hardly seems fair that people who stay in Australia should have to pay and people who move overseas shouldn't. Treating them like tax evaders seems entirely appropriate as that's essentially what they're doing.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
quote:The member for Melbourne’s party from time to time tries to create the impression that it has a monopoly on empathy, a monopoly on morality. It doesnot. If the government were to follow the policies advocated by the Greens party in this regard, the consequence would not simply be tens of thousands of unauthorised arrivals coming to Australia, it would be thousands of deaths at sea. A majority in both houses? There must be a snappier term.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
Question time is a farce, I don't know why they bother showing up.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:Adamantly refuses to campaign on free education, refused to print pamphlets for O-week despite having a 100k+ budget for printing because RDN wouldn't let him. I guess there's no simple answer, but do the Greens leadership not want to campaign on free education for a reason? Worried about being painted as 'fiscally irresponsible' or something?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
The idea that these kinds of things are antithetical to academic inquiry is really confusing two entirely separate arguments. Universities do two things: they teach and research, and they provide pastoral care. The two spheres should remain separate and the teaching and research side shouldn't have to worry about political correctness (and I mean this in the original sense, not that they shouldn't be polite to people or avoid using racist or sexist slurs or whatever). The pastoral care side should be doing whatever they need to do to ensure that students and researchers can succeed in whatever it is they are trying to do. If providing prayer rooms or indigenous centres helps with this then, as long as it's not disadvantaging anyone else, who cares? [edit: I guess we'll have to wait until it goes to court to find out what the actual facts of the matter are. The Australian can't be trusted.] open24hours fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Feb 5, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
in these days of alcopops and coward punches how could they not close the CBD? Please Mr Baird, keep me safe.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 23:58 |
|
|
Mandatory zorbs.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 05:44
|
|