|
Australia is a huge country with a shitload of empty space with almost no people in the centre. It is utter madness to kowtow to a tiny population RE the perfect spot for a nuclear storage facility when any other group would have it resumed in a heartbeat.
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2016 07:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 05:43 |
|
|
CrazyTolradi posted:Ok, we'll just store it in your place, it'd be utter madness to kowtow to you. I'd happily store it next door for 1/10th the amount of bribe money typically being proposed.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2016 08:18
|
|
|
CrazyTolradi posted:No, it has to be in your place, since you're so ready to revoke the property rights (that you hold so precious and dear) of others. I'd have zero problems donating the same proportion of my land that a nuclear facility would take up in other people's communities. Take this article from Green Left Weekly yesterday. quote:Locating the dump there, McKenzie told the Guardian in February, would be an attack on the traditional owners' belief system. and from here quote:Grant Chapman owns the long-term lease to Wallerberdina, a station near Barndioota in the Flinders Ranges about 40 kilometres north-west of Hawker, which is currently used to graze cattle Boo loving hoo. Australians constantly have their land resumed because society needs roads, trainlines etc. This is the equivalent to losing 4m^2 on a quarter acre block for a massive benefit to society. Hell given the money being thrown around, if it bothered me that much... I'd just buy somewhere else?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2016 09:20
|
|
|
I don't see radioactive storage as particularly worse than land resumed for a highway. They aren't even the owners in any case, just using religious fairy-tale hocus-pocus as the justification. I respect the Vatican because an enormous amount of manpower went into building it. I don't respect Ayers Rock as sacred because it's a big rock that got found.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2016 09:32
|
|
|
Tomberforce posted:Or, put another way 'I have absolutely no understanding whatsoever of indigenous culture and connection to land'. I think it's complete bullshit, yes. Belief systems are man-made and there is no reason they should be considered equal. I don't see why having the "oldest continuing culture in the world" is something to boast about when practically it resulted in a terrible quality of life for its practitioners.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2016 09:36
|
|
|
Frogmanv2 posted:Pretty sure that the indigenous owners of Australia were doing just fine before your ancestors came along and stole their land. Would you like to give up modern medicine, electricity, transportation, contraception etc? If your wife has problems in pregnancy, wouldn't you miss a trained professional with modern imaging gear? Also - I am honestly not trolling. The "Noble Savage" myth is just that. e: also that is another downside to their culture of "don't develop new technologies". The first time you meet a culture without that belief, you lose. Tomberforce posted:Have you ever spent time on country with an aboriginal person? No. I'm sure they were brought up to believe it's very special to them. Someone with the same genetics, brought up in a different culture, would not. LibertyCat fucked around with this message at 09:50 on Jun 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2016 09:47
|
|
|
DancingShade posted:If it's of such benefit to society why not stick it next to a major transport hub, like say Port Melbourne? With adequate security it wouldn't really bother me, but why use valuable land with a high population density when you could use some in the middle of nowhere with no-one (in comparison) nearby to whinge?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2016 09:52
|
|
|
Please quote where I said Property Rights are Absolute and can never be violated under any circumstance. I wouldn't be happy about losing some of my land for a trainline, but if society needed it (and I got compensated) I'd accept it as the price for living on a planet with other people. Just like when I drive on roads, I take advantage of land lost by other people previously. We are talking about a tiny portion of one station, and the co-owner of the property proposed the idea in the first place. The people whinging probably never set foot there until this came up. LibertyCat fucked around with this message at 10:05 on Jun 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2016 10:02
|
|
|
Zenithe posted:Goebells 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2016 09:10
|
|
|
The only sane way to judge a power source is on a per Joule produced metric. Deaths per Joule? Nuclear is safest by far. Land area required per Joule, even including the exclusion zones from nuclear disasters? Nuclear wins. Price per Joule? Nuclear wins. To be fair Solar Panels don't exactly wear out in a hurry. I'd worry more about the waste made during construction.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2016 12:48
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:RIP all those people burnt to a crisp by solar panels. People fall off roofs. Big deal you say? You have to put up a staggeringly large number of rooftop panels to rival a nuclear plant. The statistics have been done, solar kills more people than nuclear per unit of energy.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2016 13:11
|
|
|
Cartoon posted:* I'm a cautious pro-nuclear advocate. Go Lucas Heights! ANSTO 4ever! And if you didn't know, I hold a tertiary qualification in Science specialising in Quantum Physics. The sort of gung ho lets go nuke! advocates that sit on the pro camp sincerely make me want to flip sides. From the article I link previously I'm happy you hold such qualifications, but really don't see how they're that relevant. It's much like a non-cycling doctor who specializes in Head Injuries calling for mandatory bicycle helmets. They only see one very small side of the story but never hold back when their opinion is asked. When it comes to scaling up theory into something that benefits society at large you call in people with Engineering qualifications. If you want to make some ammonia you talk to a Chemist. If you want to profitably and safely make a thousand tonnes, you talk to a Chemical Engineer.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2016 11:18
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:thank you for your contribution friend Miranda or Tali fwiw
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2016 12:54
|
|
|
ScreamingLlama posted:This is scarily close to what crippled the Democrats in 2012. RebootD, as they called themselves, used some pretty lovely stealth tactics to try to dissolve the party and replace it with a functional copy controlled by them. They would have succeeded had the AEC not alerted the National President to membership data discrepancies (and he hadn't acted swiftly). Factional conflict on that scale could easily wreck the Young Liberals' poo poo if it's not quickly and forcefully contained. Wow, imagine what the Democrats would look like today had they succeeded. Really dodged a bullet there.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
I am pissed at Turnbull because David Leyonhjelm is my favorite senator (Mitch Fifield is #2) and the DD means we lose a great man. Thanks to the Senate changes the era of fun microparties is dead. On another note whose the hottest pollie this time round? Is it still the delightful Mrs Waters, or is there a new contender for the title?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 10:34
|
|
|
I don't really have a problem with "Insured against unintentional damage full-stop" because excluding flooding for instance is just gambling that you will ned this type of coverage but maybe not that type. The insurance companies are better at assesing that type of risk than you are. I guess excluding dangerous homebrew wiring, unsafe structural modifications etc means the fineprint never goes away. I still think people should be able to build deathtraps as long as they sign a contract that as adults they fully understand the risks and cannot hold anyone else liable, a warning on the front door lets visitors know the house is in that category (like Experimental Aircraft), and the deathtrap is not likely to take out neighbouring properties. RE David L: He has been active dealing with minorities who are likely to be pissed off at the nanny state. I'll scan some of his stuff from this month's Australian Shooter later tonight. It also features Ricky Muir and The Greens!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 10:45
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:lol, and where does this fit into his virulent racism against Muslims Muslim isn't a race, and I'd happily stop them coming into the country - at least from parts of the world where "beheading those who insult the Prophet" etc is a common belief. He's going to lose because the average Australian grew up in a nanny state & hates personal responsibility, loves banning things, and your poo poo party was complicit in killing democracy with the senate changes. e: You've also stopped good people like Ricky ever being elected ever again so congratulations there. LibertyCat fucked around with this message at 13:43 on Jun 9, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
Starshark posted:You need to update your troll sheets, no-one seriously thinks the hatred against Muslims isn't steeped in race. This phrase doesn't work any more. Someone having brown skin doesn't scare me. Someone who genuinely believes that unbelievers deserve to die (or at least won't fight to stop such deaths) does. We can respect the rights of Australians without bringing more people into the country who will help change our core beliefs for the worse. I bet most of your "racists" would be ok with <insert ethnic group> Christian Refugees. Is it really that difficult to believe it's possible to not like a group for their beliefs, instead of their DNA? AgentF posted:He's going to lose because the average Australian grew up with decent social services & hates underprivelege being treated like a personal failing, loves functioning government regulation, and your poo poo party was complicit in voters having control over where their votes actually end up. The Average Australian is like a bird that was raised in a cage, and when you open the door it doesn't know what to do so stays put. How any Australian could go overseas and not be shocked at the casual civic freedoms other countries enjoy without major problem, that we don't get, is beyond me.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
hah tbh I've bought my share of Auspol avatars but this wasn't me.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
GoldStandardConure posted:I have a bird that was raised in a cage. When you open the door, he flies out and just chills and does what he wants, and is pretty happy. Bird bird bird bird bird bird shitpost bird bird bird shitpost shitpost bird sleep wake eat bird bird. this an accurate representation of your day.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
GoldStandardConure posted:Yeah that about sums it up. Sometimes I skate. I used to shoot! Speaking of which I have a treat for you guys, as soon as my scanner finishes! 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
Greens and the ALP!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
yep these 2
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
Libs and some useless appendage and Pauline 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:It really is a boon that the flip side of libertarianism being really inherently appealing to stupid people is that libertarianism only has stupid people to spruik it. Thanks LibertyCat. This coming from the Greens candidate proudly sporting a Hammer & Sickle avatar. The Greens are screwed once people realize you stand for more than "gee I dunno trees and stuff I guess"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 10:28
|
|
|
it isn't me buying them, besides why would I replace the lovely anidavatar I already bought you.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 10:30
|
|
|
Please, if I bought you an angry av, I'd try to actually put a little effort into it. Give me more credit than that. Also ponies are so 2012. LibertyCat fucked around with this message at 10:51 on Jun 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 10:40
|
|
|
Major Party's Oh this av is glorious, ty.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
"LibertyCat is such a fuckwit for wanting a stop to Muslim Immigration, there is no culture of violence, what a paranoid dickhead" *worst massacre in US history is committed by a Muslim who literally telephones to say he's going it on behalf of the Islamic State* "Diversity is our strength! Letting these people into the country means we get more ethnic takeaways so it's totally worth it" At least this means Trump has a fighting chance.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 10:23
|
|
|
screaden posted:Wasn't that dude born in the US? Yeah, the pattern seems to be the kids are a larger problem than the first gen.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 10:40
|
|
|
I'm not a religious extremist and I have no desire to commit violence, don't have a problem with women and gay people, and I doubt I'd pass that religious hocus-pocus down to my kids, hope this allays your concerns Forums Poster solemn sloth. ^^ the victims do matter. Many surveys have shown the majority of Muslims aren't exactly accepting of the LGBTI community. If Islam grows in Australia and they carry that trait with them, it's bad times ahead if you're gay. Why the Left pretends Muslim immigration has no downsides is a mystery. I think Australian Liberty Alliance is now my #2 vote. LibertyCat fucked around with this message at 10:58 on Jun 13, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 10:54
|
|
|
Frogmanv2 posted:Yes, because the church is a shining beacon of all that is tenderness and compassion towards LGBTQI folk. You dense fuckstick.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 11:17
|
|
|
Cartoon posted:
A radical Muslim committed the attack in the name of ISIS. Radical Muslims have shot up a bunch of people in Australia. But sure let's ignore that and blame the gun, because those people would be less dead if he's thrown a few Molotov in through the window then blocked the door.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
It's easier to stop radical Muslim immigration than to make 300 million guns disappear. If the US had similar gun ownership rates to aus and they were registered than a ban is feasible. With that many, no chance. Oh yeah, NZ has AR15s (which are not assault rifles) as well and they aren't drowning in blood. LibertyCat fucked around with this message at 04:36 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
Sure, but "it will take an enormous amount of resources that would have a far larger benefit elsewhere" is.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:And most gun deaths aren't the result of terrorism, but that kind of thinking isn't going to Make America Great Again. Most are suicides. While messed up telling someone who has not been diagnosed with depression "you can't have this because you might kill yourself" is disgustingly nanny-state. Most gun homicides are with pistols but the media always blames the "AR-15 assault rifle" (when assault rifles haven't been used in spree shootings in decades). Again the problem is there are so many guns out there, and enough owners opposed to confiscation, that bans will never reduce the number of guns on US streets to a level that justifies the enforcment costs. Spending that money on fixing their messed-up healthcare system would have better results. Skellybones posted:LibertyCat I think you missed this earlier, regarding your claim that this was the worst massacre in US history I ignored it because it's a retarded comparison as you well know.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 12:51
|
|
|
ewe2 posted:Apparently AR-15's were illegal in the US between 1994 and 2004 but that's when the ban lapsed. I'm thinking that might change soon. Factually incorrect, but this isn't the place for the debate. TFR would be happy to enlighten you. Note an "Assault Weapon" (political term for scary black rifle) is different from an "Assault Rifle" (a specific technical term)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Except you're also incorrect. It was illegal in America between 1994 and 2004 to purchase AR-15s manufactured between those years. You could purchase earlier models, or AR-15s made without certain attachments though. This is not the same as "Apparently AR-15's were illegal in the US between 1994 and 2004". freebooter posted:I always thought it was the word "assault" (as opposed to "automatic") that the NRA had a problem with "Automatic Rifle" has a specific meaning - part of that meaning is it has a mode where if you hold the trigger down and it goes BANG BANG BANG. Automatic Rifles have not been used in US Civilian spree shootings in decades.. Demanding bans on them is pointless as they're already heavily restricted and have vanishingly small levels of violent crime. "Assault Rifle" is a specific term, it doesn't just mean "any rifle good for shooting people". There's a whole Wikipedia article on it. If it only goes BANG once when you pull the trigger it is not an assault rifle.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
This is getting pedantic, but the Assault Weapons Ban quote:restricted the manufacture, transfer, and possession of semi-automatic assault weapons except for: those already in lawful possession at the time of the law's enactment; So unlike the Australian model, if you already had one, it was grandfathered. quote:Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following: This is already idiotic. When was the last time a grenade launcher was used in a spree shooting? What about a bayonet? If you actually want to restrict the killing power of guns focus on magazine limits, power of the cartridge and rate of fire. The Australian model, for all its faults, was at least mostly competent (altho I'd judge the Gun License model did much more for crime than banning semi-autos). Anyway this is getting really boring so unless you can tie it into Australia somehow I'm gonna drop the subject.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 05:43 |
|
|
Skellybones posted:LibertyCat please address which, if any of the listed massacres count. A bunch of them involved swarthy or downright dusky victims so I understand if you don't want to consider them. I'd have thought, from the context of the discussion, it would be obvious I was talking about massacres committed by a single person in recent history. Frankly I don't give a poo poo what happened 100 years before I was born during a war. That's not the subject of the discussion and you know it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 16:21
|
|