|
The Peccadillo posted:it rules. Australia sucks at sketch so bad https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDn_1Xa2a_o
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 04:49 |
|
|
hooman posted:So recoombe do you want to send mediawatch the tip? Yeah, you won't see much till Monday I guess
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
The Micallef Program was excellent
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
This is a story out of the US, but I'd be interested in whether a similar thing happened here. Female circumcision in the US quote:In 1947, when I was just three years old a doctor removed my clitoris. Female genital mutilation is mostly associated with African cultures, and non-Christian religions, but my FGM happened in white, midwest America. It took place in a church clinic that used a scalpel on girls who masturbated. No sorry guys you see it's the dirty brown people who are evil! We white people are so pure and civilised.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
"Mister Speaker" is my favourite part of Australian politics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Recoome posted:This is a story out of the US, but I'd be interested in whether a similar thing happened here. Given that male circumcision was made hugely popular there for similar reasons, and our male circumcision rates are far lower, I'd guess this wouldn't have happened here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
quote:http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-04/financial-abortion-men-opt-out-parenthood/8049576 ABC trying to win back some
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
That grates on me. I'm in the camp of thinking that if you're equipped with a penis, you know that sometimes it shoots semen out of itself when handled the right way, and if a lady's present that can sometimes mean that a baby may be on the way. It's not 'punishing' guys to say, "Hey, you're cognizant of how this process works, you're cognizant that contraceptive options aren't 100% effective, and so there is one _guaranteed_ method for not having an unwanted pregnancy that you are entirely capable of committing to, if you feel that strongly about not becoming a father." That's not punishment, to expect that men know this. I think you'd have to dig really deep to come up with an example of a father who was unaware of any of those steps. Guys literally have the deciding vote in making any pregnancy take place, wanted or unwanted. If it's a punishment to be responsible for the consequences of your actions, there's an overwhelmingly effective method for making yourself completely immune to ever having to deal with that consequence. I just don't see a defensible way to say "Well, I was absolutely dead-set against having kids, I told my partner/s that, and then I continued putting my penis into the place where there was a non-zero probability of ending up with this consequence I was absolutely dead-set against." That simply _isn't_ a punishment, it's a reflection that biology doesn't actually give a poo poo about your stated opinion no matter whether you sign it into some legally binding declaration or not. There is an option out there that you're deliberately refusing to choose, for whatever reason. That's on you. None of us are under any illusions why you're not making that choice, but equally, none of us are under the illusion that contraceptives are a solid 100% guarantee. We're adults, here. If you don't want kids, time to commit to that option, even if you don't really want to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
Vasectomy - Technology that no longer exists. Yes it isn't 100% effective but even 'abstinence' has resulted in non insertion pregnancy events. Only 100% option? Kill yourself
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
Well if students have to take out loans to pay for their education then babies should have to take out loans to pay for their upbringing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
Paging anime dave, where you at the rally in Brisbane today?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
I honestly don't think a biological parent should have to pay for their children if they don't want them. They should be able to disown a child and lose all the rights and responsibilities of being that child's parent. If you think about it the argument Vindicator used above for making a man pay for a child he didn't want could be used as arguments against a woman from having an abortion. And no it's not at all the same burden, I'm referring purely to the argument. If a woman gets pregnant, well she knew that putting a penis in her vagina could result in this, so she can't complain about being pregnant and not being able to get an abortion because she knew what she was getting into. Don't want to get pregnant? Don't have sex. Simple. Of course this is bullshit because aborting a fetus is not killing a life so there's no reason not to if the woman also sees it that way. But neither is there any reason why a guy can't just walk away. Kids grow up into the life they get, and we as a society have decided they largely get to cop whatever life throws at them. If we genuinely want to secure our children's future then the government should provide for their welfare, not try to ensure the child gets the money they were apportioned by who their parents are. They won't of course because that would require compassion and child support queens are already a meme. Although if you could raise the birth rate with that maybe you could convince the anti-immigrants to back it. Also this is not something that comes from my fears of having kids, or misogyny, or MRA, or whatever else; it's an opinion I formed from my mother talking about how my biological father never paid child support but she preferred to just never deal with him than to get what was owed to us by judge fiat. I'm pretty glad my mum didn't need that money to raise me after the divorce. Other kids and single mothers should have that same luxury. Chasing down a guy who does not want to be a father to the child to get money he does not want to pay is kinda bullshit for all parties. EDIT: Should add I only think a financial abortion is cool if the government actually compensates the mother. Just leaving a single parent+kid with no payment is pretty lovely. And if no financial abortion is allowed, the government should pay the single mother, and then charge the father for the money. Expecting 2 people who split up to have to co-ordinate payments is kinda stupid. Futuresight fucked around with this message at 06:02 on Dec 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
That's covering a lot of ground, and the abortion = killing argument is way off topic, but the child support issue is solvable. It should be pursued in the same way tax evasion is pursued. Women shouldn't have to fight to get it because it should be paid by the government, who should then chase up the father to recover the child support plus any additional costs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
Yeah it's a very loaded and divisive topic so I was trying to cover a lot of arguments I might get.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:When it comes to TV, though, what do we make that is legitimately good? I mean critically acclaimed and well-known. Bonus points if it doesn't go after its ideas and/or politically allegories in an incredibly hamfisted way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:Has Frontline been said yet? Frontline is timeless art and anyone who hasn't seen it really should. It completely deconstructs the very idea of an impartial and professional media and does so completely politically agnostically. The only person who could get offended by that show is probably Ray Martin. I hope he had enough of a sense of humor to take it in good spirits though. Oh another good show - The Games. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdXJJ7DYgRU It's Xmas so go buy the box set for someone https://shop.abc.net.au/products/the-games-the-complete-box-set-4dvd DancingShade fucked around with this message at 07:34 on Dec 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 07:31
|
|
|
I only got around to watching Rake this year but it's brilliant.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 11:13
|
|
|
Katering show.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 11:47
|
|
|
Zenithe posted:Katering show. Too good for TV.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 11:55
|
|
|
freebooter posted:I only got around to watching Rake this year but it's brilliant. Need some cal McGregor avs in here imo
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 11:56
|
|
|
Zenithe posted:Kattering show. Featuring Bob walking backwards for 2 consecutive weeks. Aesculus fucked around with this message at 12:19 on Dec 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 12:17
|
|
|
Well guys you can pack it in because the people who are behind the Independent Jewish Council of Australia are very really clearly neo nazis, lol. Any mainstream news source which has repeated this without verification are now involved in disseminating neo-nazi propaganda
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 12:19
|
|
|
So the Danby connection is their idea of a joke, got ya. It's all a bit juvenile.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 12:50
|
|
|
Best bet for publicising it would probably be to send it to the office of noted shitheel Michael Danby
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
Recoome posted:Well guys you can pack it in because the people who are behind the Independent Jewish Council of Australia are very really clearly neo nazis, lol. Wow what the gently caress... Why the gently caress is buzzfeed and somethingawful.com now good sources of loving journalism? Jesus christ.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
Higsian posted:If you think about it the argument Vindicator used above for making a man pay for a child he didn't want could be used as arguments against a woman from having an abortion. And no it's not at all the same burden, I'm referring purely to the argument. If a woman gets pregnant, well she knew that putting a penis in her vagina could result in this, so she can't complain about being pregnant and not being able to get an abortion because she knew what she was getting into. The difference is that you have to pretend abortion doesn't exist or isn't available to make your argument that the same could be said for women. That's all very well, except abortion does exist, so women have the capacity to decide to keep or not keep the child, and to act on that decision. I mean, if your position is "Well, what if we suddenly decided as a nation to go all fundie and severely restrict abortion services, then women'd be in the same boat", then you're pretty clearly moved to a theoretical and highly unlikely alternate starting position. It's not the same because women's autonomy gives them the ability to act to end an unwanted pregnancy. Men's autonomy gives them the ability to act to prevent the _possibility_ of an unwanted pregnancy, not the pregnancy that has eventuated from past action.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
abortion can be a pretty traumatic experience
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
break-up breakdown posted:abortion can be a pretty traumatic experience Mlyp
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
hooman posted:Wow what the gently caress... That's how far traditional media have fallen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Auspol is pretty good on news. Every election some sort of dragon awakens and does crazy investigative journalism. With such hits as: Tony Abbott's botnet, Bill Glassons sweatshop campaign and all the times the ABC and News.com.ay you! Have screenshot posts from here as actual citations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
Apparently the "green army" is being dumped with savings of $350m with $100m of that paying for the greens landcare funding deal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
norp posted:Apparently the "green army" is being dumped with savings of $350m with $100m of that paying for the greens landcare funding deal. This is like, a better outcome every way isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
How are kids going to learn the value of a hard day's work now?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
open24hours posted:How are kids going to learn the value of a hard day's work now? WftD.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
Zenithe posted:This is like, a better outcome every way isn't it? AFR today pointed out that the funding that went to the green army was largely pulled from the Landcare funding. At the 2014 budget Landcare lost about $460m, so restoring $100m back still leaves them down by three quarters of what was originally removed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
Politics 101 is acting like you're kingdom come for giving back money that had been taken away. The Greens are just as entitled as any other party to claim that victory of negotiation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
open24hours posted:How are kids going to learn the value of a hard day's work now? Violent revolution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
So this is a slight bleedover from USpol stuff, but looks like protesting is actually good and works. I really important thing here is that the media coverage in the US is generally pretty poo poo and favours the law enforcement perspective.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
One of my sister-in-laws works in managing part of the green army. I hope she doesn't lose her job. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 04:49 |
|
|
norp posted:Apparently the "green army" is being dumped with savings of $350m with $100m of that paying for the greens landcare funding deal. Les Affaires posted:AFR today pointed out that the funding that went to the green army was largely pulled from the Landcare funding. At the 2014 budget Landcare lost about $460m, so restoring $100m back still leaves them down by three quarters of what was originally removed. Hahahah oh loving course it is. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 01:25
|
|