3 minutes ago, Jara said:

Yeah, you're right - not worth trying to get through the paywall - Mundine's a Liberal Party stooge - I liked the quote from his second ex-wife: "He sold out his people and his family."  Onto his third now. Real poster boy for those good old conservative family values.

so your response is an ad hominen attack, rather than discuss or debate the statistics he quotes and his conclusions

sounds about right

3 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

thought you guys knew how to get around paywalls

i'd cut and paste it except it's against 'land's rules despite the fact all the major media operatives plagiarise all the time

I don't like you, daisy, you are nought but a cynical sniper. I have never read anything from you other than smart-ar.e snipes. 

2 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

so your response is an ad hominen attack, rather than discuss or debate the statistics he quotes and his conclusions

sounds about right

Quid Pro Quo, Il Signor Ad Hominem. Where are your statistics and 'facts'?

2 minutes ago, dieter said:

I don't like you, daisy, you are nought but a cynical sniper. I have never read anything from you other than smart-ar.e snipes. 

i'll pray for you dieter (in an atheist fashion that is)

11 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i'll pray for you dieter (in an atheist fashion that is)

Stick your prayers up your khyber farce.

33 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

so your response is an ad hominen attack, rather than discuss or debate the statistics he quotes and his conclusions

sounds about right

nah - seen plenty of Mundine's garbage - don't want to pay to read more of it - ad hominem will do for now (remember reading a hilarious article by him just before the last election, when negative gearing was an issue, he said how good it was for Aboriginal people  - article didn't make any sense at all - I read it and thought - er what?  i wonder what percentage of Aboriginal people are in a position to take advantage of a tax avoidance scheme like that?) 

Sorry - ad hominem's all he gets from me. Read his bio on Wikipedia - if ever there was a hominem that deserves an ad, it's him. Boasting about how, when he was President of the ALP,  he was pulling the chicks, even though he was overweight. Weird.

 Even if I could get through the paywall, I suspect all I'd find's a Liberal party pamphlet. If you can find me something by Gary Foley, I'll read that - there's a man who fights for his people.  

9 hours ago, Jara said:

nah - seen plenty of Mundine's garbage - don't want to pay to read more of it - ad hominem will do for now (remember reading a hilarious article by him just before the last election, when negative gearing was an issue, he said how good it was for Aboriginal people  - article didn't make any sense at all - I read it and thought - er what?  i wonder what percentage of Aboriginal people are in a position to take advantage of a tax avoidance scheme like that?) 

Sorry - ad hominem's all he gets from me. Read his bio on Wikipedia - if ever there was a hominem that deserves an ad, it's him. Boasting about how, when he was President of the ALP,  he was pulling the chicks, even though he was overweight. Weird.

 Even if I could get through the paywall, I suspect all I'd find's a Liberal party pamphlet. If you can find me something by Gary Foley, I'll read that - there's a man who fights for his people.  

you disappoint me jara. i was more interested in the statistics he quotes rather than his personal philosophies or lifestyle. your response is just a cop-out and your excuses about the paywall are not convincing. it is easy to get around. 

 

to avoid paywall:

go to google

paste : australia-will-pay-for-renewable-energy-targets

click first non-sponsored link

read article

?????

profit

11 hours ago, daisycutter said:

so your response is an ad hominen attack, rather than discuss or debate the statistics he quotes and his conclusions

sounds about right

Hey Daisy - I was half asleep when I saw your post - but Dieter's right - you criticise somebody for writing an ad hominem attack - in an ad hominem attack!

 

Wonderful!

2 hours ago, daisycutter said:

you disappoint me jara. i was more interested in the statistics he quotes rather than his personal philosophies or lifestyle. your response is just a cop-out and your excuses about the paywall are not convincing. it is easy to get around. 

 

Hey Daisy - sorry, haven't replied properly -  busy with work, family, etc. 

 

Read this - good comment on the Finkel report:

 https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/category/the-facts

49 minutes ago, Jara said:

Hey Daisy - I was half asleep when I saw your post - but Dieter's right - you criticise somebody for writing an ad hominem attack - in an ad hominem attack!

 

Wonderful!

I love Demonland.

I can now work Godwin's Law and Ad Hominem into conversations.

 

1 hour ago, Jara said:

Hey Daisy - I was half asleep when I saw your post - but Dieter's right - you criticise somebody for writing an ad hominem attack - in an ad hominem attack!

 

Wonderful!

oh please!

nice to see you have adopted a new role model. good luck with that one - LOL

12 hours ago, Jara said:

nah - seen plenty of Mundine's garbage - don't want to pay to read more of it - ad hominem will do for now (remember reading a hilarious article by him just before the last election, when negative gearing was an issue, he said how good it was for Aboriginal people  - article didn't make any sense at all - I read it and thought - er what?  i wonder what percentage of Aboriginal people are in a position to take advantage of a tax avoidance scheme like that?) 

Sorry - ad hominem's all he gets from me. Read his bio on Wikipedia - if ever there was a hominem that deserves an ad, it's him. Boasting about how, when he was President of the ALP,  he was pulling the chicks, even though he was overweight. Weird.

 Even if I could get through the paywall, I suspect all I'd find's a Liberal party pamphlet. If you can find me something by Gary Foley, I'll read that - there's a man who fights for his people.  

I just don't get it. There are plenty of writers from the left I think write ridiculous pieces but I always have the ability to pick them apart because they are poor arguments. The left seem to rubbish an article because of the author even though they can't / don't / won't actually argue the facts in the article.

The classic one is Andrew Bolt. I don't agree with lots of what he writes. I also have no expertise in gardening, opera and other topics he covers. But the lefties shout Andrew Bolt in ignorance as if they have just won the argument because their own echo chamber dislike him. Please say what Andrew Bolt said that you disagree with. Maybe he is a [censored] gardiner, I don't know, when the left say  "but Andrew Bolt" as some kind of argument it carries no weight. Just as attacking the author carries no weight if you don't counter their argument.

1 hour ago, nutbean said:

I love Demonland.

I can now work Godwin's Law and Ad Hominem into conversations.

 

Hey Hitler you suck!

Has anyone got them in the same sentence before?

20 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

I just don't get it. There are plenty of writers from the left I think write ridiculous pieces but I always have the ability to pick them apart because they are poor arguments. The left seem to rubbish an article because of the author even though they can't / don't / won't actually argue the facts in the article.

The classic one is Andrew Bolt. I don't agree with lots of what he writes. I also have no expertise in gardening, opera and other topics he covers. But the lefties shout Andrew Bolt in ignorance as if they have just won the argument because their own echo chamber dislike him. Please say what Andrew Bolt said that you disagree with. Maybe he is a [censored] gardiner, I don't know, when the left say  "but Andrew Bolt" as some kind of argument it carries no weight. Just as attacking the author carries no weight if you don't counter their argument.

Tell you what - I'll see you and I'll raise you - I just posted a fact sheet from the Climate Council - you write a cogent response to its arguments (maybe the Five Questions they most commonly get asked?) and I'll respond to the Mundine one (haven't actually got round to reading it yet - am busy with real work - but if it's by Tony Abbot's love-child, I suspect it'll be the usual stuff: an emissions trading scheme or anything like it will cost too much, and what difference can little Australia make, the big polluters are China, America, etc, and climate change is a hoax anyway. 

26 minutes ago, Jara said:

Tell you what - I'll see you and I'll raise you - I just posted a fact sheet from the Climate Council - you write a cogent response to its arguments and I'll respond to the Mundine one (haven't actually got round to reading it yet - am busy with real work - but if it's by Tony Abbot's love-child, I suspect it'll be the usual stuff: an emissions trading scheme or anything like it will cost too much, and what difference can little Australia make, the big polluters are China, America, etc, and climate change is a hoax anyway. 

I'll respond to the Climate Council stuff. Can you link to it? Not sure where it was posted. Without having seen it I can honestly say it will be a piece of cake because the facts just don't favour the alarmist side. 

I don't request that you respond to the Mundine article in reply, I didn't post it. Nor do I claim to embrace the argument. It just seems stereotypical of the left to me, that that you rubbish the author without addressing the content.

Sometimes in rubbishing the author, you're rubbishing the argument (Wilde was rather good at that)

 

Here's the link  https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/category/the-facts

 

Don't bother refuting it if you can't be bothered - I was just trying to demonstrate what a waste of time it is trying to respond to an article like the Mundine one when all I'd be doing is preaching to the choir or to people who wouldn't believe what I was saying anyway (ie a total audience of about 3) , Better things to do with my time.

On 6/21/2017 at 3:57 PM, Jara said:

Sometimes in rubbishing the author, you're rubbishing the argument (Wilde was rather good at that)

 

Here's the link  https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/category/the-facts

 

Don't bother refuting it if you can't be bothered - I was just trying to demonstrate what a waste of time it is trying to respond to an article like the Mundine one when all I'd be doing is preaching to the choir or to people who wouldn't believe what I was saying anyway (ie a total audience of about 3) , Better things to do with my time.

Which article am i supposed to be reading once i click on the link?

Hi Wrecker - sorry, it's a complicated site - I don't want you to bother unless you feel like it - I also don't want to get into an argument  - (well, not with you, anyway - you're too clever - wouldn't mind one with Pro)

 

The Mundine article (which I did finally get around to reading) was mainly talking about the costs of alternative energy, the cheapness of coal, etc - I gather it was a response to the Finkel report (it didn't, of course, say anything about the cost of doing nothing)

 

On the Climate Council link there's their own response to Finkel  - 10 Basic Electricity Facts, I think - why don't you have a look at those? Tell me if you disagree with them.

 

I should say I put more faith in The Climate Council than Mundine - everything they say seems to be backed up by peer-reviewed research. 

 

I originally threw in this challenge (I think)  because you were saying how easy it was for you to pull apart the arguments of those concerned about climate change (I personally find it very difficult to refute something like the Mundine article - takes a fair bit of time, and I'm very busy) (I'm tempted to say his writing has improved since he became Gerard Henderson's son-in-law, but I suppose Daisy would say I'm being ad hominem again   )

On 22/06/2017 at 11:13 PM, Jara said:

Hi Wrecker - sorry, it's a complicated site - I don't want you to bother unless you feel like it - I also don't want to get into an argument  - (well, not with you, anyway - you're too clever - wouldn't mind one with Pro)

Ha,flattery can't excuse you from a poor argument. Prodee can argue for himself just fine,but I feel embarrassed to be associated with him. He is one of the great football contributors to demonland.

I love a bit of political banter on this site. You and choke provide the left wing argument. I like it. Some of your mates are hopeless. 

 

But I wasn't asking to be forgiven for a poor argument - I've put up a few good ones on this thread (and, alas, a few dodgy ones - I do tend to shoot from the hip when I'm tired or rushing to respond while trying to do a million other things) but you do occasionally make me question my blasé assumptions, which is worthwhile.

I don't know that I'd call myself left-wing these days. Sounds a bit French Revolutionish - that's over now, we won that one (Zhou En Lai may beg to differ).  

There is little to gain from viewing or aligning oneself with the left/ right wing dichotomy in a post Industrial society .

There are arguements that make sense.Then there are the others.

Census figures show Melbournes population has risen by 45% in a decade.

45% in one decade.

I'm absolutely staggered .

How do you like these ideas?

No contraceptive/ family planning- no govt benefits.

A freeze on permanent migration.

Compulsory national service for overseas born immigrants.(2 years).Aged under 40.

Zero marriage visas.

Zero permanent reunification visas.

Voluntary Euthenasia,offered to life prisoners.

Reintoduce death penalty  for treason,espionage,massive tax fraud,murder,terrorism.

3 child limit for all.

 

Hey B - I'm staggered by population growth as well - gives the bosses a pool of slaves to choose from and keeps wages down. Dunno about a lot of your suggestions, but I'd support a dramatic reduction in migration.

 

I'm all for being harder on terrorists, but can't come at the death penalty.

 

 

1 hour ago, Biffen said:

There is little to gain from viewing or aligning oneself with the left/ right wing dichotomy in a post Industrial society .

There are arguements that make sense.Then there are the others.

Census figures show Melbournes population has risen by 45% in a decade.

45% in one decade.

I'm absolutely staggered .

How do you like these ideas?

 

I'll take a stab in the interests of trying not to align with the dichotomy you mention.

No contraceptive/ family planning- no govt benefits.

Not sure how this would work? I get what it's trying to achieve, but really unsure of how any scheme like this would be implemented. I understand there are a lot of people who we look at and think that they shouldn't have kids. I share that view. However, a scheme like this to me is a human rights issue. Everyone currently has the right to reproduce. Do we really want to take that away from some people and grant it to others? Feels like a slippery slope to eugenics. Besides that, I'm not a fan of the government removing rights from its citizens.

A freeze on permanent migration.

Nope. Without migration we miss out on too many opportunities. Happy to reduce overall intake though to slow the overall rate of growth, but cutting it out entirely risks stagnating society IMO. Also would not support a ban on some countries and allowing migration from others. Overall scaled reduction ok.

Compulsory national service for overseas born immigrants.(2 years).Aged under 40.

Sure. Happy for this to be extended to society at large as well, depending on the definition of national service. TBH I think it's a joke that someone at the age of 18 has to chose their career path. Give them 2 years doing something that benefits society - drought/flood relief, aged care, whatever. Would also give new migrants an easier way to integrate into society. Having said that, it'd have to be paid, otherwise a new migrant family wouldn't be able to support itself.

Also if my wife, who was born overseas and is under aged 40, was required to quit her job tomorrow and work for the national service, our entire family budget goes out the window. We can't pay the bills on my wage alone, and the current flexible working hours allow her to be a mother to two kids under 5. So not sure how this would operate as well. However, if the compensation and benefits for individuals in this position matches their current pay and working conditions, I see no reason why she shouldn't do it for 2 years. Her current job would have to be held for her though.

Then what about migrant high income earners? Would we pay them $300,000 a year to leave their jobs and go do national service? Seems a waste to pay them that rate when in the private sector they were paying large amounts of tax. And don't say that's outlandish or unrealistic, my mother is/was in this position when she was under 40 (born overseas, high income earner). Much more valuable for her to be paying tax.

Then there'd be an outflow of labour from the market. In one wack a bunch of people would be doing national service, and not their jobs. My wife works in a biotech lab, there are many many people in this bucket. The place simply would not operate if you took out all the migrants. Lots of nurses are born overseas too, this would put a strain on hospitals. Maybe some professions, like nursing, could actually count towards the national service requirement? I dunno.

Can of worms here, I agree on the theory but the implementation may be problematic. Maybe only apply the rule to new migrants and not make it retroactive? Possible exemptions for highly skilled migrants who can go to work in fields we have shortages of? Not sure.

Zero marriage visas.

Nope. Happy for people here to fall in love overseas (or with a visitor) and bring their partners over. Extend marriage Visas to same sex couples as well.

Zero permanent reunification visas.

Don't know what these are sorry.

Voluntary Euthenasia,offered to life prisoners.

Ok with this. Also extend the option to society at large, it's ridiculous the pain some people have to live in.

Reintoduce death penalty  for treason,espionage,massive tax fraud,murder,terrorism.

Not a fan of state sanctioned killing in any form. The voluntary euthanasia above is as close to that line as I'm comfortable with.

Support harsher sentences for these though, whilst reducing sentences for stupid stuff like weed use - ends up clogging up prisons with minor offenders.

3 child limit for all.

Average family size is like 2.1 kids now anyway. I see no need to place limits on family sizes.

7 hours ago, Jara said:

Hey B - I'm staggered by population growth as well - gives the bosses a pool of slaves to choose from and keeps wages down. Dunno about a lot of your suggestions, but I'd support a dramatic reduction in migration.

 

 

 

 

Interesting. I don't have the the breakdown but think that increased population growth leading to a pool of slaves is a very slanted way of looking at it.

I'm guessing unskilled immigrants from more disadvantaged countries would find the wages a massive step up to what they are used to. Yes it is a boon for bosses but again I think capitalism makes the rich get richer but drags the poor out of poverty at the same time.

Any skilled migration that is meeting a need can only be good for our society.

Population growth scares me because of the effect it is having on our culture and crime not because it could be making bosses rich.