Australian politics.

[Dewy]

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/fede...03-1mxxjp.html

It's not surprising the DMO's advice was for ASC to build the new submarines, you just have to pay attention to all the ex-submariners who have some sort of public profile. Nor is it particularly surprising that the government proceeded to ignore that advice. Abbott's an expert in everything don't you know? At least it hopefully puts to bed the Australian's userbase whom always suggest the RAN and Defence don't want ASC to build the new submarines or indeed they didn't want the Collins class. Which is highly silly as the submariners pushed for Australian built submarines and Defence selected the Collins Class. Unlike Abbott's captain's pick for Japan.

Even better equating Aborigines with animals so they didn't have any right. Or are you saying you also don't have any right to own property? So everyone can simply take your property?

All humans are animals, isn't science a strong part of your country's education system? Before you avoid my question again, I would like to know what gives human's more right to land than other animals?

Does Australia ask?

Do we need to? You seem to be adamant that Abbott should apologise.

[Ak1980]

All humans are animals, isn't science a strong part of your country's education system? Before you avoid my question again, I would like to know what gives human's more right to land than other animals?

Society, government, religion, law, norm, empathy, etc take your choice. If you want to think you deserve no better right than animal go ahead, but why forcing your belief on other people?

Do we need to? You seem to be adamant that Abbott should apologise.

Ask yourself?

[Genius of the Restoration]

I'm with Ak1980 on the human rights thing. It's reductionist to the extreme to equate a human taking from another human as being the same as a human taking from other "fauna and flora". Maybe those trees are really very sad, but once you say a human has the same moral weight as a Eucalypt, you've lost me.

[Simon Cashmere]

I don't care if another country operates their judicial system with capital punishment long as it is not the one I live in.

I've got no problem with the death penalty for some crimes, but not drugs. If someone is carrying a nuke or a dirty bomb into the subway - I want them executed, not doing lifetime prison dawah at our expense. People who abuse children, serial killers - they never get any better. People who commit treason of any kind. Killing them, no problem with. Many do not know, that the death penalty was still on the books Federally in Australia until 2003, even if, nobody had been sentenced for a very long time (if ever) and policy was that no one had been for decades.

As for these two people in particular - the Federal government beyond quietly asking for mercy, should not have devoted the resources and time it did for them. As for the Federal Police, forget about telling the Indonesians, they would help you get to Indonesia - because then you are someone else's problem. They also have to work with death penalty states because of terror problems.

[Dewy]

Society, government, religion, law, norm, empathy, etc take your choice.

So human constructs (most of which bar religion other animals have in some form anyway) give humans more right to land? Well that's a exercise in pointlessness isn't it? You could of just said humans have more right to land because they're humans, would of meant the same thing. The only thing that isn't a human construct is empathy and animals have that as well. So you're not doing particularly well in explaining your point of view are you?

If you want to think you deserve no better right than animal go ahead, but why forcing your belief on other people?

You might want to stick to what I say rather than using petty strawmans.

Ask yourself?

Ask myself what?

I'm with Ak1980 on the human rights thing.

We're not talking about human rights.

It's reductionist to the extreme to equate a human taking from another human as being the same as a human taking from other "fauna and flora".

From my understanding of reductionism you've used that term incorrectly. Nor did I say it was the same thing, nor do I even think that. I'm a software engineer, we're pedantic to the extreme, do you really think I'll think in such fuzzy terms (unless we're talking about soft computing then I would)? I would simply like a valid answer as to why humans have more right to land than other animals from AK preferably.

I haven't stated my opinion on the matter so it will be pointless to restate your misguided assumptions about my beliefs as fact. And yes I do believe we have more rights to land than other animals, but I'm not about to start begging the question by saying because we're human. Trust me this will eventually relate to AK's original statement, hopefully if I get a well thought out answer from AK

Maybe those trees are really very sad, but once you say a human has the same moral weight as a Eucalypt, you've lost me.

I don't see why the human construct of morality which is completely subjective and different between people has anything to do with trees or with what I said.

[Ak1980]

So human constructs (most of which bar religion other animals have in some form anyway) give humans more right to land? Well that's a exercise in pointlessness isn't it? You could of just said humans have more right to land because they're humans, would of meant the same thing. The only thing that isn't a human construct is empathy and animals have that as well. So you're not doing particularly well in explaining your point of view are you?

You might want to stick to what I say rather than using petty strawmans.

Ask myself what?

Using strawman? I think i already give my reason, if you are not satisfied with my answer, that's a different matter.

If you want to put it that way, it's up to you. But until now i don't know any animal that can create similar construct that as complex as a human construct and that's already enough proof that both are not equal. Beside you are the one who is saying all human is an animal, therefore human should only have equal right with the animal or not have any importance over other living things?

For me human will never be simply animal, for example i will never agree to slaughterhouse / abattoir for human but at the same time i have no problem with slaughterhouse for cow.

What gives humans more "rights" to land than other animals? We're animals after all and I'm not one who believes we have any inherit importance over other living things.

And yes I do believe we have more rights to land than other animals, but I'm not about to start begging the question by saying because we're human. Trust me this will eventually relate to AK's original statement, hopefully if I get a well thought out answer from AK

Any explanation?

We can talk in circles for forever while you are waiting for well thought out answer from me. The language barrier is a real thing for me now, working to save enough money so I have the option immigrate to Singapore, USA or maybe Australia already takes its toll to my language skill

[Genius of the Restoration]

We're not talking about human rights.

Sure we are. You said that Aborigines "took the land from the fauna and flora that already lived there and proceeded to quite quickly kill off Australia's mega fauna and other fauna and large amounts of flora". A widely recognised human right is the right to property. It's article 17 of the UDHR for instance. Taking from a human isn't the same as taking from a tree. Humans have a right to property and a flower doesn't. I don't understand why you want to play Ak1980's argument out by trying to get him to say something. Can you spell it out for slow me? What's the connection you're trying to get him to make?

[classical_hero]

I do love the hypocricy of the unions how when they were complaining about work choices leaving workers worse off, they were actively signing off deals that made workers worse off. Unions once were about workers rights but now they are simply for their own power. That is why i never want to be part of a union.

[Genius of the Restoration]

Yes, all unions are simply in it for their own power. They don't do anything for workers anymore. What an astute evaluation of that simple truth that 'evidence of corruption' = 'universal practice'.

God politics is awful at the moment. The status quo of trying terrorists in Australia is apparently "rolling out the red carpet" for them says Abbott. So instead we should give absolute power to revoke citizenship to Peter Goddamn Dutton. Moronic stuff.

And then there's Greg Hunt, the minister for denial, trying to lure crossbenchers to support him by offering to create a National Wind Farm Commissioner and an independent scientific body to advise him on the environmental and health effects of 'infrasound'. This on top of John Madigan, the protectionist fool, has released an interim report from the pointless senate inquiry recommending the establishment of an ombudsman (!) and a levy on wind farms to fund this.

Quackery everywhere.

[SLN445]

Coal is good but Wind power is evil, they are a blight on the landscape unlike our gorgeous coal power plants.

[Dr Zoidberg]

God politics is awful at the moment.

Quackery everywhere.

You're not wrong.

Both the major parties are utter disappointments.

[SLN445]

Has Shorten shot himself in the foot? Seems to be a lot of infighting atm with the whole Boat Policy issue.

[Dr Zoidberg]

Possibly, but the fact that they passed the policy at the National Conference should be the end of it. If they're smart, those who are against the policy will now shut up and get behind it and wait until they're next in Government before raising it for discussion. Adopting the policy removes it as a wedge issue for the LNP to use in the next election.

[Genius of the Restoration]

Yeah. It has wide public support. Not much to lose electorally by choosing that policy because Australians still think that the government is too soft on refugees. I think that just shows how dumb Australians are when it come to this subject. Anyone turned off by the policy is likely going to vote Greens or other anyway if the issue would determine their vote.

The move makes sense for Shorten though.

[Dr Zoidberg]

Oh, I don't agree with the policy; but I can understand why Shorten has gone for it from a political perspective. The looking to turn dealing with Climate Change into a key issue is interesting. Be prepared for "Great Big New Tax" Mk II coming to an election campaign near you!

In other news, how long do people thing Bishop can survive as Speaker if this expenses scandal continues?

[SLN445]

I'm surprised she hasn't gone down already.

The more i think about Climate change and other things in that realm of Australian Politics the more depressed at how backwards we are going.

[Cyclops]

I'm surprised she hasn't gone down already.

The more i think about Climate change and other things in that realm of Australian Politics the more depressed at how backwards we are going.

Labour has gotten very corrupt, they hardly resemble the crusading ideologues of the Curtin era-that's the Greens these days. With the main parties its one lot of compromised power seekers or the other. If its not Craig Thompson its Bronwyn Bishop.

This boats policy is just a racist shibboleth, people have an irrational fear of boats. There's nothing intrinsically evil about boats, its the asylum seekers in them that people don't like. Interestingly no ones talking about the asylum seekers coming in through the education system, no one wants to rock that boat, its worth too much money.

[Tinfoil hat] I think the atmosphere of racism both parties emit on these issues has leaked into this stupid footy booing nonsense. Not all aboriginal players get booed, but if they fake for frees or belt someone suddenly there's a cascade of boos as the cowardly racists come out of the woodwork [/tinfoil hat].

[Genius of the Restoration]

Thar she blows!

[Niles Crane]

Poor Bronwyn. I do think everyone went a bit far with the whole affair, especially the media.

[Dr Zoidberg]

Poor Bronwyn. I do think everyone went a bit far with the whole affair, especially the media.

You're kidding. The women has spent hundreds of thousands of tax payers' dollars on travel well outside anything appropriate, and it's the media which went to far?