Play Nice Random Chat Thread: Episode III

[Orange Peanut]

Hope Palmer pulls through. He lost the plot at the trots a couple of nights ago and threw his shoe on the track as the horses ran past. Now he's fighting for his life.
Extremely glad to hear his passenger is ok. If he makes it through, it's going to be a long road back. Good luck to him.

 

[giantroo]

Hope Palmer pulls through. He lost the plot at the trots a couple of nights ago and threw his shoe on the track as the horses ran past. Now he's fighting for his life.
Extremely glad to hear his passenger is ok. If he makes it through, it's going to be a long road back. Good luck to him.

 

[giantroo]

 

[Orange Peanut]

Oh shit that's really worrying.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Doesn't look good.

 

[Gameova_]

Life is so fragile. Hope he pulls through.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Life is so fragile. Hope he pulls through.

Motorbikes tend to ram that point home very forcefully mate.

 

[Val Keating]

Hang on Rhys

 

[Gameova_]

Motorbikes tend to ram that point home very forcefully mate.

I’ve only gone on a motorbike once as a passenger in the Middle East. 30 min ride and we almost had a few accidents. They are so dangerous.

 

[giantroo]

Motorbikes tend to ram that point home very forcefully mate.

My cousin had a motorbike accident a few months back. Got clipped by a car which sent him flying 12 metres away. Luckily he got away with two broken arms and lacerations all over his body.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I used to love riding bikes, but there's too many idiots in cars, and I push my luck on the things to start with.

A mate of mine in his mid 30's ended up in a wheelchair for life early last year. The odds are just plain bad for motorbikes.

 

[Tas]

I simply made the point that I could swap a few words around and do something similar with an individual that is very similar in many ways. I knew TOD wouldn't touch that with a 40 foot pole. I did it my self to prove the point. Not only did I highlight that AOC and Owens are very similar (just opposing sides), but I highlighted (IMO - no one else's, just my own) that TOD is happy to go full tilt at people like Owens, but would never critique an individual like AOC. Zero consistency. Selective criticism - which is fine. TOD has people he doesn't want to upset and any criticism of AOC is often met with "you're a sexist, you want people to be poor, you don't care about the planet, and you're a racist" . You must keep the peace.

Owens is someone who thought Hitler would have been fine if he didn't expand his policies beyond Germany, they are the same?

AOC's problem is that she is young and naive in relation to macro economics. When I was her age, or probably a bit younger, I was an idealistic socialist as well. I don't have an issue with people thinking Socialism has merit because in theory it makes sense, it just doesn't work in practice because it doesn't matter how noble the people are who fought for these principles are, when the State has too much power and it is adopting an authoritarian power shift, it is extremely vulnerable to ushering in someone who is corrupt who proceeds to hoard the wealth for themselves and their cronies and then undertake an authoritarian stance to keep power. The Estates aren't burned to the ground and the workers have never had a better quality of life under Socialism, so you have to ask where did all the wealth go? It is a redistribution of wealth, from the people who generated the wealth to the people who took the wealth by force.

That doesn't mean a mixed economy system can't have greater social policies, we are an example of how it can work and there is a lot we can do better, our taxation law makes it too easy to avoid paying tax, ATO released the data on our top corporations at the end of 2017 and 732 companies who had amassed more than $500 billion in revenue paid no tax whatsoever.

Capitalism always lives in the present, it has no regard for the future, not in any way shape or form. It is a great system to generate wealth but we need to heavily regulate it as most corporations are run by CEOs who psychologically do not stray too far from psychopaths and they can't be trusted with what is best for our society, given the means, they will send us all to Hell for the right price.

AOC is naive to believe you can squeeze more money from the wealthy, outside of the resource sector many of them can just leave. The top 10% already pay a disproportionate amount of income taxation, the top 10% fund about 90% of our income tax revenue. You will get more out of rich people if you give them tax incentives to invest money where the government would otherwise have invested the money if they could get it out of them. The more you try to take money from the rich, the more they will attempt to avoid paying tax. Tax minimisation schemes do not generate for the economy what would greater infrastructure investment or more investment in job creating businesses. Outside of entering a war-based economy, attempting to get more out of the rich has never worked and has done more harm to the economy.

Renewable energy is something worthwhile... on an individual basis. I have solar panels on my roof, they generate electricity, didn't cost much to install and after 5 or so years have probably repaid themselves, still has about 20 years to go before they would need to be replaced... I probably wont be around when that happens. However, trying to generate enough power from solar, wind, etc is just way too expensive, it is disastrous for the wildlife, wind turbines just become big bird shredders and anything that flies over a solar farm gets incinerated. Birds aren't being shot down by a death ray from my roof so I think there is a place for intelligent use of renewable power.

However, we would reach and even exceed our greenhouse emission targets by just going nuclear, we have the largest known uranium deposits in the world and in some states/territories we can't actively search for new deposits. It is estimated we probably have Thorium reserves on par with that of India, the Dutch put a Thorium salt mine reactor online late in 2017 for research purposes, ultimately Thorium reactors can't melt down as the core is already in a molten state. If the CIA could stop killing Indian nuclear scientists then that would be great, perhaps they can finish their research on their new hybrid Thorium/Uranium reactor which would burn up basically everything in the process getting much more power out of the uranium and leaving nothing to turn into bombs or toxic waste that lasts thousands of years. We could even take all the existing waste that exists and burn it in a hybrid reactor. These also can't melt down in theory.

If someone truly wants to take a stand for the environment, they would support replacing all coal based plants with nucelar reactors, even environmentalists that have pushed for green renewable energy have started to say, it is time to give up on it and go nuclear until we can improve the science behind renewable energy.

I respect TOD (and of course will continue to do so) and this is only my opinion. My no means am I attacking him or anyone else - we are adults here (well everyone but Chadwiko is because he showed his true colours when he squealed to Chief and tried to get me banned for a joke ). I'm just pointing out an observation. No different to the gender equality thread. TOD was quite critical of Jordan Peterson (and fair enough, he raised good points and is entitled to do so) but I bet he wouldn't touch issues like the wage gap because again - selective.

Sent via Ham radio in my cabin in the woods.

The wage gap exists, it just isn't what most people have been lead to believe. If you believe in equality of outcomes instead of equality of opportunity then it wont matter why it is different. Instead of tackling the wage gap, you first need to understand where someone sits when it comes to the definition of equality.

I think some feminist groups are well aware of how and why the gap exists, they continue to push inaccurate or misleading information and have used that as a basis to try and do things like restrict access to overtime, etc. The crusade to get the numbers to match isn't going to make men or women happier in the long-run. I think women in general have a better understanding of life balance and make better decisions when it comes to how much of their own lives they dedicate to work. I would have an extremely dim view of any organisation or ideology that basically sees me as just a number in a bid to balance out a ledger so values can come out the same. I have different desires to the next person, everyone should be free to live their life how they see fit as long as they are not hurting anyone else in the process.

If happiness is any gauge of success, Feminist groups that have considerable political power aren't doing a great job at making women happier. It is basically why I do not trust career politicians, especially those who attain power speaking for the downtrodden, if their only source of power is having downtrodden people, they have zero incentive to improve the life of the downtrodden, if they actually did anything then they would make themselves obsolete. If they had inadvertently already achieved their objectives then the only alternative would be to mislead and be dishonest about the status quo or change career and I don't think any of them want to get into waste management and improve the distribution of male to female employees in that industry.

 

[Val Keating]

Geezuz Tas. Write a book or something.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Geezuz Tas. Write a book or something.

I actually dedicated that 5 minutes to going over my water rates bill again.

 

[Val Keating]

I actually dedicated that 5 minutes to going over my water rates bill again.

Tbh he’s always on point and has good content, but I only get to have a squiz at BigFooty on the sly, so I never get to read his posts in full

 

[Mav]

I remember when this used to be random thoughts thread.

Like, why does my cat love garlic bread?

 

[Gameova_]

I remember when this used to be random thoughts thread.

Like, why does my cat love garlic bread?

Have you ever watched a cat eat a piece of KFC? Some experience

 

[Gasometer]

What is this new BF Chat Rooms thingo?

Had a look yesterday and it looked like a mess

Could be good for Game Day interstaters I suppose

???

 

[kaboom kid]

So you value his constant iterations across multiple threads about the North Melbourne Football Club being overtaken by political activists in some sort of bizarre conspiracy (hint: it's just society's moral progress, no conspiracy), and his constant claim to entitlement to his club? You value his direct attack on Ben Brown for merely speaking out about equal rights? You value his repeated bleatings that women have no right to play footy at AFL level?

I usually like your postings kaboom, but this one's got me a bit confused. Sure there's value in lively internet forum conversation - absolutely. But racism and sexism and any other kind of discrimination or hate speech, and I don't care how veiled or subtle it may be, needs to be called out. Every time. Yesterday saw 49 innocent people gunned down by a white supremacist simply because of their faith. That was a catastrophic, horrific, immense act of hatred. Supported in its aftermath by the facebook posts of thousands, which is sadly telling. I don't care how small or how veiled or how hidden - you call it out. Because acts of hatred like what happened yesterday grow from a culture of long-term and widespread tolerance of it at smaller levels.

So lively discussion, sure. Tolerance of discrimination and hate speech over and over again? Nope.

Sorry, don't agree. I haven't seen anything racist or sexist in his posts. I have never seen him attack Ben Brown and I have never seen him say that 'women have no right to play AFL football'. I have never seen any hate speech. They're pretty nasty labels to throw at someone. If you have seen those things perhaps you could repost them? This is big footy not some alt right website. I don't think he poses a risk to national security. So to compare him to some white supremacist nutter is just way over the top, for me.

 

[The Other Dean]

So you value his constant iterations across multiple threads about the North Melbourne Football Club being overtaken by political activists in some sort of bizarre conspiracy (hint: it's just society's moral progress, no conspiracy), and his constant claim to entitlement to his club? You value his direct attack on Ben Brown for merely speaking out about equal rights? You value his repeated bleatings that women have no right to play footy at AFL level?

I usually like your postings kaboom, but this one's got me a bit confused. Sure there's value in lively internet forum conversation - absolutely. But racism and sexism and any other kind of discrimination or hate speech, and I don't care how veiled or subtle it may be, needs to be called out. Every time. Yesterday saw 49 innocent people gunned down by a white supremacist simply because of their faith. That was a catastrophic, horrific, immense act of hatred. Supported in its aftermath by the facebook posts of thousands, which is sadly telling. I don't care how small or how veiled or how hidden - you call it out. Because acts of hatred like what happened yesterday grow from a culture of long-term and widespread tolerance of it at smaller levels.

So lively discussion, sure. Tolerance of discrimination and hate speech over and over again? Nope.

Yet another fantastic post.

 

[The Other Dean]

I haven't seen anything racist or sexist in his posts. I have never seen him attack Ben Brown....

You need to get out more.

Or go back to page 144 of the Ben Brown thread.

Whatever works best.

The following was in response to Ben giving a talk on domestic violence and gender equality issues at the request of one of our major sponsors at a function of theirs.....

Yep. He can park his ******* post football career in neutral. It appears he's starting to breath in his own farts deeply.

I am sick to death of this sporting club being prostituted for political agendas.

Ben, I don't give two ****s about how many good bloke awards you obtain, in fact, the incessant virtue signalling makes me cringe.

Sounds like an attack to me.

This is big footy not some alt right website.

Bit difficult to tell the difference sometimes.

So to compare him to some white supremacist nutter is just way over the top, for me.

Wut?

She absolutely didn't do anything of the sort.

 

[the big lebowski]

The issues dividing the world, summarised in the marley Williams bigfooty thread.

 

[Billy Not Really]

Apparently nobody reads manifestos, as whats currently happening in this thread is just playing right into his hands.

 

[The Other Dean]

But as for the rest, there is no “looking up to”. We are equal. There is no leading or following or idolising or whatever it is you seem to be insinuating. TOD and I are just same page kind of people.

Absolutely.

Well said. As always.

With respect to this weird argument you’ve started with him, I’m not sure what’s so difficult about understanding the crucial factor of their respective motivations when it comes to whatever step that was that’s being quibbled over. Seemed clear to me. (See how I bolded and italicised and underlined it just so it’s clear for you. Hope that helps.)

Dude as a great admirer of you and TOD, and someone who sits on the fence with a lean slightly towards your side of politics, this is weird. TOD's whole point was about opportunism and people changing sides. It might have been one of 4 points, but surely you can see it's the main crux of where he's coming from?

Kudos to you both for grasping my point, and thank you for restating it in simple(r) terms in the hope of achieving some clarity here. Obviously, the 180 is important because it potentially gives rise to a degree of cynicism around the notions of motivation, intent, sincerity, integrity, opportunism, etc.

As you guys have duly noted.

And of course, as AOC's path to political notoriety didn't involve any kind of midstream ideological backflip, she quite clearly doesn't fit the 'Steps 1-4' criteria outlined in my original post. Therefore, in this particular instance, she is irrelevant to the original point being made.

 

[The Other Dean]

I remember when this used to be random thoughts thread.

Like, why does my cat love garlic bread?

I fed my dog some garlic bread the other day. She responded by throwing it up on the carpet. Good times.