Play Nice Random Chat Thread IV

[Snake_Baker]

The way we're heading evolution will be banned and/or rewritten by these idiots.

..........and then they will become extinct.

Societal collapse would correct it before this occurred. It's inevitable.

There's only so many arts degrees that the state machinery can carry.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

The only people playing culture wars are the paid trolls at Murdoch digging up a tweet nobody saw or cared about and claiming it is some big thing.

They need to do this because the "loony left" has been proven right (again) on economics - neoliberal capitalism is a fragile fraud that collapses under the slightest pressure.

Andrews was re-elected with a whopping majority less than two years ago despite the Hun running all sorts of bullshit confected campaigns just like this.

You hirds need to wake up and smell the Victorian coffee - people here are smart and don't fall for this shit, we aren't Sydney or Brisbane.

Also lol at Snake falling for it lock stock and barrel.

How far we done fall.

gokangas makes a really good point and yet again you fly in with your look-at-me leftie halo and berate everyone for politicising it.

If she was a Liberal politician you would have been so far down her throat that you would have come out of her arse.

Mate, you need to get some balance - you keep criticising everything that doesn't sit within your narrow political spectrum. Yesterday you even missed the point that renewables can't currently meet energy demand, because hydrocarbons = capitalist pigs = we must crush them.

 

[Mav]

The World Health Organization’s ‘Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe: A framework for policymakers, educational and health authorities and specialists’

The WHO advises that children aged 0-4 are given “information about enjoyment and pleasure when touching one’s body… masturbation.”

Toddlers are also to be encouraged to “gain an awareness of gender identity” and given “the right to explore gender identities.”

In the ages 4-6 bracket, educators are urged to “give information about same-sex relationships” and “help children develop respect for different norms regarding sexuality.”

*Interesting to note that people posting this are being banned on social media. So it looks like criticising WHO is banned, not just WHO's Covid19 information...

View attachment 867862

https://www.bzga-whocc.de/fileadmin/user_upload/WHO_BZgA_Standards_English.pdf

Sounds like it's right out of the Pizzagate curriculum. I wonder who else they'll have in mind to teach children about same-sex relationships and gender identity...*Cough* Drag queen storytime *Cough*

Based on where we are heading I guarantee this sort of shit will be the norm in the future:



desensitising pedophilia...

Two questions.
Did you read the whole framework?
Do you have children of your own?

 

[Mav]

Teaching kids between the ages of 0-4 to touch themselves and 4-6 about gender identity. That isn't the same as having gay parents. Nice try though. It's about cramming identity politics down children's throats.

All based off of John Money's research. The research was considered a success. The research that is still used today while people sweep the real outcome of "John/Joan" under the rug:



While a lot of variables could have played a role in his suicide it's hard to believe that "torturous and abusive" interactions with a psych didn't play a huge role. Both twins committed suicide.

Where does it say that? I would have thought you had some concept of how to read a matrix. Obviously not.

Its so hard to tell when you're full of shyte or your just being a ****ing troll. Sometimes I just think you pretend to be a troll to cover up the shyte you spin.

 

[Del191229]

gokangas makes a really good point and yet again you fly in with your look-at-me leftie halo and berate everyone for politicising it.

If she was a Liberal politician you would have been so far down her throat that you would have come out of her arse.

Mate, you need to get some balance - you keep criticising everything that doesn't sit within your narrow political spectrum. Yesterday you even missed the point that renewables can't currently meet energy demand, because hydrocarbons = capitalist pigs = we must crush them.

Mate I work in the energy sector, I know INTIMATELY what the NEM is and isn't capable of doing.

GK made no point, he just regurgitated a Rita Panahi tweet.

Still waiting for someone to explain to me why the Dep CHO commenting on a 250 year old event affects her actual scientific and medical work.

 

[Del191229]

Where does it say that? I would have thought you had some concept of how to read a matrix. Obviously not.

Its so hard to tell when you're full of shyte or your just being a ******* troll. Sometimes I just think you pretend to be a troll to cover up the shyte you spin.

Good trolls are funny at some level.

He's just a ****wit.

 

[Del191229]

Capitalism seems to be doing a pretty good job of crushing itself anyway.

 

[DesertRoo]

Capitalism seems to be doing a pretty good job of crushing itself anyway.

But we don’t live in a capitalist society anymore. It’s more akin to corporate socialism where by companies privatise profits and socialise loses. It’s broken.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Mate I work in the energy sector, I know INTIMATELY what the NEM is and isn't capable of doing.

So, can renewables meet 100% of electricity demand or not? My position is that currently, they are way short, so we need traditional fuels until the situation changes. Yesterday, you suggested this position is incorrect and it seems you're very well placed to know, so what's the bottom line here?

Still waiting for someone to explain to me why the Dep CHO commenting on a 250 year old event affects her actual scientific and medical work.

You know how we use the term "tone deaf" to describe inappropriate focus in such circumstances? That's why. It's the same reason why most right-minded people are critical of Trump for focusing on his ratings when there's other more important stuff he should be addressing.

Why is our 2nd highest ranking health official making public political pronouncements (based on a loose understanding of history) when the world is literally in the most serious health crisis in over a century? She's entitled to hold the views privately, of course, but how about STFU on that stuff and demonstrate that you're treating the health crisis with the seriousness that all senior health officials should be demonstrating. She might be doing a great job, but most people can't see that and they wonder (rightly) why she feels the need to publicise unrelated political views at this point in time. Like many, I doubt that she's doing a great job and that doubt is down to her.

 

[Groin guru]

Where does it say that? I would have thought you had some concept of how to read a matrix. Obviously not.

Its so hard to tell when you're full of shyte or your just being a ******* troll. Sometimes I just think you pretend to be a troll to cover up the shyte you spin.

Here we go...

For 2 years your only existence on bigfooty has been to oppose myself and snake just because you had your feelings hurt. Pathetic.

The dot points that say discovery of own genitals and masturbation. I would have thought you'd have a handle on what masturbation is given you've spent your entire life doing it into tissues

 

[sbdan]

But we don’t live in a capitalist society anymore. It’s more akin to corporate socialism where by companies privatise profits and socialise loses. It’s broken.

Nicely put

 

[Mav]

Here we go...

For 2 years your only existence on bigfooty has been to oppose myself and snake just because you had your feelings hurt. Pathetic.

The dot points that say discovery of own genitals and masturbation. I would have thought you'd have a handle on what masturbation is given you've spent your entire life doing it into tissues

And like Snake you can't answer the question, you just deflect and use personal insults. Pathetic.

The matrix says to give information about touching yourself. The framework discusses how touching genitals is common in this age bracket. The framework also discusses using age appropriate answers. Kids stimulate their genitals for pleasure, it feels goods. Giving kids info on this and teaching them why they do it is a good thing.

NOWHERE DOES IT SAY TO TEACH THE KIDS TO TOUCH THEMSELVES.

Sorry for showing you up to be full of shyte. I know you like to pretend you're some type of superior intellect. Fact is, you're not.

 

[Groin guru]

And like Snake you can't answer the question, you just deflect and use personal insults. Pathetic.

The matrix says to give information about touching yourself. The framework discusses how touching genitals is common in this age bracket. The framework also discusses using age appropriate answers. Kids stimulate their genitals for pleasure, it feels goods. Giving kids info on this and teaching them why they do it is a good thing.

NOWHERE DOES IT SAY TO TEACH THE KIDS TO TOUCH THEMSELVES.

Sorry for showing you up to be full of shyte. I know you like to pretend you're some type of superior intellect. Fact is, you're not.

Sexual education guidelines.

Give 0-4 year olds information on masturbation and discovery of own genitals. And kids that age aren't going to go play around down there after receiving that information?

You're trying to defend it just because it doesn't say black and white "give your 3 year old a playboy with some moisturiser and tell him to fill his boots"

Who is teaching these kids? Daycares going to have masturbation story time now? It's a slippery slope and WHO just went off the cliff. Why? Because John Money's research that destroyed a family suggests gender is a social construct...

Well thank goodness because now 0-4 year olds will no longer be confused about gender identity...an issue that has been plaguing 0-4 year olds for centuries.

 

[Mav]

Sexual education guidelines.

Give 0-4 year olds information on masturbation and discovery of own genitals. And kids that age aren't going to go play around down there after receiving that information?

You're trying to defend it just because it doesn't say black and white "give your 3 year old a playboy with some moisturiser and tell him to fill his boots"

Who is teaching these kids? Daycares going to have masturbation story time now? It's a slippery slope and WHO just went off the cliff. Why? Because John Money's research that destroyed a family suggests gender is a social construct...

Well thank goodness because now 0-4 year olds will no longer be confused about gender identity...an issue that has been plaguing 0-4 year olds for centuries.

You are such a troll.

You are the one that is trying to make something black and white. Your pathetic attempts to be funny by jumping to stupid conclusions proves you are nothing but a dumb arse troll. Again, sorry to call you out. I know it hurts your feeling but I’m hoping it’s for the best.

 

[Groin guru]

You are such a troll.

You are the one that is trying to make something black and white. Your pathetic attempts to be funny by jumping to stupid conclusions proves you are nothing but a dumb arse troll. Again, sorry to call you out. I know it hurts your feeling but I’m hoping it’s for the best.

I'm not sure i see the humour in discussing guidelines that encourage teaching 0-4 year olds to masturbate or about gender identity. I think it's pretty serious. It's also pretty serious that this has come out during a time when an questioning of WHO = censorship.

Guidelines help to shape policies and curriculum's. Give an inch and people take a mile. Just remember what side you're defending here. When members of the Catholic church did it they did it under the cover of darkness and have been exposed and will hopefully continue to be exposed.
Now we have guidelines that remove the cover and are slowly desensitising it to the norm.

Remember to come back and defend the stories of creeps that were helping kids masturbate because the guidelines told them it was the right thing to do :/

 

[see see]

Still waiting for someone to explain to me why the Dep CHO commenting on a 250 year old event affects her actual scientific and medical work.

It doesn't per se. However, it definitely brings her judgement into question.

PS - Stop using your alt accounts to like your own posts.

 

[Del191229]

So, can renewables meet 100% of electricity demand or not? My position is that currently, they are way short, so we need traditional fuels until the situation changes. Yesterday, you suggested this position is incorrect and it seems you're very well placed to know, so what's the bottom line here?

Coz you are a good bloke I have answered this in good faith and put some time and effort into it (on my day off, basically working on my day off for you LtK!)

The article I posted that seems to have freaked everyone out was a report from the IEA, which was on something differnt, but let's take Australia and 100 per cent of demand being met by renewables.

Could renewables support 100 per cent of demand tomorrow? No, but nobody is suggesting we shut off the coal and gas tomorrow. That's a furphy run by culture warriors who are literally paid up servants of the coal industry.

Albeit we are already experiencing situations where renewables are effectively meeting 100 per cent of demand across the NEM and pushing prices into negative territory - that's on certain days at certain times, but it is actually already happening.

While it is predominantly a Queensland phenomenon at the moment, historically it is more common in South Australia with its large fleet of wind generators, while Tasmanian spot prices occasionally go negative as well.

Mr Leitch says once the big and broken Victorian coal generators come back on line, negative spot prices will become even more common.

"It shows the effects of a surplus or deficit in one state. It's a foretaste of what we will see in the future … as more solar on roofs is added," he said.

"When it's sunny and windy, the conditions are right to force prices down to negative and zero areas right across the NEM."

As power prices crash below zero, don't expect it to show up on your power bill

When power prices recently plunged as low as they can go, generators were hurting but households weren't enjoying it either. What is the market telling us about the state of electricity generation and its future?

www.abc.net.au

But can the system have renewables meeting 100 per cent of demand in the very near future at all times, like at the 6.30PM weekday peak in July, not just a Sunday arvo in spring?

Of course it can. AEMO saying 75 per cent by 2025 and I reckon they are being cautious with good reason (because if they said 100 per cent they'd come under sustained political attack by the Barnaby 'Bought And Sold by Gina Rinehart' Joyce and Matt Canavan and their media allies).

The system is already moving rapidly towards this - the interconnectors between SA/NSW and NSW/Queensland (upgraded capacity rather than a new one but whatevs) have passed the RIT-T and contingent project stages and are good to go - that's about providing the system security requires during the transition.

There needs to be a major upgrade of transmission links to reduce the marginal loss factors and congestion that impacts the ability of distant projects to get to the cities.

That's underway too, big interconnectors I mentioned earlier, and more discrete stuff. The NSW Govt has announced that the Snowy 2.0 project and its transmission links are a first cab rebuild priority.

Keranglink is a key priority for the Vics and they've moved to get that closer to realkty. The Marinus Link from Tassie has government support.

This stuff could all be built quickly if there was greater political will - albeit the will is there anyway.

Also, the market plays a major role. Companies that own the coal clunkers want out. Engie walked away from Hazelwood. Liddell will shut on time. Noises are being made around Loy Yang A. These coal clunkers are not economic now, they break down too often and a carbon price, either exogenous or domestic is coming.

Add to that are bushfires. The companies that have transmission and distribution links are seriously considering why they maintain long trails of poles and wires out to remote places. Communities in bushfire prone areas are getting their self contained power systems, that are renewable based.

Musk's battery in South Australia has been a monstrous success, it is being expanded again, and is proving the model. But at to make renewables really work, the hard yards need to be at household level, P2P, VPPs - all this is required and given we have the highest penetration of solar PV in the world, it indicates a huge willingness to get on board.

(Interestingly, Victoria's highest ever demand was over ten years ago - despite the massive migration and population growth in that time. Demand is actually falling.)

It was North Viking who raised a series of entirely valid issues, on everything from issues to stuff I've mentioned above to lithium access and the like.

All these are effectively political issues. If there is the political will, all this can done relatively quickly. If government paid for home battery systems etc.

Yes, this stuff will require taxpayer money but given the option of burning carbon is the possible breakdown of society, and almost certainly huge economic costs sooner rather than later, well, it is an investment.

On political will - Morrison's office is stacked full of Minerals Council of Australia staff though. He won the last election by risking (and losing) climate friendly inner city seats, including a blue ribbon Lib seat, to win Queensland seats in a coal culture war.

That won't last though, and can change very quickly, especially if jobs are linked to renewables, which is very easy.

Basically, we need political will to do it in the very near future.

But, we've had the political will from a Lib government to:

- make childcare free overnight
- double the dole overnight
- a variety of other things antithetic to traditional Lib policy

So we can indeed do it and find the political will. Every summer of fires will move that dial further, and it is Lib seats at risk as much as Labor.

So, to answer, can renewables provide 100 per cent of demand.

- Yes they can and already effectively have for short periods.
- Will they in the very near future (next five years) - probably not, the minerals/coal industry has too much power over our politics, but work towards will still be ongoing, just not as fast as it could be.
- Will they in the near future (next ten years). Yes and no. The political power of the coal lobby is such that it will be retained at some level indefinitely. Although this in itself will require massive, almost certainly 100 government ownership, as the market is running away from coal as fast as it can.

Just because we haven't doesn't mean we can't.

The technology is there or its way, and the consumer demand is very strongly there.

All that lacks is political will.

 

[Del191229]

So, can renewables meet 100% of electricity demand or not? My position is that currently, they are way short, so we need traditional fuels until the situation changes. Yesterday, you suggested this position is incorrect and it seems you're very well placed to know, so what's the bottom line here?



You know how we use the term "tone deaf" to describe inappropriate focus in such circumstances? That's why. It's the same reason why most right-minded people are critical of Trump for focusing on his ratings when there's other more important stuff he should be addressing.

Why is our 2nd highest ranking health official making public political pronouncements (based on a loose understanding of history) when the world is literally in the most serious health crisis in over a century? She's entitled to hold the views privately, of course, but how about STFU on that stuff and demonstrate that you're treating the health crisis with the seriousness that all senior health officials should be demonstrating. She might be doing a great job, but most people can't see that and they wonder (rightly) why she feels the need to publicise unrelated political views at this point in time. Like many, I doubt that she's doing a great job and that doubt is down to her.

None of this explains how her scientific work is affected by that tweet.

It just says that you CHOOSE to believe it is.

And if people can't that Victoria is doing a brilliant job on this, ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, do you want to be in NYC or London or Lombardy or Madrid?

Coz that's where we were heading.

It is culture war bullshit, if Panahi hadn't told people about her tweet, nobody would know.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Coz you are a good bloke I have answered this in good faith and put some time and effort into it (on my day off, basically working on my day off for you LtK!)

The article I posted that seems to have freaked everyone out was a report from the IEA, which was on something differnt, but let's take Australia and 100 per cent of demand being met by renewables.

Could renewables support 100 per cent of demand tomorrow? No, but nobody is suggesting we shut off the coal and gas tomorrow. That's a furphy run by culture warriors who are literally paid up servants of the coal industry.

Albeit we are already experiencing situations where renewables are effectively meeting 100 per cent of demand across the NEM and pushing prices into negative territory - that's on certain days at certain times, but it is actually already happening.

As power prices crash below zero, don't expect it to show up on your power bill

When power prices recently plunged as low as they can go, generators were hurting but households weren't enjoying it either. What is the market telling us about the state of electricity generation and its future?

www.abc.net.au

But can the system have renewables meeting 100 per cent of demand in the very near future at all times, like at the 6.30PM weekday peak in July, not just a Sunday arvo in spring?

Of course it can. AEMO saying 75 per cent by 2025 and I reckon they are being cautious with good reason (because if they said 100 per cent they'd come under sustained political attack by the Barnaby 'Bought And Sold by Gina Rinehart' Joyce and Matt Canavan and their media allies).

The system is already moving rapidly towards this - the interconnectors between SA/NSW and NSW/Queensland (upgraded capacity rather than a new one but whatevs) have passed the RIT-T and contingent project stages and are good to go - that's about providing the system security requires during the transition.

There needs to be a major upgrade of transmission links to reduce the marginal loss factors and congestion that impacts the ability of distant projects to get to the cities.

That's underway too, big interconnectors I mentioned earlier, and more discrete stuff. The NSW Govt has announced that the Snowy 2.0 project and its transmission links are a first cab rebuild priority.

Keranglink is a key priority for the Vics and they've moved to get that closer to realkty. The Marinus Link from Tassie has government support.

This stuff could all be built quickly if there was greater political will - albeit the will is there anyway.

Also, the market plays a major role. Companies that own the coal clunkers want out. Engie walked away from Hazelwood. Liddell will shut on time. Noises are being made around Loy Yang A. These coal clunkers are not economic now, they break down too often and a carbon price, either exogenous or domestic is coming.

Add to that are bushfires. The companies that have transmission and distribution links are seriously considering why they maintain long trails of poles and wires out to remote places. Communities in bushfire prone areas are getting their self contained power systems, that are renewable based.

Musk's battery in South Australia has been a monstrous success, it is being expanded again, and is proving the model. But at to make renewables really work, the hard yards need to be at household level, P2P, VPPs - all this is required and given we have the highest penetration of solar PV in the world, it indicates a huge willingness to get on board.

(Interestingly, Victoria's highest ever demand was over ten years ago - despite the massive migration and population growth in that time. Demand is actually falling.)

It was North Viking who raised a series of entirely valid issues, on everything from issues to stuff I've mentioned above to lithium access and the like.

All these are effectively political issues. If there is the political will, all this can done relatively quickly. If government paid for home battery systems etc.

Yes, this stuff will require taxpayer money but given the option of burning carbon is the possible breakdown of society, and almost certainly huge economic costs sooner rather than later, well, it is an investment.

On political will - Morrison's office is stacked full of Minerals Council of Australia staff though. He won the last election by risking (and losing) climate friendly inner city seats, including a blue ribbon Lib seat, to win Queensland seats in a coal culture war.

That won't last though, and can change very quickly, especially if jobs are linked to renewables, which is very easy.

Basically, we need political will to do it in the very near future.

But, we've had the political will from a Lib government to:

- make childcare free overnight
- double the dole overnight
- a variety of other things antithetic to traditional Lib policy

So we can indeed do it and find the political will. Every summer of fires will move that dial further, and it is Lib seats at risk as much as Labor.

So, to answer, can renewables provide 100 per cent of demand.

- Yes they can and already effectively have for short periods.
- Will they in the very near future (next five years) - probably not, the minerals/coal industry has too much power over our politics, but work towards will still be ongoing, just not as fast as it could be.
- Will they in the near future (next ten years). Yes and no. The political power of the coal lobby is such that it will be retained at some level indefinitely. Although this in itself will require massive, almost certainly 100 government ownership, as the market is running away from coal as fast as it can.

Just because we haven't doesn't mean we can't.

The technology is there or its way, and the consumer demand is very strongly there.

All that lacks is political will.

Um, my first point yesterday that renewables can't meet demand now. Your detailed response says "of course it can. AEMO saying 75 per cent by 2025"

2025 is not now, and 75% is not 100%. But we can get to 100% in time, I hope.

Dude, you shouldn't be so quick to jump on people who seem to be saying something that doesn't fit with your philosophy. At the end of the day, my point is 100% consistent with what you've just posted.

 

[Del191229]

It doesn't per se. However, it definitely brings her judgement into question.

PS - Stop using your alt accounts to like your own posts.

No it doesn't.

See, two can do this.

I don't have any alt accounts btw.

 

[Del191229]

Um, my first point yesterday that renewables can't meet demand now. Your detailed response says "of course it can. AEMO saying 75 per cent by 2025"

2025 is not now, and 75% is not 100%. But we can get to 100% in time, I hope.

Dude, you shouldn't be so quick to jump on people who seem to be saying something that doesn't fit with your philosophy. At the end of the day, my point is 100% consistent with what you've just posted.

You need to read the whole post where I explain how it has already, September 2019.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

None of this explains how her scientific work is affected by that tweet.

It just says that you CHOOSE to believe it is.

And if people can't that Victoria is doing a brilliant job on this, ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, do you want to be in NYC or London or Lombardy or Madrid?

Coz that's where we were heading.

It is culture war bullshit, if Panahi hadn't told people about her tweet, nobody would know.

Your argument is based on asserting that everyone who thinks the tweet is tone deaf is an idiot.

Victoria is doing a good job. So is NSW, SA and Tasmania. Liberal governments. I suppose you're heartily congratulating them as well?

I'd never heard of Dr 2-I-C before yesterday. It's patently clear that she has very little influence on how good a job the state is doing, though.

And if she hadn't posted that tweet, you wouldn't even need to blame Panahi.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

You need to read the whole post where I explain how it has already, September 2019.

No part of any prior post would refute my point, because you have just confirmed it yourself in detail.

 

[see see]

No it doesn't.

See, two can do this.

I don't have any alt accounts btw.

As someone who works in comms, what would you have advised her if she asked for your advice before she posted the tweet?

No alts? Cool story bro.

 

[Val Keating]

Ralphy is putting out some good content atm