The Lion killer

[boncer34]

Who the **** hunts Lions with a gun?

Wrestle that mother ****er.

 

[Hot Pocket]

my point wasn't that it is economically rational to plunder the great barrier reef.

my point was that most people would not be aware of what's happening to the great barrier reef, tarkine whatever, if it wasn't for info put out from groups that are far from objective and have objects which are not economically rational. as an aside this is the exact same argument that greens supporters make against news etc on a lot of broader news issues.

it isn't economically rational to prohibit mining in fnq, or logging in tasmania. as people need jobs, and we as a country need to make the most of our competitive advantage being some of the best resource deposits in the world. obviously we should be aiming to do it in a way that has as little effect on the environment as possible, but we need to accept that it's not going to stop, and nor should it.

most greens policy, whilst well-intentioned is not economically rational.

So because someone doesn't want to destroy the GBR, they support all Greens policy?

Lacking logic there mate.

I'd say its objectively sensible to protect the GBR ahead of all economic interests. Particularly mining interests, as 87% of our mining profits go overseas anyway.

Again, I'd ask you to define what you mean by economically rational and how exactly the groups that shed light on this issue don't fit that definition. The issue has been raised from a variety of sources, but regardless of who raises it - destroying a Natural Wonder owned by the Australian people is bad policy no matter which way the billionaires want to spin it imo.

Your initial post had a sense of 'oh well, who cares' to it. I'd say that's a questionable stance but you aren't dumb so I'm asking you to clarify it a bit because I doubt that is what you really meant.

We're digging up a lot more of the country now than we ever used to. Mining profits are soaring (right over our heads, into foreign bank accounts), and at some point we have to decide to stop this race to the bottom and maybe regulate and tax the industry a bit more. The jobs being created are becoming les valuable (as they're insourcing labour from overseas at cheaper costs, whilst slashing apprenticeships and TAFE funding at home, costing a new generation of Australians their futures).

Simultaneously, the effect it has on the dollar has killed a lot of local industry.

I'd say its economically rational to seriously tax the shit out of these profits at a minimum, and place a ban on hiring foreign labour for all but the most senior positions (where an argument could actually be made that there is a dearth of people in Australia capable of doing the work).

But when I think of economics, I see it as a vehicle to benefit the Australian people - not as a competition to see who can be the greediest. That may be irrational to you, so I'd like to hear your opinion on what is economically rational.

 

[checkraiseulite]

look i'm not going to get into a debate over the economic credentials of greens policy itt. the chances of us agreeing are minimal and we'll both be wasting our time.

what i will draw your attention to is this, we can't have things both ways. your obsession with profits going off-shore needs to be looked at the context of economic reality in this country. we are a capital importer. it follows that we need foreign money coming into the country to finance projects and drive investment. we can't expect that profits won't flow back off shore.

shutting down entire industries that we're world leaders in is just not economically rational in my eyes. especially considering as the justification for doing so (protection of the GBR etc) appears on the 2 minute google search i just did to be be associated moreso with global warming which, as we all know, requires global action for anything to change.

 

[Hot Pocket]

So you've created an argument that nobody else made, and then declined to support or even define your own point of view.

 

[checkraiseulite]

So you've created an argument that nobody else made, and then declined to support or even define your own point of view.

my "argument" was an off-the-cuff remark on an internet forum, that was made semi-seriously.

i think my subsequent posts have made my point of view pretty clear and supported my argument. i'm not interested in getting into a a long-winded argument that is impossible to win.

 

[vealesy]

Then what are you doing on the internet?

 

[Caesar]

I think the point is that environmental groups often regard protection goals as inherently self-justifying. The GBR should be protected because wow it's wonderful and it would be terrible to damage it. Fish species should not be allowed to become extinct because extinction of animals is bad.

An alternative view is that there are a range of interests at play and they need to be balanced. You obviously need an environmental policy that is, overall, ecologically sustainable in terms of providing an earth that we can live on in the future - but that doesn't necessarily equate to absolute protection. For example, some damage to the reef may be justified if the economic gain outweighs any loss to tourism etc.

One of the things that annoys me about the environmental debate in this country is that unless you are a traditional environmentalist, you are regarded as not caring about the environment. Everybody wants a sustainable planet.

 

[Hot Pocket]

Thats fine if that's what he meant. He should have just said that. Im the same generally but i think the GBR should actually be completely off limits.

 

[Catfish Alley]

I'm struggling to draw the parallel between the Great Barrier Reef and a lion hunt.

 

[Hot Pocket]

I'm struggling to draw the parallel between the Great Barrier Reef and a lion hunt.

You'd have to read the whole thread, and honestly it isn't worth it.

 

[CakeEater]

Bit of Slacktivism in all of this though.

The 2013 Kony.

 

[pantskyle]

Vale Mufassa.

 

[Catfish Alley]

Vale Mufassa.

Perhaps it was Scar.

 

[pantskyle]

Perhaps it was Scar.

Simba will get revenge.

 

[Hot Pocket]

my "argument" was an off-the-cuff remark on an internet forum, that was made semi-seriously.

i think my subsequent posts have made my point of view pretty clear and supported my argument. i'm not interested in getting into a a long-winded argument that is impossible to win.

You haven't made your point of view clear, but I think Caesar has summed up what you meant. I hope.

 

[Gasometer]

.....if only animals could talk. ...what would they say.......

 

[Gough]

.....if only animals could talk. ...what would they say.......

Go the roos?

 

[checkraiseulite]

You haven't made your point of view clear, but I think Caesar has summed up what you meant. I hope.

not really. i'll leave you to interpret it however you want though.

 

[Hot Pocket]

not really. i'll leave you to interpret it however you want though.

Yes really. And of course I have to interpret it, you weren't clear. I'm glad you acknowledge as much.

 

[The Passenger]

Did anyone else find it a slight curiosity that there was a load of outrage over this chick, yet on the same day (or maybe the day after) there was a whole article dedicated to mike young for the 2013 ashes series with a fair chunk of it how we were "literally bringing him back from the wilderness" after a series of hunting trips.... and nothing was said.

maybe mike wasn't a callous as this baukmann (?) but i still thought it was interesting.

 

[Hot Pocket]

I've got relatives who hunt pigs. Good on them I reckon.

I enjoy fishing recreationally, its no different.

But killing endangered animals or even those at risk is a whole other level of ignorance.

 

[The Passenger]

I've got relatives who hunt pigs. Good on them I reckon.

I enjoy fishing recreationally, its no different.

But killing endangered animals or even those at risk is a whole other level of ignorance.

i must admit, i have no idea what mike young was hunting, and for what reasons. i just thought it was interesting timing of the two events.

 

[checkraiseulite]

Did anyone else find it a slight curiosity that there was a load of outrage over this chick, yet on the same day (or maybe the day after) there was a whole article dedicated to mike young for the 2013 ashes series with a fair chunk of it how we were "literally bringing him back from the wilderness" after a series of hunting trips.... and nothing was said.

maybe mike wasn't a callous as this baukmann (?) but i still thought it was interesting.

yeah perhaps it's better to direct the outrage at RSA nationals making a profit out of people killing lions, or the government for allowing them to do so.

but yeah, lets form an online lynch mob in response to one stupid bish on teh soshul meejah

 

[vealesy]

Id watch internet pr0n involving lion hunter vs boston bomb victim vs horny hubby.