Australian Senator on Outlast 2 Ban and Banning/Censoring Games
17 replies, posted
[quote]If you were angry about the Classification Board's recent ban of Outlast 2, don't worry: you've got some support in Canberra.
Liberal Democrat leader and upper house crossbencher David Leyonhjelm recently stood up in the Senate, taking the side of everyone aggrieved by the refused classification rating to Outlast 2. The senator argued that it was nonsensical that adults in Australia could be trusted to vote, but not trusted to make decisions about the video games they choose to play, although his characterisation of Outlast 2's content differed wildly from the Board.
"This video game takes place in a fantasy world involving all kinds of creatures both human and non-human," Senator Leyonhjelm said. "The mere suggestion of an out-of-screen encounter between a creature and a human character was enough to get it banned altogether by the Australian Classification Board."
"All of this operates on the false assumption that people who play video games are impressionable children who would play out anything they saw. Yet the internet is now awash with all manner of unpleasant images involving real people - not computer generated images - and violent crime around the world is in decline."
Curiously, the Senator also revealed that many major gaming websites are banned from federal computers. Sites like Polygon, PC Gamer, Gameplanet and others (presumably Kotaku too, although it wasn't mentioned) are blocked on the federal network, but politicians can freely access the neo-Nazi site Stormfront.
"In fact, politicians and public servants are blocked from accessing several gamer websites. If we want to access Polygon, IGN, PC Gamer or Gameplanet, the computer says no. This is presumably because we might stumble across an image of something somebody disapproves of on a medium we don’t understand."
The Senator's argument: adults should be free to make choices about the content they view, even if the majority of society disagrees with that content. His remarks also broke a record for the amount of Witcher 3 references dropped in Parliament:[/quote]
[url]https://www.kotaku.com.au/2017/03/this-federal-senator-got-really-angry-about-the-outlast-2-ban-in-parliament/[/url]
I really hope something comes from this.
It's nice to see a politician that realizes video games aren't just for children.
Our classification system is a joke
[QUOTE=Xonax;51989603]Sites like Polygon, PC Gamer, Gameplanet and others are blocked on the federal network, but politicians can freely access the neo-Nazi site Stormfront.[/QUOTE]
Great fucking priorities, Australia.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51989696]Great fucking priorities, Australia.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't be surprised if Parliament House is piggybacking off the NSW Education HTTP proxy, which blocks all kinds of nonsensical crap. When I had to attend TAFE (Community college) there and realised how restrictively bullshit it was, I spent an hour learning how to configure my laptop to have a corkscrew SOCKS proxy to bypass it, and to only have it active when connected to their SSID.
Time well spent.
David Leyonhjelm should not be in Parliament, and is a crazy nutter.
I am disappointed this is him.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51989696]Great fucking priorities, Australia.[/QUOTE]
tbh this is probably the same at my work, its just the priorities of the censors vs the obscurity of the sites.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;51989867]David Leyonhjelm should not be in Parliament, and is a crazy nutter.
I am disappointed this is him.[/QUOTE]
broken clock etc etc
[QUOTE=DogGunn;51989867]David Leyonhjelm should not be in Parliament, and is a crazy nutter.
I am disappointed this is him.[/QUOTE]
Mind justifying that position?
[QUOTE=download;51990147]Mind justifying that position?[/QUOTE]
Which part?
[QUOTE=download;51990147]Mind justifying that position?[/QUOTE]
Sure! Some choice David Leyonhjelm:
[I]David Leyonhjelm calls to restrict pension because being poor is nothing to be proud of[/I]
[url]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-02/david-leyonhjelm-calls-to-restrict-pension-assets-test/8157924[/url]
[I]David Leyonhjelm advocates winding back childcare regulations because "all childcare workers do is stop them from wiping their noses and killing each other"[/I]
[url]http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/current-affairs/senator-david-leyonhjelms-childcare-comments-leave-viewers-gobsmacked/news-story/ddb42928df23c0bde12f0e884430c45b[/url]
[I]David Leyonhjelm says that women's sports aren't interesting enough for public funding despite mens sports getting a lot of public funding[/I]
[url]http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/david-leyonhjelms-most-contentious-comments/7735732[/url]
The above is a conflation of some of the stuff he's said that includes what I headlined it as.
[I]David Leyonhjelm lodges a case with the Australian Human Rights Commission for being called an "angry white male"[/I]
[url]http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/david-leyonhjelm-nsw-senator-lodges-complaint-over-journalists-claim-he-is-an-angry-white-male/news-story/7b647988a3c24751010275e1d273eb89?nk=7f7d92ea52e9a7f33125cbb6a5302ebc-1490070245[/url]
[I]David Leyonhjelm in late 2013 gives a rally speech where he says he'd be happy to let a policeman lie on the road and bleed to death (in a speech advocating winding back our gun laws)[/I]
[url]http://www.centralwesterndaily.com.au/story/4243918/video-shows-senator-david-leyonhjelm-saying-he-would-be-happy-to-let-police-bleed-to-death/?cs=12[/url]
[B]Also, let's take a look at LDP Policy! What fun. Here's some choice ones, using quotes directly from their own website:[/B]
[I]"The Liberal Democrats will: Abolish Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and funding for public hospitals, which will be transferred to non-government ownership. Introduce a medical expenses subsidy for citizens that rises as medical expenses increase..."[/I]
Sounds... sensible? Can't really justify that. Let's have another one.
[I]"The Liberal Democrats will deregulate and privatise higher education, while retaining loans for tuition fees. Policy The Liberal Democrats support: removing tuition subsidies; abolishing student income support like Austudy and Abstudy; maintaining income-contingent loans for tuition fees, provided that: a commercial rate of interest is charged..."[/I]
Oh wow, ok. Hmm, let's see what else
[I]"The LDP would: Abolish the ban on low paid work, referred to as the minimum wage. Abolish minimum employment conditions, referred to as the national employment standards (while retaining occupational health and safety rules)"[/I]
Oh gee, sounds like a fucking utopia.
On public institutions:
[I]"The LDP advocates an immediate end to government ownership of business enterprises including the ABC, SBS, Australia Post, Medibank Private, electricity generation and public transport services." [/I]
On Water:
[I]"As far as possible, the LDP will abolish government ownership and control of water. The LDP will establish mechanisms for trading water that ensure it is priced in accordance with its value."[/I]
David Leyonhjelm is a fucking wackjob. The fact that you had to ask someone to justify that is pretty pants on head stupid when all you need to do is read their policies / pay slight attention to the media over the last 4 years. You live here dude, cmon.
[editline]21st March 2017[/editline]
Don't get me wrong, he's right in this particular instance. But the guy wants to privatise water and abolish the minimum wage too. I'd rather censor a couple of goddamn video games if it means I get access to a publicly owned water system and get paid enough to buy the ones leftover
[QUOTE=killerteacup;51990221]Sure! Some choice David Leyonhjelm:
[I]David Leyonhjelm calls to restrict pension because being poor is nothing to be proud of[/I]
[url]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-02/david-leyonhjelm-calls-to-restrict-pension-assets-test/8157924[/url][/quote]
We have something called superannuation that has been around for 30 odd years. People should be retiring on their super, not the dole. Many of them are also sitting on very valuable houses.
[quote][I]David Leyonhjelm advocates winding back childcare regulations because "all childcare workers do is stop them from wiping their noses and killing each other"[/I]
[url]http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/current-affairs/senator-david-leyonhjelms-childcare-comments-leave-viewers-gobsmacked/news-story/ddb42928df23c0bde12f0e884430c45b[/url][/quote]
I'm inclined to mostly agree. People are able to look after their own small kids without a degree, why do they need a degree to look after other children?
[quote][I]David Leyonhjelm says that women's sports aren't interesting enough for public funding despite mens sports getting a lot of public funding[/I]
[url]http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/david-leyonhjelms-most-contentious-comments/7735732[/url]
The above is a conflation of some of the stuff he's said that includes what I headlined it as.[/quote]
He's a dickhead, so what?
Your little headline there completely misrepresents what he said. To quote it verbatim:
[quote]Women's sports are not shown on television for a reason - they are not appealing to audiences. Money won't change that.[/quote]
Which is the truth, as unfortunate as that is. It has nothing to do with public funding and merely a comment on the reality that television stations which exist to [I]make money.[/I]
[quote][I]David Leyonhjelm lodges a case with the Australian Human Rights Commission for being called an "angry white male"[/I]
[url]http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/david-leyonhjelm-nsw-senator-lodges-complaint-over-journalists-claim-he-is-an-angry-white-male/news-story/7b647988a3c24751010275e1d273eb89?nk=7f7d92ea52e9a7f33125cbb6a5302ebc-1490070245[/url][/quote]
Headline completely misrepresent what he was trying to do, which was make a mockery of Section 18C, aka "they offended me, please throw them in jail". 18C needs to die and the quicker the better.
[quote][I]David Leyonhjelm in late 2013 gives a rally speech where he says he'd be happy to let a policeman lie on the road and bleed to death (in a speech advocating winding back our gun laws)[/I]
[url]http://www.centralwesterndaily.com.au/story/4243918/video-shows-senator-david-leyonhjelm-saying-he-would-be-happy-to-let-police-bleed-to-death/?cs=12[/url][/quote]
I'd go back to him being a dickhead. I'll quote the preceding statement:
[quote]"For myself, I am never going to help someone who thinks it's OK to pull me up, search me and threaten me with jail if I don't answer their questions, merely because I ride my motorcycle in company with a couple of other people."[/quote]
Which happens to be something even the Greens can get behind. Queensland's anti-bikie laws are retarded and a violation of human rights. People should also be very concerned about the stop and search powers police have in many states; I know in Victoria and NSW police can pull you over and search your car and person (going as far as [url=http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/strip-searches-at-festivals:-what-are-your-rights/6984906]strip searches[/url] on the mere "suspicion" of drugs). Things like this should not be tolerated.
[quote][B]Also, let's take a look at LDP Policy! What fun. Here's some choice ones, using quotes directly from their own website:[/B]
[I]"The Liberal Democrats will: Abolish Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and funding for public hospitals, which will be transferred to non-government ownership. [B]Introduce a medical expenses subsidy for citizens that rises as medical expenses increase..."[/B][/I]
Sounds... sensible? Can't really justify that. Let's have another one.[/quote]
I've highlighted the important part. The LDP don't want to get rid of socialised medicine, they just want it to be provided by privatised hospitals in a competitive market. I'm not sure the idea will work but I like it in principle; hospitals are incredibly bloated with bureaucratic nonsense. To use some anecdotal evidence, my mum is a nurse in a public hospital. She's at the highest position you can be as a nurse without going into a management position. The number of paper-pushers, who are nurses, and earn nurses wages above her, yet don't do any nursing is staggering.
[quote][I]"The Liberal Democrats will deregulate and privatise higher education, while retaining loans for tuition fees. Policy The Liberal Democrats support: removing tuition subsidies; abolishing student income support like Austudy and Abstudy; maintaining income-contingent loans for tuition fees, provided that: a commercial rate of interest is charged..."[/I]
Oh wow, ok. Hmm, let's see what else[/quote]
They'll be retaining HECS which is really the only thing that matters. You don't earn interest on it and you don't have to pay it off until you're well off. Uni fees should also be deregulated; the current system means people who do cheap degrees (say a mathematical science degree) pay almost the same as a person who does a resource intensive degree (say a lab-work intensive organic chemistry degree), in effect the person doing the cheaper degree is subsidising the person doing the more expensive degree.
[quote][I]"The LDP would: Abolish the ban on low paid work, referred to as the minimum wage. Abolish minimum employment conditions, referred to as the national employment standards (while retaining occupational health and safety rules)"[/I]
Oh gee, sounds like a fucking utopia.[/quote]
I can agree with you on that. Though I will point out that Australia's minimum wage is unusually high compared to comparable countries like New Zealand. There's almost a 20% difference (a difference that was much greater before the mining industry went bye-bye) between Australian and New Zealand minimum wages despite being very similar nations.
[quote]On public institutions:
[I]"The LDP advocates an immediate end to government ownership of business enterprises including the ABC, SBS, Australia Post, Medibank Private, electricity generation and public transport services." [/I][/quote]
I used to think privatising the ABC was wrong but then they became a mouthpiece of the Greens. I'm inclined to agree with privatising the rest; AusPost is pretty much dead in the face of other courier companies, Medibank Private is already run like a business and has had an initial IPO, Electricity generation has already pretty much been privatised everywhere but it is a state matter not a federal matter, many public transport services are bloated by paper-pushers and could do with becoming a bit more lean - privatisation has fixed this issue in other nations.
[quote]On Water:
[I]"As far as possible, the LDP will abolish government ownership and control of water. [B]The LDP will establish mechanisms for trading water that ensure it is priced in accordance with its value.[/B]"[/I][/quote]
Not certain what is supposed to be objectionable to that, particularly with the last statement. If anything it would allow companies to enter the water selling business, maybe get some desalination plants going so we don't drain the Murray dry again next drought.
[quote]David Leyonhjelm is a fucking wackjob. The fact that you had to ask someone to justify that is pretty pants on head stupid when all you need to do is read their policies / pay slight attention to the media over the last 4 years. You live here dude, cmon.
[editline]21st March 2017[/editline]
Don't get me wrong, he's right in this particular instance. But the guy wants to privatise water and abolish the minimum wage too. I'd rather censor a couple of goddamn video games if it means I get access to a publicly owned water system and get paid enough to buy the ones leftover[/QUOTE]
You haven't really made the case for him being a wackjob, just that he has a few objectionable things and a lot of thing the media (and you) have tried to spin.
Do you agree with every policy of the party you voted for? I would expect you could find many objectionable things about Labor (say their until-very-recently opposition to gay marriage despite its overwhelming support by Australians? Their stupid internet filter? Or maybe that we didn't get R18 video games because of the SA [I]Labor[/I] Attorney General? I'm sure we can go on.)
[QUOTE=download;51990661]We have something called superannuation that has been around for 30 odd years. People should be retiring on their super, not the dole. Many of them are also sitting on very valuable houses.[/QUOTE]
The pension is not the dole and it's ridiculous that you would equate them. Furthermore, if people could only rely on their super than people on lower income budgets would never be able to retire. What are people who don't own a house meant to do? How are they meant to pay rent? Or food? If a person doesn't have enough super saved up are they just meant to die? Or continue working in a labour market which [I]doesn't hire old people?[/I]
Sure, getting rid of pensions makes sense if you grow up in fantasy rich kid world where the poor are all lazy dole bludgers.
[QUOTE]I'm inclined to mostly agree. People are able to look after their own small kids without a degree, why do they need a degree to look after other children?[/QUOTE]
It's not a degree, it's a cert from TAFE. So already you're completely off the mark. Secondly, if you remove the certification, there's no legal guarantee that the child is safe when you hand them over to the goddamn nursery. There's a [I]reason [/I]we have certifications for things. There are good reasons for a person to have to get qualification to look after [I]other people's children[/I].
[QUOTE]He's a dickhead, so what?
Your little headline there completely misrepresents what he said. To quote it verbatim
Which is the truth, as unfortunate as that is. It has nothing to do with public funding and merely a comment on the reality that television stations which exist to [I]make money.[/I][/QUOTE]
The comments he made in the above aren't problems with his policy positions, just his demeanour and lack of regard for a good chunk of the population.
[QUOTE]
Headline completely misrepresent what he was trying to do, which was make a mockery of Section 18C, aka "they offended me, please throw them in jail". 18C needs to die and the quicker the better.[/QUOTE]
I'm not even going to bother addressing this. Anyone who supports removing 18C has no idea how the legal system works and frankly it's just embarrassing. Plus its ridiculous that he can make a complaint about the number of frivolous cases brought to the human rights commission while making a frivolous case himself.
[QUOTE]
I'd go back to him being a dickhead. I'll quote the preceding statement:
Which happens to be something even the Greens can get behind. Queensland's anti-bikie laws are retarded and a violation of human rights. People should also be very concerned about the stop and search powers police have in many states; I know in Victoria and NSW police can pull you over and search your car and person (going as far as [url=http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/strip-searches-at-festivals:-what-are-your-rights/6984906]strip searches[/url] on the mere "suspicion" of drugs). Things like this should not be tolerated.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, cool, good for you. He also said he'd be happy to leave a cop bleeding on the side of the road.
[QUOTE]I've highlighted the important part. The LDP don't want to get rid of socialised medicine, they just want it to be provided by privatised hospitals in a competitive market. I'm not sure the idea will work but I like it in principle; hospitals are incredibly bloated with bureaucratic nonsense. To use some anecdotal evidence, my mum is a nurse in a public hospital. She's at the highest position you can be as a nurse without going into a management position. The number of paper-pushers, who are nurses, and earn nurses wages above her, yet don't do any nursing is staggering.[/QUOTE]
An anecdotal example of poor management in a public hospital is not an adequate justification for removing the public health system. If cutting bureaucracy subsequently results in a decrease in the quality and availability of care then I'm all for keeping some bureaucracy around.
[QUOTE]
They'll be retaining HECS which is really the only thing that matters. You don't earn interest on it and you don't have to pay it off until you're well off. Uni fees should also be deregulated; the current system means people who do cheap degrees (say a mathematical science degree) pay almost the same as a person who does a resource intensive degree (say a lab-work intensive organic chemistry degree), in effect the person doing the cheaper degree is subsidising the person doing the more expensive degree.[/QUOTE]
HECS is the only thing that matters [I]to you[/I]. Austudy and Abstudy, and student scholarships and youth allowance are hugely important to allow lower income families to actually afford higher education. Programs like Austudy in Australia are what have facilitated our ability to actually have social mobility when other countries like America struggle with it. I personally would not have been able to afford to study and live in Sydney if it wasn't for our youth allowance system. I know many people personally who would not have been able to go to university at all without Austudy and they're not leeches on the system for taking advantage of it.
Plus I'm sure I don't need to tout the economic benefits of opening up education to the greatest number of people possible and that's what our social welfare does for students.
[QUOTE]I can agree with you on that. Though I will point out that Australia's minimum wage is unusually high compared to comparable countries like New Zealand. There's almost a 20% difference (a difference that was much greater before the mining industry went bye-bye) between Australian and New Zealand minimum wages despite being very similar nations.[/QUOTE]
That is not a point to criticise Australia on. A higher minimum wage is a [I]good thing.[/I]
[QUOTE]I used to think privatising the ABC was wrong but then they became a mouthpiece of the Greens. I'm inclined to agree with privatising the rest; AusPost is pretty much dead in the face of other courier companies, Medibank Private is already run like a business and has had an initial IPO, Electricity generation has already pretty much been privatised everywhere but it is a state matter not a federal matter, many public transport services are bloated by paper-pushers and could do with becoming a bit more lean - privatisation has fixed this issue in other nations.[/QUOTE]
The ABC aren't a mouthpiece for Greens, that's pure fantasy. Independent audits have exonerated the ABC multiple times, over and over. Here's one from 2014 which I found pretty much straight away:
[url]http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/audits-exonerate-abc-over-bias-claims/news-story/3ad4ba13a0751a74c2b417c13dcb52d6?nk=7f7d92ea52e9a7f33125cbb6a5302ebc-1490085365[/url]
Inquiries have found no evidence of bias, and the ABC is a public service broadcaster, not a state propaganda machine anyway. The accusation against the ABC of being a left propaganda station is just pitchfork swinging. It's been proven wrong over and over.
[QUOTE]Not certain what is supposed to be objectionable to that, particularly with the last statement. If anything it would allow companies to enter the water selling business, maybe get some desalination plants going so we don't drain the Murray dry again next drought.[/QUOTE]
So far you seem to be okay with privatizing public health, public transport, water, and so on. I don't think we will be able to convince each other there because I firmly think anyone who wants to privatise these things is prioritising profits over public welfare. Wanton privatisation is a really terrible thing.
[QUOTE]You haven't really made the case for him being a wackjob, just that he has a few objectionable things and a lot of thing the media (and you) have tried to spin.[/QUOTE]
It may not be a strong case to you, sure. But I'm pretty sure you're not the sole judge of whether or not my arguments were convincing.
I lifted LDP policies directly from his website and the articles I linked were talking about statements sourced directly from his twitter. He is a nutjob if only on the basis of these policies. But I have higher expectations of the people that are elected and I believe they should be people who don't insult large swathes of the public for fun.
[QUOTE]Do you agree with every policy of the party you voted for? I would expect you could find many objectionable things about Labor (say their until-very-recently opposition to gay marriage despite its overwhelming support by Australians? Their stupid internet filter? Or maybe that we didn't get R18 video games because of the SA [I]Labor[/I] Attorney General? I'm sure we can go on.)[/QUOTE]
No, I don't support those Labor policies. But also, I don't find their policies more objectionable on a moral basis than the LDP policies. Also there's a massive difference there because you're talking about [I]previous[/I] Labor policies in reference to marriage equality as opposed to [I]current[/I] LDP policy. Labor sticks up for fair working conditions. Labor sticks up for environmental policies. Labor sticks up for the welfare state which has always been the source of Australia's success post WWII. Labor doesn't want to sell our public water system. I didn't put Labor as my first preference when they were opposed to marriage equality, but their position has subsequently changed and that is no longer an issue for me.
Frankly I don't give a shit about R18 video games or people whinging and whining about them if it means I'm also voting for a party that wants to sell off our public water system. I'd rather not play outlast 2 if it means there's a party in power that won't cut funds to community legal centres and social welfare and won't make moves to ensure that I'm not paid a living wage.
Download you're really fucking weird you know that? Also saying someone is just a dickhead isn't a good argument the guy's clearly fucked up and out of touch with the real world clearly you are too.
[QUOTE=killerteacup;51990768]Sure, getting rid of pensions makes sense if you grow up in fantasy rich kid world where the poor are all lazy dole bludgers.[/quote]
Nice assumption, pity it's wrong.
[quote]It's not a degree, it's a cert from TAFE. So already you're completely off the mark. Secondly, if you remove the certification, [I]there's no legal guarantee[/I] that the child is safe when you hand them over to the goddamn nursery. There's a [I]reason [/I]we have certifications for things. There are good reasons for a person to have to get qualification to look after [I]other people's children[/I].[/quote]
Whatever you want to call it (it's tertiary education), doesn't make a sort of legal guarantee. Do you suddenly think that without them people are going to suddenly get away with abusing kids?
[quote]The comments he made in the above aren't problems with his policy positions, just his demeanour and lack of regard for a good chunk of the population.[/quote]
I'm not even sure how someone can be offended by that comment unless it's been editorialised to hell and back.
[quote]I'm not even going to bother addressing this. Anyone who supports removing 18C has no idea how the legal system works and frankly it's just embarrassing. Plus its ridiculous that he can make a complaint about the number of frivolous cases brought to the human rights commission while making a frivolous case himself.[/quote]
Oh please. Are you being asinine? He's was demonstrating how flawed the whole thing was. The fact he could make a complaint shows how fucked up the whole thing is.
Our legal system works on precedent. The moment an idiot with a stupid complaint gets a sympathetic judge is the moment precedent is created and the floodgates of stupidity open. And that's completely ignoring free speech - which I'll assume you don't give a shit about.
[quote]Yeah, cool, good for you. He also said he'd be happy to leave a cop bleeding on the side of the road.[/quote]
Nice dodge of the question.
[quote]An anecdotal example of poor management in a public hospital is not an adequate justification for removing the public health system. If cutting bureaucracy subsequently results in a decrease in the quality and availability of care then I'm all for keeping some bureaucracy around.[/quote]
The system would still be publicly funded. You would also need to prove that cutting red tape will decrease quality of care. If anything, no longer having to pay for so many paper-pushers would mean more money spent on caring for people (shocking!).
[quote]HECS is the only thing that matters [I]to you[/I]. Austudy and Abstudy, and student scholarships and youth allowance are hugely important to allow lower income families to actually afford higher education. Programs like Austudy in Australia are what have facilitated our ability to actually have social mobility when other countries like America struggle with it. I personally would not have been able to afford to study and live in Sydney if it wasn't for our youth allowance system. I know many people personally who would not have been able to go to university at all without Austudy and they're not leeches on the system for taking advantage of it.
Plus I'm sure I don't need to tout the economic benefits of opening up education to the greatest number of people possible and that's what our social welfare does for students.[/quote]
There's nothing forcing you to study full time. It's piss easy to take a 3/4th workload, add an extra year to your degree and work.
[quote]That is not a point to criticise Australia on. A higher minimum wage is a [I]good thing.[/I][/quote]
Citation needed.
There's a limited pool of funds to pay for wages. By increasing minimum wage you decrease the overall hours worked across the working group.
[quote]The ABC aren't a mouthpiece for Greens, that's pure fantasy. Independent audits have exonerated the ABC multiple times, over and over. Here's one from 2014 which I found pretty much straight away:
[url]http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/audits-exonerate-abc-over-bias-claims/news-story/3ad4ba13a0751a74c2b417c13dcb52d6?nk=7f7d92ea52e9a7f33125cbb6a5302ebc-1490085365[/url]
Inquiries have found no evidence of bias, and the ABC is a public service broadcaster, not a state propaganda machine anyway. The accusation against the ABC of being a left propaganda station is just pitchfork swinging. It's been proven wrong over and over. [/quote]
All media outlets have bias. To pretend they don't is foolish. It's no different that news.com.au being a right-wind outlet.
[quote]So far you seem to be okay with privatizing public health, public transport, water, and so on. I don't think we will be able to convince each other there because I firmly think anyone who wants to privatise these things is prioritising profits over public welfare. Wanton privatisation is a really terrible thing.[/quote]
Privatisation has a long history of producing more cost effective products and with appropriate oversight they're safe too.
[quote]It may not be a strong case to you, sure. But I'm pretty sure you're not the sole judge of whether or not my arguments were convincing.
I lifted LDP policies directly from his website and the articles I linked were talking about statements sourced directly from his twitter. He is a nutjob if only on the basis of these policies. But I have higher expectations of the people that are elected and I believe they should be people who don't insult large swathes of the public for fun.[/quote]
Are the major parties nutjobs for having some policies you disagree with?
[quote]No, I don't support those Labor policies. But also, I don't find their policies more objectionable on a moral basis than the LDP policies. Also there's a massive difference there because you're talking about [I]previous[/I] Labor policies in reference to marriage equality as opposed to [I]current[/I] LDP policy. Labor sticks up for fair working conditions. Labor sticks up for environmental policies. Labor sticks up for the welfare state which has always been the source of Australia's success post WWII. Labor doesn't want to sell our public water system. I didn't put Labor as my first preference when they were opposed to marriage equality, but their position has subsequently changed and that is no longer an issue for me.[/quote]
I don't know your political views so I took a safe middle-ground and selected several policies they have and have previously had that I knew would be objectionable to the internet generation. If i knew more about your views I'm sure I can find things you don't like about whatever party your preference first.
[quote]Frankly I don't give a shit about R18 video games or people whinging and whining about them if it means I'm also voting for a party that wants to sell off our public water system. I'd rather not play outlast 2 if it means there's a party in power that won't cut funds to community legal centres and social welfare and won't make moves to ensure that I'm not paid a living wage.[/QUOTE]
You keep going on about water but haven't explained what exactly will go wrong with it being privatised. The policy made it quite clear that water prices would be regulated.
[editline]22nd March 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Canary;51991067]Download you're really fucking weird you know that? Also saying someone is just a dickhead isn't a good argument the guy's clearly fucked up and out of touch with the real world clearly you are too.[/QUOTE]
Have you got an actual argument?
[editline]22nd March 2017[/editline]
I find it so bizarre you trust the government to manage all these things. In only a few years a party you don't like could be in power and it's their turn to play in the sandbox. Governments have a very long history of fucking things up and to trust them with things like 18C and arbitrary strip searches is pretty crazy from my perspective.
Just because you disagree with someone on one issue doesn't mean that person is wrong about everything.
Knock it off with this retarded with us or against us bullshit.
the LDP are a weird seppo libertarian import in a country with a strong sense of collective value, how you can support them in their quest to make us America-lite is beyond me
[QUOTE=download;51991400]Privatisation has a long history of producing more cost effective products and with appropriate oversight they're safe too.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it's worked really really well for us over here in America [sp][CITATION NEEDED][/sp]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
