Jump to content


Photo

Talk about a quandry ! ... not.


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 eveln

eveln

    Guru

  • Atomican
  • 15,829 posts
  • Location:Nth QLD

Posted 18 March 2017 - 03:00 PM

I've always advocated for marriage for all adults that want it, in any of it's many forms, but I've also always been adverse to

the influence of big business on political decisions. So at first it might seem cool that corporation CEOs are spouting their PC views

on the topic of marriage availability, but no, it's almost as kerniving (sp) and nasty as them throwing 'donations' at the pollies.

 

And Dutton to be the one making a fuss about this is also iffy imo ... but then I guess if his name is in the ring to replace Malcy then

of course it's politics as usual ... nothing to see here.

Last, and always the least to want to talk about, is Qantas CEO Joyce ... what a fucker-of-a-game-player that dude is ;)

 

http://www.abc.net.a...iticism/8366306


 Laugh to Live . Live to Laugh.

atomic has π


#2 Jeruselem

Jeruselem

    Guru

  • Atomican
  • 13,269 posts
  • Location:Not Trump-Land

Posted 18 March 2017 - 04:10 PM

Potato head complained we were bullying corporations into same sex marriage support but he ignores these ceos when they do support it.

Cortana at your service


#3 @~thehung

@~thehung

    Guru

  • Hero
  • 8,483 posts

Posted 18 March 2017 - 04:34 PM

Joyce has never seemed anything but the slimiest of bastards.  no doubt his motivation is, above all, one of self interest — insofar as it is deemed to benefit his service of his company.  

 

oh well, 'the enemy of my enemy'.  any thorn in the sides of liberal conservatives which is able to frustrate their lame efforts to quash this, is a good one.

 

i dont think intervention in the political process by companies is something we should generally encourage, but meh.


no pung intended

#4 tastywheat

tastywheat

    Primarch

  • Atomican
  • 1,809 posts

Posted 18 March 2017 - 06:21 PM

Potato head complained we were bullying corporations into same sex marriage support but he ignores these ceos when they do support it.

 

 

Yeah, properly faulty logic from Potato head.

  1. CEOs only support SSM otherwise people will boycott them.
  2. Boycotts are only effective if a significant proportion of the population support them.
  3. It follows that a majority of people must support SSM in order to pressure CEOs into supporting it.

Not surprising, but it's still a stupid argument.



#5 Mac Dude

Mac Dude

    Immortal

  • Super Hero
  • 36,319 posts
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 18 March 2017 - 09:03 PM

it's nothing but politics, next...


Karl Kruszelnicki - No, I’m fully prepared to believe in the “Church of God the Utterly Indifferent who sets the universe going and says you’re on your own kids.

#6 te0p

te0p

    Master

  • Atomican
  • 839 posts
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 01 April 2017 - 10:16 PM

I've always advocated for marriage for all adults that want it, in any of it's many forms, 

So you have no objection to people marryingthere pets?  marrying the sydney harbour bridge? etc... ?  

 

but I've also always been adverse to the influence of big business on political decisions.

 

Same, mainly because they are generally not interested in the issue, as opposed to supporting an issue as a means to a ends, which is to gain more revenue. 

 

And Dutton to be the one making a fuss about this is also iffy imo ... but then I guess if his name is in the ring to replace Malcy .

 

IMO, not a chance, no one would vote for him.  

 

Last, and always the least to want to talk about, is Qantas CEO Joyce ... what a fucker-of-a-game-player that dude is ;)

 

I have always felt he was a slimey toad. 



#7 eveln

eveln

    Guru

  • Atomican
  • 15,829 posts
  • Location:Nth QLD

Posted 02 April 2017 - 01:14 AM

About the pets te0p, my mistake. I guess I needed to stipulate marriage between consenting adult humans. I think marrying one's pets is

akin to paedophilia in that the pet's response and true understanding cannot be gauged by humans, so there for I'm quite against it. And as to marrying inanimate

objects, well I think I recall someone going through some sort of ceremony with a tree. If the tree is on the person's property I don't see any harm in it.

But I would think the State Government (at least) might be an issue for someone wanting to marry the Sydney Harbour bridge ... in that the bridge is there for

all who wish to travel across or climb it. A person wanting to marry it may not want to share it, so that could be a problem.

 

As to the rest of your post, I have nothing but blank white as your responses to the quotes you took of mine


Edited by eveln, 02 April 2017 - 01:15 AM.

 Laugh to Live . Live to Laugh.

atomic has π


#8 Master_Scythe

Master_Scythe

    Titan

  • Hero
  • 19,735 posts
  • Location:QLD

Posted 03 April 2017 - 09:03 AM

About the pets te0p, my mistake. I guess I needed to stipulate marriage between consenting adult humans. I think marrying one's pets is

akin to paedophilia in that the pet's response and true understanding cannot be gauged by humans, so there for I'm quite against it. And as to marrying inanimate

objects, well I think I recall someone going through some sort of ceremony with a tree. If the tree is on the person's property I don't see any harm in it.

But I would think the State Government (at least) might be an issue for someone wanting to marry the Sydney Harbour bridge ... in that the bridge is there for

all who wish to travel across or climb it. A person wanting to marry it may not want to share it, so that could be a problem.

 

As to the rest of your post, I have nothing but blank white as your responses to the quotes you took of mine

 

There are quite a few AI marriages in Japan. Quite successful too last I looked into it.


Wherever you go in life, watch out for Scythe, the tackling IT support guy.

"I don't care what race you are, not one f*cking bit, if you want to be seen as a good people, you go in there and you f*ck up the people who (unofficially) represent you in a negative light!"


#9 eveln

eveln

    Guru

  • Atomican
  • 15,829 posts
  • Location:Nth QLD

Posted 03 April 2017 - 10:36 PM

 

About the pets te0p, my mistake. I guess I needed to stipulate marriage between consenting adult humans. I think marrying one's pets is

akin to paedophilia in that the pet's response and true understanding cannot be gauged by humans, so there for I'm quite against it. And as to marrying inanimate

objects, well I think I recall someone going through some sort of ceremony with a tree. If the tree is on the person's property I don't see any harm in it.

But I would think the State Government (at least) might be an issue for someone wanting to marry the Sydney Harbour bridge ... in that the bridge is there for

all who wish to travel across or climb it. A person wanting to marry it may not want to share it, so that could be a problem.

 

As to the rest of your post, I have nothing but blank white as your responses to the quotes you took of mine

 

There are quite a few AI marriages in Japan. Quite successful too last I looked into it.

 

Okay. ...


 Laugh to Live . Live to Laugh.

atomic has π





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users