Jump to content
Can't remember your login details? Read more... ×


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Serf

About te0p

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  1. te0p

    Best cutscene?

    System Shock 2 is pretty good. thinking off one off the top of my head, it stands out the most.
  2. How much did you pay for it?
  3. te0p

    Thank you Hospitals! (Sincerely)

    Your boyfriend passing a Gerbil is nothing to waste the ER's time with.
  4. te0p

    Talk about a quandry ! ... not.

    So you have no objection to people marryingthere pets? marrying the sydney harbour bridge? etc... ? 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. IMO, not a chance, no one would vote for him. I have always felt he was a slimey toad.
  5. te0p

    Now this I couldn't believe ...

    Rogue one was shit. 2nd worst starwars movie after the force awakens.
  6. te0p

    And What Are You Listening To?

    https://youtu.be/uzCleIHK2lU https://youtu.be/nVBh0RPIx6E
  7. te0p

    What Did You Watch Lately ?

    With Hazelwood closing down i got to watching stuff about power plants.. more so Nuclear power plants... Three mile island doco: https://youtu.be/C_HWrVeYP5E Chernobyl: Both of these are good, and together give you a good picture of events: https://youtu.be/njTQaUCk4KY https://youtu.be/0eEpaSLi5WQ Im currently watching this Fukishima one: https://youtu.be/Xs3kUK1Gdrs This will be my next watch.. https://youtu.be/vZ4vtUzG6sQ IMO, After watching these, im now further in the beleief that a properly Run Nuclear power plant connected to the Grid could solve all our problems.
  8. te0p

    And What Are You Listening To?

    My mum rang me up a few months ago, and told me to listen to Classic FM because there was a song on there she thought id like. She was not wrong. There is a album called: Satie En Orient by Ensemble Sarband It is Satie done with eastern intruments, ie: Sitar etc.. and it sounds amazing. There is this one on Youtube: But you can listen to the whole album here: http://www.deezer.com/album/219622 Gnossienne No 5 is probably the most tranquil and relaxing.
  9. te0p

    What Did You Watch Lately ?

    I have been watching GOT, but i really like this guys reviews of each weeks episode. He really ties it all together, and has a great production and a good voice.. i think he is a Aussie too... so if you are watching the GOT check it out.. well worth it.
  10. The law would only affect the issuing of marriage licences. Since that isn't metaphysical, you have nothing to worry about. Right? Do churchs marry people? ie: issue marriage licences? arent they given the power by the state? and if they did not marry SS, they would be up against the equal oppurtunity commision?
  11. It's a logical fallacy each and every time someone asserts an inevitable outcome, without supporting evidence or critical analysis for each action/reaction in the chain of events. The evidence is in a Logical argument if you accept logical argument as evidence. Some people dont. ie: could A lead to B.... yes, to C, yes... Will it? that is induction. Which science uses daily. This line of discussion started with an argument that acknowledging homosexuality had biological or genetic factors was an argument for determinism. I disagreed, arguing that acknowledging this was not the same as suggesting it is pre-dertermined, nor is it an argument for hard determinism. You haven't put forward any evidence or arguments that would link the reasonably well established science on homosexuality with hard determinism, which is why I'm calling your logic out as a slippery slope fallacy. Sorry, im confused why i have to put forward evidence? you are the one who commited the naturlistic fallacy, did not concede and then went on to tell me Homosexuality is pre determined by the stars only to also agree with free will...which is what i believe (im a compatablist to be exact). and then now again put forward scientific evidence that being a homosexual is unavoidable by that link.. and it agree with me, it is unknown. or you could look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7IpoT9upzc OR this article... http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150206-are-there-any-homosexual-animals Im not really interested in a link war, and reading your link either.. i dont have the time. so lets forget about it,, way of track anyway, the only point i wanted to make was that a persons decsions make them who they are, not the matter that are made from. and for the record, I never SS on the FW debate.. i only defended that Slippery slopes are good arguments depite the multiple premises if they are all cogent. and there is real world evidence, scientific like, dont let interracial couples marry because next we will be marrying dogs and cats.. Again, it seems I need to remind you that you're never actually voting for a political party. You're voting for an individual representative, who may be associated with a political party, but is essentially free to change political parties or become an independent during their term in office. You really want to live in a world where you vote for one thing and get anothe or something yo never voted for, where is your representation then?> you have been ripped off and democracy is a sham... seriously, that is F#&cked up. Politics has progressed in such a way that 2 sides seem to generally embody what a individual believes, and is represented by that. hence why a 2 party system, because most things in political philosophy can be reduced to such in very general terms.... after that it is simply a matter of how far you are on the spectrum. it is then your choice to follow one or the other despite your personal beliefs. Additionally, I think you're confusing 'mandate' with a legislative bill. The mandate is given to Members of Parliament through the election process, it's not something that's voted on by other MPs. A legislative bill is something that is always brought forward by an individual, but usually it's on behalf of their political party. Nothing stops private member bills (i.e. legislative bills coming from an individual instead of their party), and a pertinent example of this is the conservative LNP backbencher Warren Entsch introducing a SSM bill. Im not confused, you require a mandate, other wise you simply are lying to the public, yeh, sure promise the world to the public, get in and dont honour it. see how long you last, or even worse do the opposite. I think you fail to understand the trust faith reltionship we have with out representives, we as people ask them not to vote for SSM, then they do. They are out next week. yeh, sure they legally can vote for it. but it is of little benefit to them if they have to lie to there constiuents to get it done, or the full democratic process. Your thinking on this matter is absurd enough for me to call it delusional, and suggests you haven't done your due diligence in researching how these things work before forming a strong opinion on them. This probably covers the bare minimum of how the mechanics of a conscious vote works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience_vote It's 750 words, so it'll take an average reader under 4 minutes to get through. Read it, then form an argument about how a conscious vote is an abuse of power that references the mechanics of the Westminster system Australia uses, and you're going to be much more likely to persuade me towards your opinion. Simply look at where a new unsuspected law is required like Cloning during the Howard years, and then look where a new law could be mandated like Abortion law reform in 2008 in victoria, and look at the end results. It is complex, no doubt. Conscience votes are always last resort, and only for when there is no mandate dividing party lines (like in the labour party on SSM) IT ultimately comes down to you trusting your politcians, sure you trust penny wong to vote Yes for SSM and the plebisect... But what about other labour pollies? what about the one in your area? they may tell you to your face they support it but do the opposite becase the constiuents dont realy support it, yet argue that it was the way the bill was represented is why they voted against.. Conscience votes are as clear as mud and not a prefered way to run a democracy. Period.
  12. Nonsense. The government allowing SSM does not effect you or your religion. How would you guarantee that when the laws are under the guise of Marriage equality law? How would marriage be equal if you are a SSC and are not allowed to get married in a Chruch/mosque/synagogue which provides marriage servcies? Are you going to make such guarentees? If you do, it does not sound like Mariage equality.
  13. te0p

    What Did You Watch Lately ?

    Everyone should watch this... not too much that we did not know for those who know Nazi and WW2 history...., but gives insight into the psychology of the man: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvDVEDVI12I
  14. ... Tell me you did not just suggest that atheist can't know love - that you just misspoke. No, im sure there are plenty of atheist with a more open heart and loving than i am.. while atheism is not a worlview (disclaimer), Most atheists (not all) have a big problem when it comes to claims like "love" etc... in that they cant really both deny a metaphysical claim like "God" and then accept another metaphycscial claim like "love" Pretty much says it. But wouldnt that mean that your standard of evidence changes for one thing to anohter? ie: God you require science.... but for love and morals you reuire none? that does stink of a double standard no matter how well written. FTFY. But yes. It really is just a legal contract. Some people just want access to a legal contract that some other people have. Unfortunately those who oppose SSM there metaphysical claims dont allow for legal contraction whilst living in a Democracy, otherwise they would be underselling there beliefs down the river.
  15. Are you saying that is a good or bad argument? Also, do you know how to get a mandate in an Australian election? Because I sure don't. Did Gillard have a mandate because she formed a Government? Did Rudd and Abbott have mandates because people voted against the previous Governments? On which particular issue is it that a Govt has a mandate? It's not like people vote on them all separately. Did Abbott get a mandate because he won so many seats after Rudd/Gillard/Rudd, or did he fail to achieve one because he didn't hold a Senate majority, too? Are you aware that the LNP offers non-ministers a conscience vote on most matters EXCEPT for SSM? The ALP would be the opposite, and don't allow any dissenting votes outside of party meetings, EXCEPT potentially on SSM? Neither i am saying that they work is all. So when ever someone is opposed to SSM and screams Beastiality or incest will be next, there argument is logical, cogent and grounded. Despite it sounding repulsive, which is what works against it, because most people will say that is ridiculous...ehem... just like inter-racial marriage sounded absurd but we know it not. It is not enough to disregard it as "slipery slope" and is a invalid argument, when it plainly is not, they (opposition to SSM) need guarentees that it wont extend that far if a SSM reform is passed, and that needs to come from the LGBTQIA community. For instance i think i could make a valid argument that 2 brothers could get married... but i wont.. but, Id be interested to hear any arguments against 2 biological brothers getting married? ( i think both sides of the debate need that!) The mandate is the policys you launch during the election period, if you dont release them and people vote for your clever policys... if you dont have policiys, and you win, and then try to institute your un-released hidden policys, it is a illegitimate mandate. You need to be part of the LAbour or Libreal party, become a badge carrying member to effect what policy is written and approved, or depending on the party, be very a very popular issue that will garner votes, or start your own party, with your own policys and take them to parliment. Gillard took over as head of a party with a mandate, the mandate did not change AFAIK... for instance, she did not tyr and get SSM though. A mandate wont pass if you dont win Majority, hence why the recent changes. Good will by each party, toward each party will allow the will of the australian people go ahead of party lines. ie: labour will let a libreal mandate pass becuase the Australian people voted for it, to not do that is anti democratic IMO, but it is allowed too. Take abbots Paid parental leave scheme, brilliant plan, really should have passed, and really something labour ought have supported, it is right up there alley so to speak.... but they didnt, yet it was mandated... quite sad really. The LNP are conservatives, and concervatism is not a worldview, the libreals have little in shared beleifs except that there whould be less laws and rules to the most minium level. I even think they would get rif of the marriage act alltogether (which i agree with) ie: government has nothing to do with what private citizens do in regard to marriage. You get married end of story. Unfortunately there seems to be practical reasons for keeping it. so unless there is a mandate then there is no chance. The plebiscite is the best offering currently, short of Labour mandating it, and TBH that is where the problem is, they wont becuase the majority in the labour party wont back it. (lots of catholics in it)