Jump to content
SacrificialNewt

It's Compass O'Clock

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

 

sorry but I can't get rid of the repeats.

image.png

Edited by Nich...
fixed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SacrificialNewt said:

Opinions are like arseholes and I want to know all about yours.

 

Not going to link my chart - it looks almost identical to yours.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Left of labor angling toward Greens, just don't much care for any of the current leaders.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trustworthy is a loaded question. Do I trust them to do what they say? Maybe. Do I trust them to represent me? Less so. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same square as the Greens, tad further left and a tad less progressive, which surprised me

 

But the centre here is arbitrary; they've just plonked it down halfway between Labor and LNP, which is bullshit. Political Compass has Labor as centre right, with the Greens closest to the centre. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SacrificialNewt said:

 

Eveln's twin

Yeah, that'd be evil twin, yeah ?? 😉

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If Malcolm Turnbull were still Prime Minister would you be more or less likely to vote for the Coalition?"

 

how to answer this leading question? 

 

because 1% of 0 is still 0, i am left with "just as likely" — which doesnt sit well.  where is my "not bloody likely in either case, how very dare you" option? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ive done the test a couple of times, but i am still refining my responses.  first time around i made some guesses, next time i opted for a handful of "don't knows"...

 

examples:

 

i cant claim to know the rammifications of private health insurance subsidies. 

 

"The government should fund the expansion of preschool to three-year-olds."  what is this about?  i was under the impression that i was in govt funded preschool when i was 3 yo.

 

fracking.  i know theres all sort of negatives, but in the wasteland of NT, could the economic benefits override them?  probably not, but i cant claim to know...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, @~thehung said:

i cant claim to know the rammifications of private health insurance subsidies. 

 

Do you believe in Medicare?

 

5 minutes ago, @~thehung said:

fracking.  i know theres all sort of negatives, but in the wasteland of NT, could the economic benefits override them? 

 

I gather those negatives are petty serious; contaminated groundwater and all that... can any economic benefit be weighed up against that sort of vandalism? Wasteland, according to what criteria?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eveln said:

Yeah, that'd be evil twin, yeah ?? 😉

 

Fair call. I'm a terrible person 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kimmo said:

 

Do you believe in Medicare?

 

I gather those negatives are petty serious; contaminated groundwater and all that... can any economic benefit be weighed up against that sort of vandalism? Wasteland, according to what criteria?

 

medicare is great.  whats your point? educate me.

 

"can any economic benefit be weighed up against that sort of vandalism?"  = sentimentalist bunkum.  you owe much of your high standard of living to "vandalised" natural resources.  again, educate me.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, fliptopia said:

Fair call. I'm a terrible person 

The worst dude, the worst dude 🙂 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, @~thehung said:

 

medicare is great.  whats your point? educate me.

 

 

 

 

Perhaps it's a more socially acceptable idea to put the extra funding into Medicare rather than subsidising private healthcare. People who can afford it will naturally take the private option just to have their own room and fast elective surgeries., but the public system isn't coping with just reasonable waiting lists and general supplies. Hell, I know someone who has terminal bowel cancer who had to wait a year for an endoscopy under the public system. She's now too weak to even have chemo. It's so...America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

well, i am trying to find a benefit of the doubt rationale from the govts perspective. 

 

its conceivable to me that encouraging more participation and competition at the private end could in theory streamline things to the advantage of all, although it seems that hasnt happened, and in any case, the spend has ballooned beyond any kind of justifiable stimulus to the point of functioning as a handout — to the privileged.  ergo, it seems so undeniably fucked in the head that i dont trust my own understanding of it.

Edited by @~thehung
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, @~thehung said:

 

"can any economic benefit be weighed up against that sort of vandalism?"  = sentimentalist bunkum.  you owe much of your high standard of living to "vandalised" natural resources.  again, educate me.

 

 

Also food. Food is very helpful. And if farms producing food are having water poisoned by fracking then I think the question of whether we should have tighter restrictions seems easy enough to answer. Even if there are cases where the economics outwieght the environmental aspects the restrictions have to be tight enough that they don't allow for accidentally killing off waterways. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, fliptopia said:

And if farms producing food are having water poisoned by fracking then I think the question of whether we should have tighter restrictions seems easy enough to answer.

 

as i alluded to above, everything comes at a cost.  need a new road?  then kill x amount of flora and fauna, and disturb ecosystems, possibly permanently.  thats true even of urbanised areas.  our willingness to undertake these sorts of bargains is what makes our modern civilisation possible.  there is always a list of side effects, and those of fracking seem relatively benign, provided the sites are properly chosen and appropriate measures are in place.

 

the NT inquiry's draft report makes 120 regulatory recommendations and "It is the panel's opinion that, provided that the recommendations made in this report are adopted and implemented, not only should the risk of any harm be minimised to an acceptable level, in some instances, it can be avoided altogether".  ergo, its all tickety-boo :)

 

well, not really.  this is very much a devils advocate argument, because i am all about renewables after all.  and of course i am not naive enough to think the independence of this inquiry hasnt been or cant be corrupted up the wazoo by big money interests.  but i am making it because anything with the whiff of mindless tribalism disturbs me.  suppose for a second that the final report is not only not anti-fracking but also — shock horror — rigorous, accurate, honest, and legit.  would it ever be afforded the chance to be judged fairly?  or would those raising reasonable questions about the pros and cons be shouted down as if they were calling for a Chernobyl style reactor to be built on top of Uluru?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i am shunning the term "side effects" and suggest instead the more accurate descriptor "adverse effects" is used

 

it's advertising jargon to  refer to bad things as if they are an accompaniment to what we're being served

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the allusion to big pharma weaselwordery was intended :)

 

side effects may include: fish kills

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, @~thehung said:

, provided the sites are properly chosen and appropriate measures are in place.

and for me, that's the bit that's become more questionable these days. 

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-26/residents-of-forgotten-town-want-asbestos-wasteland-gone/4541540

There are a number of places in Australia where it is still unsafe to be.

Edited by eveln
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×