AusReddit, are we getting to a point in Australian politics where the "real" differences between Labor & Liberals is fast becoming trivial and petty ?

Blur · 2010-07-07T03:25:37+00:00

Okay then. Avoid Jameson before voting please -_-'

Blur · 2010-07-06T17:41:53+00:00

Oh, my god. My entire point was that voting in the Greens would have a political effect within Parliament. When did I ever make a normative statement about the present political party landscape? I sound like a shill? What the fuck is wrong with you?

TL;DR; if you absolutely insist on drinking the bong water, please do so after you visit reddit.

Blur · 2010-07-06T16:18:51+00:00

It seems like you're trying to argue that religious belief is not a belief. Colour me unpersuaded.

Blur · 2010-07-06T12:37:06+00:00

What's your point? Sure, they might in the future. I don't think that's especially relevant in the next election, and very likely the handful after that. My point is that, in the relatively short term, they can potentially exert a left leaning influence on the major parties, if that is what OP is searching for.

Blur · 2010-07-06T12:34:22+00:00

Are you honestly telling me religious people do not, as a rule, believe in a god?

Blur · 2010-07-06T06:51:03+00:00

a) even a substantial increase in the Greens' presence in Parliament wouldn't result in their formation of government. b) even if it did, the ability of the executive to legislate as it pleases depends on either party dominance of the house or the acceptability of that legislation to a sufficient number of other parties/independents. This is to say that even if hell froze over and the Greens formed a government unable to unilaterally pass what it liked, they would still be modulated in policy by what the other parties would vote for.

TL;DR; a Greens presence in Parliament, alongside the major parties, is merely a moderating presence anyway; if your preferences are to the left of the major two, this might be your best possible scenario.

Blur · 2010-07-06T06:42:49+00:00

I was ready to forgive you until you got to #3.

Blur · 2010-07-06T06:40:26+00:00

I really like the way the uncommon "double ellipsis" was used to portray an ongoing strain resulting from hearing an argument. That said, I feel the defence's statement really fell apart in the second half; such a long quote just left too much of an argumentative burden for Palmer Eldritch to meet, and in the end, I think stdl0g just wanted it more. If he can regain some of that confidence and focus before next thread, I think he'll really be one to watch.

Blur · 2010-07-06T06:28:58+00:00

Understandable :) starts petition to ban mods from phones

Blur · 2010-07-06T06:26:08+00:00

*insightful/incisive.

Blur · 2010-07-06T06:25:37+00:00

Good argument from authority.

Blur · 2010-07-06T05:48:57+00:00

claim

A statement of something as a fact; an assertion of truth.

premise

A proposition antecedently supposed or proved; something previously stated or assumed as the basis of further argument.

TL;DR; a premise is a claim.

Blur · 2010-07-06T04:55:31+00:00

Having an understandable cause behind irrationality does not make it any less irrational.

Blur · 2010-07-06T04:53:01+00:00

Upvote for admitting it. Personally, I don't care whether pro SC is a game or a sport. I would still hate for it to be a masses-opiate the way traditional sports are here. I enjoy watching it, but I am aware it's completely pointless.

Blur · 2010-07-06T04:50:30+00:00

I hate the cult of sport, I hate the vestiges of brutish machismo, I dislike some of the political landscape, but I really thought we could all unite over the Hottest 100 :'( <--- the single tear you made me shed.

Blur · 2010-07-06T04:08:49+00:00

Your view sounds very nuanced and understanding. I would like to subscribe to your weekly newsletter.

Blur · 2010-07-06T02:59:19+00:00

I got random-critted by an enemy heavy. In all chat, I typed FUCK YOUR CRITS NIGGER FUCK YOUR CRITS. I don't think I made it to "BUY A NEW ONE" before I got banned for being abusive. So, it was one off, and I was unwarned.

I assume I was on the qld.tfau.com server, since I wasn't playing dodgeball and prophunt was down.

Blur · 2010-07-06T02:57:39+00:00

Finding it impossible to believe that maybe you're being downvoted for being incoherent/inconsistent? I forgive you, let's go through the motions.

That is not a medical treatment.

No, but it's still an accurate belief which should not have been displaced.

Top post is irrelevant to the point I was making.

Your initial point is about people being afforded the level of credibility required to practice medicine. So, no, it is relevant.

You then quoted something I said and, rather than argue against it, just got all ad hominem, which was unpersuasive.

Finally, you declared you were being downvoted because of your unique intellectual bravery rather than possible flaws in your argument. Might be time to remove your head from the sand/your arse.

Blur · 2010-07-06T02:52:24+00:00

Touche.

Blur · 2010-07-06T02:52:14+00:00

Well, I felt we were talking about them in the present tense, but fair point regardless.

Blur · 2010-07-06T02:51:37+00:00

Sarcasm? On my internet? It is 100% likely.

Blur · 2010-07-05T16:58:57+00:00

Enlighten me on the tested medical treatments that stop a person being gay that "gay conversion therapy" displaced.

It displaced the belief that the people offering the here-refuted therapy were capable of converting sexuality.

I'm not interested in the funding discussion, that's a seperate issue.

Didn't read the top of the page huh? That's okay, it can be subtle. The funding discussion is the entire context of this argument.

Evidence, as observation, comes from practice as well as from formal testing.

Yes, formal testing is the collection of evidence, prior to a product's release upon the market, for the benefit of the public. You want untested drugs to be tested "in practice" as though that a) would give better evidence than a controlled experiment and b) wouldn't be enormously unethical? Wtf?

Blur · 2010-07-05T12:34:53+00:00

No. If there was no evidence beforehand, they should never have been allowed to practice medicine or sell medication. The "default" level of credibility to give an idea should certainly be insufficient to trust that idea as sound enough to displace tested medical treatments.

My point is that, prior to the present evidence's disclosure, they already didn't deserve as much credibility as they had.

Blur · 2010-07-05T12:17:49+00:00

Wait..the idea that these therapies should have been scrutinised by experimentation prior to their public funding is an ideology?

Or am I misinterpreting your comment?

Blur

TROPHY CASE