Aussie Thread: Democracy Sausage

[maarsen]

2 minutes ago, Paxter said:

May I see it?

Look up David Wolpert.. You can find the proof in Wikipedia. 

[Stubby]

11 hours ago, maarsen said:

Look up David Wolpert.. You can find the proof in Wikipedia. 

Or you could just explain it.

[The Anti-Targ]

There are also logical proofs for God. So yeah, one might consider a proof and say, yeah that nails it. But really it doesn't. 

I think, without reading it, Wolpert's proof can possibly be negated using a thought experiment that our universe is a computer simulation. "God" is the programmer, since ultimately the basic definition of God is a self-aware consciousness that created the universe. A programme who creates a simulation is the god of that simulation. The programmer understands the physics of the simulation, since the programmer designed and coded the physics, and the programmer can also interact with the programme. However the programmer him/herself is not personally bound or limited by the physics of the simulation. The programmer exists independent and outside of the simulation, yet is in possession of a mechanism through and with which the simulation can be interacted.

I'm a theist and I think it is logical and rational to be theist. But I would not call myself a gnostic theist, since it can't be proved (or disproved) in a scientifically robust manner.

[Which Tyler]

6 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

There are also logical proofs for God.

there really aren't; and this really isn't the thread to discuss them (or Wolperts') either

[Stubby]

16 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

there really aren't; and this really isn't the thread to discuss them (or Wolperts') either

I agree.  To make a "proof" for god logical you have to define "god" in terms that can be supported by evidence.  Good luck getting any believer to do that.

[Jeor]

In other news, Jodi McKay has become the NSW Labor leader.

I don't know much of her except from the election coverage, and I didn't like her then - she came off as sour grapes, grumpy on TV, with Labor having lost an election they were favoured to win. Admittedly that has nothing to do with her policies but I don't think she has very much personal charisma, judging by her TV presence.

[Paxter]

On 6/29/2019 at 9:09 AM, Jeor said:

In other news, Jodi McKay has become the NSW Labor leader.

I don't know much of her except from the election coverage, and I didn't like her then - she came off as sour grapes, grumpy on TV, with Labor having lost an election they were favoured to win. Admittedly that has nothing to do with her policies but I don't think she has very much personal charisma, judging by her TV presence.

I think it's a little harsh to judge a pollie on a losing election night. MT was sour grapes in 2016 despite winning the election! I don't mind her - probably the best of a bad bunch.

Let's face it, Labor is on a hiding to nowhere in NSW. The state is economically pretty strong (though there are some headwinds on the way) and the Libs have exhibited more willingness to invest and a more positive vision. There is also the matter of gross incompetence and corruption on the part of the previous Labor government. Hardly any electorates flipped in the March election and I don't see much changing in the next few years. 

I am a little worried about ScoMo bringing up the religious protections bill again in the wake of the Folau matter. Ruddock's inquiry into religious freedoms didn't even recommend a Religious Discrimination Act FFS. We already have laws that exempt religious institutions from human rights legislation - what more do they want?

ETA: And I'm generally just annoyed because I think he's opportunistically seizing the moment rather than filling a genuine gap in the existing framework. I'm happy to change my mind once I've read the draft Bill and EM, but until then I'm concerned. 

[Stubby]

1 hour ago, Paxter said:

We already have laws that exempt religious institutions from human rights legislation - what more do they want?

To protect their privileged position to be bigots.

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, Paxter said:

 

I am a little worried about ScoMo bringing up the religious protections bill again in the wake of the Folau matter. Ruddock's inquiry into religious freedoms didn't even recommend a Religious Discrimination Act FFS. We already have laws that exempt religious institutions from human rights legislation - what more do they want?

 

I think all of a sudden the right might start getting cold feet about giving religion special exemptions. Back when it religion in Aussie = Christian it was all go with the conservative right to protect religion. Now the far right keeps raising the specter of Australia becoming ruled by Shariah law, there might be less of an appetite to give religion special treatment, because the law could never give special treatment only to Christianity and so any special treatment they might give to Christianity will also apply to Islam.

And surprising no one, reactions to Madga Szubanski expose [most of] these Folau supporters as not truly interested in free speech.

https://7news.com.au/news/israel-folau-calls-for-online-trolls-to-stop-attacks-on-magda-szubanski-over-gofundme-page-c-192191

[The Anti-Targ]

18 minutes ago, Stubby said:

To protect their privileged position to be bigots.

That's not really fair. In a liberal democracy everyone has the privilege of being a bigot, if they want to be.

But it is important that the Folau issue be resolved as a breach of contract matter and not a religious freedom or freedom of speech matter. It will be very problematic if Folau wins his case on the basis that an employee code of conduct cannot be breached if the act that would constitute a breach arises from a doctrinal religious belief. It would basically create a constitutional(?) crisis whereby two people expressing exactly the same opinion could be subject to different consequences based on one person being able to claim a religious defense and the other not being able to claim such a defense. An example could be Islamophobic statements made by a Christian vs Islamophobic statements made by a non-religious person. That would be troubling indeed.

[karaddin]

That's the pandoras box the US has already opened and its having the predictable effects there. I really dont want to see us follow.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, karaddin said:

That's the pandoras box the US has already opened and its having the predictable effects there. I really dont want to see us follow.

Speaking of the US. I was wondering if I’m looking at this situation too much through a US lense. Is it hypocritical  that many on the right in Australia are crying out for government intervention to protect “Folau”? Like are they close to right-wing Americans views on capitalism? Because if so his would seem to go against their idea of Capitalism being great. 

[Stubby]

3 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

That's not really fair. In a liberal democracy everyone has the privilege of being a bigot, if they want to be.

I just saw one comment on other site that was talking about Albanese discussing proposed religious freedom laws with Morrison as follows:

"No point trying to talk to the Godless Communists led by that Itie posing as a clean, civilised white man. His family is probably part of the mafia in this country, with their bootleg liquor and their fancy shoes. If the Godless Communists ever got back in we’d be taxed 90%."

I have no illusions about "religious freedom" advocates in Australia.  It's just an excuse for racism. 

[Paxter]

6 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

That's not really fair. In a liberal democracy everyone has the privilege of being a bigot, if they want to be.

That was Brandis’ favourite quote. But we have something called the Racial Discrimination Act, which renders the above a little untrue, at least insofar as expressing bigotry rather than just being one.

[The Anti-Targ]

3 hours ago, Stubby said:

I just saw one comment on other site that was talking about Albanese discussing proposed religious freedom laws with Morrison as follows:

"No point trying to talk to the Godless Communists led by that Itie posing as a clean, civilised white man. His family is probably part of the mafia in this country, with their bootleg liquor and their fancy shoes. If the Godless Communists ever got back in we’d be taxed 90%."

I have no illusions about "religious freedom" advocates in Australia.  It's just an excuse for racism. 

I would say that it's not limited to religious freedom advocates, advocates for all sorts of freedoms usually come out of the woodwork when racists are under attack.

[Jeor]

On 7/2/2019 at 12:49 PM, Paxter said:

I think it's a little harsh to judge a pollie on a losing election night. MT was sour grapes in 2016 despite winning the election! I don't mind her - probably the best of a bad bunch.

Let's face it, Labor is on a hiding to nowhere in NSW. The state is economically pretty strong (though there are some headwinds on the way) and the Libs have exhibited more willingness to invest and a more positive vision. There is also the matter of gross incompetence and corruption on the part of the previous Labor government. Hardly any electorates flipped in the March election and I don't see much changing in the next few years. 

I am a little worried about ScoMo bringing up the religious protections bill again in the wake of the Folau matter. Ruddock's inquiry into religious freedoms didn't even recommend a Religious Discrimination Act FFS. We already have laws that exempt religious institutions from human rights legislation - what more do they want?

ETA: And I'm generally just annoyed because I think he's opportunistically seizing the moment rather than filling a genuine gap in the existing framework. I'm happy to change my mind once I've read the draft Bill and EM, but until then I'm concerned. 

I might be wrong, but I think the religious protections bill is meant to replace the exemptions clause in the Discrimination Act, not to strengthen it over what it already is. I think the way it is worded negatively - i.e. religious people are free to discriminate - is troubling as opposed to having the more positive protection to practise your religion. Semantics I guess, although I know most people on here would be more happy to have it as it is so that religious people are shown in that more negative light as they feel that is the more accurate representation.

Re: NSW I agree with you, @Paxter - NSW Labor is in really poor shape. And the Liberal government is actually much more positive, building things and trying to do things on a positive agenda, not based purely on personality politics like ScoMo. If they continue as constructively (pun intended) as they are, opening new things and transport/infrastructure, they might well have a long time in power.

[Paxter]

3 hours ago, Jeor said:

I might be wrong, but I think the religious protections bill is meant to replace the exemptions clause in the Discrimination Act, not to strengthen it over what it already is. I think the way it is worded negatively - i.e. religious people are free to discriminate - is troubling as opposed to having the more positive protection to practise your religion. Semantics I guess, although I know most people on here would be more happy to have it as it is so that religious people are shown in that more negative light as they feel that is the more accurate representation.

Re: NSW I agree with you, @Paxter - NSW Labor is in really poor shape. And the Liberal government is actually much more positive, building things and trying to do things on a positive agenda, not based purely on personality politics like ScoMo. If they continue as constructively (pun intended) as they are, opening new things and transport/infrastructure, they might well have a long time in power.

I also think that Gladys is much more socially progressive than her counterparts in Canberra, as well as many in NSW Labor, which helps her cause.

I’ll have to read the bill before I make my mind up on even higher religious freedom. Surely it must have some substantial legal impact in addition to representative effects. Constitutional protection plus exemptions from human rights legislation and now even more! *grumble grumble grumble*

[Paxter]

ScoMo and Cormann successfully navigate a tricky Senate and will pass their personal income tax reform in full, thanks to Lambie and the Centre Alliance. 

Most of the cuts don't come in until 2022-23 (stage two - bracket creep) or 2024-25 (30% MRT between $41k and $200k). But they will surely proceed now . It would take a brave Labor government to repeal them. 

[Impmk2]

11 minutes ago, Paxter said:

ScoMo and Cormann successfully navigate a tricky Senate and will pass their personal income tax reform in full, thanks to Lambie and the Centre Alliance. 

Most of the cuts don't come in until 2022-23 (stage two - bracket creep) or 2024-25 (30% MRT between $41k and $200k). But they will surely proceed now . It would take a brave Labor government to repeal them. 

And as it's impossible to increase tax these cut lock in either massive government service cuts, at a time of an aging population and increased healthcare spending, or massive deficits. 

Not a good thing.

[Paxter]

25 minutes ago, Impmk2 said:

And as it's impossible to increase tax these cut lock in either massive government service cuts, at a time of an aging population and increased healthcare spending, or massive deficits. 

Not a good thing.

Yes there are serious concerns about fiscal responsibility here. And that's before you even consider the changes through the lens of tax progressiveness (progressivism?). Fast forward a few years and the Libs will be proposing an increase in the GST to pay for the tax cut.