|
How would you only take enough for Australia's medical needs if every welfare recipient is donating every time they collect? This would waste so much medical equipment and expertise.
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 13:11 |
|
|
# ? Jun 20, 2024 00:36 |
|
I don't remember anyone complaining about 'ethics' when people suggested vaccinating your kids should be mandatory.
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 13:11 |
|
If PissCat said "make them poors get sterilised it can be reversed if they get a job" would you also interpret it as a genuine attempt at rational debate
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 13:15 |
|
open24hours posted:I don't remember anyone complaining about 'ethics' when people suggested vaccinating your kids should be mandatory. You are right, vaccinating children is the same as forcing people to donate blood in order to access social welfare.
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 13:15 |
|
Oh antivax now well that's the calibre I expect really
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 13:16 |
|
open24hours posted:I don't remember anyone complaining about 'ethics' when people suggested vaccinating your kids should be mandatory. Jesus Christ
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 13:19 |
|
Recoome posted:No you see it's voluntary to vaccinate your kids, but in order to get welfare you have to vaccinate your kids. [EDIT: For anyone who thinks I'm anti-vaccination, lol. I'm interested in hearing what the conceptual difference here is though. Ignoring the welfare issues, is vaccinating your kids so much more important than donating blood that you should be able to punish people for refusing to do one but not the other? What about organ donation? People die all the time because of the neuroses of potential donors and their families.] open24hours fucked around with this message at 13:28 on Apr 7, 2016 |
# ? Apr 7, 2016 13:19 |
|
Well, I'm not doctor, but we vaccinate kids because the diseases they can catch can be absolutely harmful to their developmental trajectory, and this is also why mothers should be vaccinated for rubella. I guess on the other hand, both blood and organ donation is just that: donating a part or component of yourself. It's more difficult to argue when you remove the "blood donation is tied to welfare" thing, but people have the right to not donate blood/organs if they don't want to. People should be able to refuse medical treatment, it just really sucks when people refuse to vaccinate their kids because because it can not only potentially harm their own children, but people who can't take a full course of a vaccine.
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 13:40 |
|
Kat Delacour posted:If PissCat said "make them poors get sterilised it can be reversed if they get a job" would you also interpret it as a genuine attempt at rational debate I'm not taking part in this one, but this one was so out of left field that my response to it is 'I have no idea what to say', rather than 'anything I could say would obviously be ignored'. It's like... gently caress, where do you start, and I'd almost condone engaging the troll in that case just to unpack whatever the gently caress that would mean because it's never come up before.
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 13:44 |
|
Yeah look honestly it's a pretty amazing idea, interesting insight into a potentially Mad Max style future where we all have out own personal poors strapped to our cars/houses.
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 13:47 |
|
Being made to live with malfunctioning lungs or kidneys or going longer than you should between blood transfusions or whatever is probably pretty harmful to a child's development too. Obviously donating blood or organs is more invasive than most vaccinations (although if the subject is dead then this doesn't really matter), but that seems like a pretty arbitrary distinction.
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 13:47 |
|
Yeah there is no difference between a vaccination and donating blood or an organ.
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 13:53 |
|
EvilElmo posted:Citation required. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...67a957d4bab051b loving hell it's not difficult
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 13:57 |
|
asio posted:Ok so lets make this simple: I don't see anything banning corporate donations in the Greens rules. Care to point out where that is stipulated? And as I said, since this is such an unpopular mine that will ruin the economy of QLD, it doesn't matter, that with the fact that Greens policies are all so very popular in the electorate means the Greens will form Government in QLD after the next election. SeekOtherCandidate posted:http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...67a957d4bab051b An article in the Oz.. nice. Also, that is majority at conference, not majority of Parliamentary members. Conference votes on party platform, rules etc. not the approval of mining licences. You might also find in that article it says the main changes being sought by the left in QLD are around internal voting reform. And uhh, there is no SeekOtherCandidate posted:... this heralding a massive change in the national balance of power and that the left would get control this year, you'll see, it won't be like the last thirty times we've said that.... So yes, SeekOtherCandidate posted:all of that must have just been my imagination, then. edit: I'm not sure why I am continuing to talk about state politics, especially QLD state politics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR_X6PrASho&t=50s EvilElmo fucked around with this message at 14:10 on Apr 7, 2016 |
# ? Apr 7, 2016 13:59 |
|
Blood donation could quite happily be made a voluntary thing for centrelink recipients who get an additional financial payment for donating if it's publicised as necessary. That avoids the issue of unnecessary donation, especially for particular blood types that may be in excess. Similar to the vaccination program, it's still voluntary to be vaccinated, just don't expect the government to do you any favours financially if you opt out. Organ donation is easy. Just institute a 100% death duty on the deceased estate unless they are an organ donor.
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 15:04 |
|
LibertyCat posted:The prison "industry" in the USA is very sick, so I'd vote no. On top of that it creates incentives to put more people in prison. Somewhat closer to home then: how do you feel about the statement made last year by refugees in off-shore detention who were so sure they would die before they ever leaved the detention centers that their organs be used for transplant in Australia, saying that then at least some part of them would know freedom? How do you think you would feel knowing that you received an organ from someone who died (or committed suicide) in one of our detention centers?
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 15:24 |
|
Les Affaires posted:Just institute a 100% death duty on the deceased estate Do this anyway
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 15:31 |
|
open24hours posted:Being made to live with malfunctioning lungs or kidneys or going longer than you should between blood transfusions or whatever is probably pretty harmful to a child's development too. Obviously donating blood or organs is more invasive than most vaccinations (although if the subject is dead then this doesn't really matter), but that seems like a pretty arbitrary distinction. Donating blood (or an organ) offers no medical benefits to the donor. Getting a vaccination (generally) benefits the recipient. That's a huge difference, even before you ignore things like herd immunity.
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 16:25 |
LibertyCat posted:I was listening to a "please give blood" plea on the radio this morning, and a thought occurred to me - why not (as long as it is medically ok) make Centrelink conditional on being a blood donor? Furthermore, unemployed people are more depressed as a result of their unemployment and the onerous restrictions already placed on them. Firstly, literally sucking out their blood make them more depressed because, poo poo, the only way to get worse than that would be mandatory live organ donation or making them mandatory participants in human experiments. Secondly, they are less healthy to begin with. There is a reason that blood donors are required to be healthy, and it isn't all for the health of those who receive blood. Losing the amount of blood you'd give in a donation is something a healthy person can handle, but it'll gently caress up others. There are also a bunch of religious objections to it. Jehova's Witnesses for instance. Blood also has a shelf life of up to 42 days, so you'd be collecting vastly more blood than would be needed, and almost all of it would have to be destroyed. Finally, you run the very real risk of creation an underground industry in disease infection where people who are unemployed see dealing with some illness to be preferable to being forced to give blood. Also, since current laws preclude males who have had sex with other males, and pregnant women, there will probably be a rise in both. A woman could game the system by getting pregnant repeatedly and aborting over and over again at 18 weeks, for instance. Men have it easier: They can just lie about porking Joel down at the pub. open24hours posted:I don't remember anyone complaining about 'ethics' when people suggested vaccinating your kids should be mandatory. Vaccination: Making people resistant to horrible and potentially lethal diseases, and getting the immunity rates up high enough to protect those who, for whatever reason, cannot be vaccinated (Children, immunocompromised people). Mandatory Blood Donation: A procedure that is supposed to be done only on the healthy would overload screening mechanisms, increasing the risk of disease transmission. The risk of complications, while low, would result in numerous compensation claims against the government since a public good argument cannot be made for mandatory donation (As I said above, blood only stores for a bit over a month, almost all of what's collected under such a regime would be tossed out).
|
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 16:52 |
|
hello my forum name has liberty in it and I am here to spruik forced medical procedures
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 16:56 |
|
Libertarians always end up being authoritarians, they can't hide their massive hard on for indiscriminate, arbitrary and disproportionate punishments for long.
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 17:19 |
|
Pickled Tink posted:Men have it easier: They can just lie about porking Joel down at the pub. Actually women could say they've had unprotected sex with a man who has had unprotected sex with another man to get out of it. I've definitely seen that as one of the questions.
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 18:28 |
|
PissCat pissed the bed again, moving on... Have the Panama Papers turned up anything juicy here? I've been working flat out this week and haven't had a chance to read up on it.
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 18:35 |
|
Negligent posted:Libertarians always end up being authoritarians, they can't hide their massive hard on for indiscriminate, arbitrary and disproportionate punishments for long. Yeah, I can't tell if LibertyCat is a terrible libertarian or a great one.
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 18:42 |
|
Lizard Combatant posted:PissCat pissed the bed again, moving on... I know Wilson security are tied up in it somehow, the same Wilson security who beat refugee children the other day.
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 21:02 |
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:Yeah, I can't tell if LibertyCat is a terrible libertarian or a great one. What's the difference?
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 21:39 |
|
Hillary is in them with cash tied to a Russian bank lmao.
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 22:35 |
|
Lizard Combatant posted:PissCat pissed the bed again, moving on... A couple of the big 4 banks got a mention, no idea how deep their involvement was though. In some coal is good for humanity news: quote:Wind and solar have grown seemingly unstoppable. For me the really significant part of all this is that the switch to renewables is taking place at a time when fossil fuels have never been cheaper. Once a few of these coal and oil producers go insolvent and the reduced supply puts the prices up there will be an even bigger incentive to invest in clean energy. Aren't we lucky we have the financial acumen of the conservative side of politics in power making wise and considered decisions about the future of Australian energy generation.
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 22:44 |
|
Anidav posted:Hillary is in them with cash tied to a Russian bank lmao. Trump's gonna win
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 22:44 |
|
LibertyCat posted:I am against enforcing equal outcomes. It demeans women who got there on their own merits, because some people think "oh we only gave that position to Shelly because she's a woman, she can't be that good". Putting people places where they otherwise wouldn't qualify (due to their lack of merit) only reinforces negative stereotypes. You are pro affirmative action but just don't realise it because your stupidity let you take right wingers seriously. LibertyCat posted:If a woman surgeon would be the best person for the job we should stop any bona-fide discrimination that would keep her away. Ditto being carried out of a burning house, on aircraft with some kind of catastrophic failure, behind a desk keeping your employer from going bankrupt. Those ideas are literally the basis of affirmative action - giving a woman or person of color the job if both they and the white male candidate have the same qualifications. The fact that you've seen women or PoC in these positions and subconsciously view them as inferior (because surely they can't have been as qualified as the white male candidate) is why you have a problem with it. BlitzkriegOfColour fucked around with this message at 12:19 on Apr 8, 2016 |
# ? Apr 7, 2016 23:17 |
|
Anidav posted:Hillary is in them with cash tied to a Russian bank lmao. What? I thought the Americans just hid their cash in Delaware where it's all nice and legal and doesn't even have to leave the country to be tucked away all sneaky like
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 00:15 |
|
nah Wikileaks is saying that Hillary's campaign staff have a bunch of cash stashed away in a Russian bank for no particular reason.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 00:27 |
|
Les Affaires posted:Blood donation could quite happily be made a voluntary thing for centrelink recipients who get an additional financial payment for donating if it's publicised as necessary. That avoids the issue of unnecessary donation, especially for particular blood types that may be in excess. Similar to the vaccination program, it's still voluntary to be vaccinated, just don't expect the government to do you any favours financially if you opt out. Paid blood donation is illegal in Australia, but maybe we should reconsider. http://economicstudents.com/2014/08/blood-money-should-blood-donors-be-paid/
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 00:27 |
Anidav posted:Hillary is in them with cash tied to a Russian bank lmao. lmao trump's going to walk into the white house with no opposition
|
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 01:55 |
|
The 60 minutes crew arrested in Lebanon were apparently trying to kidnap children?! What the christ.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 01:58 |
|
gay picnic defence posted:Aren't we lucky we have the financial acumen of the conservative side of politics in power making wise and considered decisions about the future of Australian energy generation. The stupidity of it is breathtaking, as will be the unnecessary cost of importing technology we could have been exporting instead. Extra poo poo-eating costs for the deliberate attempt to destroy the industry passed onto you, the consumer.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 02:00 |
|
https://twitter.com/DavidLeyonhjelm/status/718239574582038528
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 02:21 |
|
https://twitter.com/maxuthink/status/718247320828145664
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 02:26 |
|
Skellybones posted:All those old retirees being sucked dry, trying to collect their pension. Actually yes I like the idea of sucking the life force from boomers. Need I mention that blood donation is a complex topic with many deep shades of ambiguity completely unsuited to 'agile' redesign? For instance the reason paid blood donation is illegal?/unlawful? is it gives an incentive for people who are high risk donors to misinform at the point of collection. In further nuanced news: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-08/more-teens-in-legal-trouble-for-sexting-every-week-lawyer-says/7309540 quote:More 'sexting' teens in legal trouble every week, NSW children's lawyer says By state political reporter Lucy McNally Posted about 3 hours ago In my opinion the biggest area of child sexualisation is commercial television and the print industry. I'm going to be reading the final report very carefully to see if that even rates a mention. Ethics! We don't need no steeeenken' ethics! http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/friday-panel:-bad-business-behaviour/7309938 quote:Friday panel: corporate ethics and bad business behaviour Friday 8 April 2016 8:13AM (view full episode)
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 02:47 |
|
|
# ? Jun 20, 2024 00:36 |
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-08/falling-population-hits-northern-territory-gst-take/7310034 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-08/victoria-deserves-more-in-federal-gst-carve-up-treasurer-says/7309764 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-08/nsw-set-for-huge-drop-gst-due-strong-budget-treasurer-says/7309778 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-08/tasmania-set-to-lose-57-million-in-latest-gst-carve-up/7309536 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-08/wa-treasurer-slams-gst-carve-up/7309644 So most states recieve less GST revenue than last year, and are unhappy about it. Victoria is unhappy about not getting a big enough increase. WA has been complaining long and hard for years now, and that doesnt look like its going to stop any time soon. Tassie and the NT are getting less money because they arent growing as fast because they have less money because the arent growing as fast. I think this is turing into a clusterfuck.
|
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 02:48 |