Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

... you do realize that modern stem cell research and usage has basically nothing to do with the utilization of fetuses, right? They barely even use donated material these days... a lot of stuff is just flat grown. There's not really an ethical issue involved anymore. At all. Not even to the (non)extent there was before.

[kingfisher1112]

... you do realize that modern stem cell research and usage has basically nothing to do with the utilization of fetuses, right? They barely even use donated material these days... a lot of stuff is just flat grown. There's not really an ethical issue involved anymore. At all. Not even to the (non)extent there was before.

Flat grown? Please, do tell.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I suppose areas where single companies hold the monopoly will suffer for much longer. Is the plan for the fibres to be provided by the government itself or by independent companies?

I don't know, I'm not Australian.

I'm sorry, but what is the point in going to a macro-region politics thread not knowing what the fuck is going on. It's not because you're not Australian/Malaysian/Indonesian/New Zealander but if you're going to debate and discuss local issues with a  country at least have a basic knowledge about what's going on.

I know very well what is going on. If you'd read what the discussion was about, you'd know I meant that I don't know the exact details of Labor's internet expansion plans.

... you do realize that modern stem cell research and usage has basically nothing to do with the utilization of fetuses, right? They barely even use donated material these days... a lot of stuff is just flat grown. There's not really an ethical issue involved anymore. At all. Not even to the (non)extent there was before.

Flat grown? Please, do tell.

Grown in cultures or from other adult cells. Fetal stem cells are obsolete these days.

[Max White]

The teachers, well, they are more than pissed off. It has genuinely impacted quality of education now. Take for example during tests I'm now a number, not a name. A small change, yes, but an indicative one. Factory line mentality. Education is important, yes, but I'd rather take a funding cut then my teachers losing their individual methods which work.

My problem with Stem Cell research is that it's ethics are questionable. This isn't much of an issue for me, and I was trying to highlight that it could have great benefits, it is potentially morally reprehensible.

But the Greens don't have a history of cutting out the hearts of virgins. They do of wanting to get rid of guns. Also you keep avoiding my question. Why are the SSAA and H&F, in your mind, irresponsible shooters?

Well, encourage those things. Solar only works when the sun is shining and wind only when the wind is blowing, so Hydrogen and Nuclear could fill those gaps.

Wait, you are annoyed because of a measure to stop forms of discrimination?  Your school sounds very special.
We had student numbers when I was in highschool and we all were totally ok with it. We liked knowing we were being awarded on only the merit of the answer. Sounds like somebody just doesn't like change.

The Greens don't have a history of trying to get rid of guns. This is what gun lobbies say the greens try to do. The greens do have a history of trying to introduce gun control measures. Different thing. And once again, any anti-gun control group is irresponsible. A fire arm is not a right, it is a sporting and hunting implement that should be regulated for safety reasons.


And if you want to encourage those things, you need to invest in them, but we can't afford that slew of things with the budget shrinking, right? It is like you want good education and science, but you don't want to pay for it.

[Edmus]

... you do realize that modern stem cell research and usage has basically nothing to do with the utilization of fetuses, right? They barely even use donated material these days... a lot of stuff is just flat grown. There's not really an ethical issue involved anymore. At all. Not even to the (non)extent there was before.

Flat grown? Please, do tell.

Left over embryos from IVF can be donated, these contain about thirty stem cells. You can make these reproduce indefinitely, potentially producing millions after a few months.

[kingfisher1112]

The teachers, well, they are more than pissed off. It has genuinely impacted quality of education now. Take for example during tests I'm now a number, not a name. A small change, yes, but an indicative one. Factory line mentality. Education is important, yes, but I'd rather take a funding cut then my teachers losing their individual methods which work.

My problem with Stem Cell research is that it's ethics are questionable. This isn't much of an issue for me, and I was trying to highlight that it could have great benefits, it is potentially morally reprehensible.

But the Greens don't have a history of cutting out the hearts of virgins. They do of wanting to get rid of guns. Also you keep avoiding my question. Why are the SSAA and H&F, in your mind, irresponsible shooters?

Well, encourage those things. Solar only works when the sun is shining and wind only when the wind is blowing, so Hydrogen and Nuclear could fill those gaps.

Wait, you are annoyed because of a measure to stop forms of discrimination?  Your school sounds very special.
We had student numbers when I was in highschool and we all were totally ok with it. We liked knowing we were being awarded on only the merit of the answer. Sounds like somebody just doesn't like change.

The Greens don't have a history of trying to get rid of guns. This is what gun lobbies say the greens try to do. The greens do have a history of trying to introduce gun control measures. Different thing. And once again, any anti-gun control group is irresponsible. A fire arm is not a right, it is a sporting and hunting implement that should be regulated for safety reasons.


And if you want to encourage those things, you need to invest in them, but we can't afford that slew of things with the budget shrinking, right? It is like you want good education and science, but you don't want to pay for it.

No, we don't have to invest anything. We can tax non-green energies more, encouraging them to move away from coal, and earn cash, to fund that new white paper from the ADF, education, and science.

Gun control is getting rid of guns. We have gotten rid of guns before. That was labeled as gun control, thus it is. The responsibilities of owning guns are
1) Don't shoot people.
2) Take good care of it.
Guns are a liberty. As a Truly free democracy we should have liberties, like non-harmful drugs, guns, free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to do basically anything despite the possible safety risks. Semi-autos and fully autos are hunting implements too, why can't I have them?

No, I just dislike you're a number not a name. And the other problems standardisation causes. It feels off feeling like no matter what, the teacher cannot adapt to the needs of the class. A class good at geometry and bad at algebra does not need extra Fractions.

[Max White]

If you want to tax non-green energy, then I have no idea why you would vote Liberal. You know they are seeking to abolish the carbon tax, right?

Strawberry jam is called jam, therefor all jam is strawberry jam! Association fallacy in a nut shell, I'm sure one day we will have gone through all the fallacies of the rainbow!
Still, why would you want to hunt with an automatic? Are you fucking insane? Have you ever been hunting? It is a calm, meditative exercise that requires you to actually aim. An automatic is not what you want. There is no reason to want such weapons. You will notice in the Olympics there is no category for sports with these weapons, because it is stupid.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Hey, if you fill the wilderness full of lead you're bound to kill something eventually.

[Blargityblarg]

No, we don't have to invest anything. We can tax non-green energies more, encouraging them to move away from coal, and earn cash, to fund that new white paper from the ADF, education, and science.

Gun control is getting rid of guns. We have gotten rid of guns before. That was labeled as gun control, thus it is. The responsibilities of owning guns are
1) Don't shoot people.
2) Take good care of it.
Guns are a liberty. As a Truly free democracy we should have liberties, like non-harmful drugs, guns, free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to do basically anything despite the possible safety risks. Semi-autos and fully autos are hunting implements too, why can't I have them?

No, I just dislike you're a number not a name. And the other problems standardisation causes. It feels off feeling like no matter what, the teacher cannot adapt to the needs of the class. A class good at geometry and bad at algebra does not need extra Fractions.

I don't feel guns lie in the same class as non-harmful drugs. Heck, even harmful drugs only harm the person using them. Guns can and do affect all people in society, regardless of how few people have them.

Personally, I'll take a universal near-zero risk of being shot over a niche hobby like hunting or pigeon shooting.

[Max White]

Hey, if you fill the wilderness full of lead you're bound to kill something eventually.

Fukkit son, fill um wif led!

[kingfisher1112]

If you want to tax non-green energy, then I have no idea why you would vote Liberal. You know they are seeking to abolish the carbon tax, right?

Strawberry jam is called jam, therefor all jam is strawberry jam! Association fallacy in a nut shell, I'm sure one day we will have gone through all the fallacies of the rainbow!
Still, why would you want to hunt with an automatic? Are you fucking insane? Have you ever been hunting? It is a calm, meditative exercise that requires you to actually aim. An automatic is not what you want. There is no reason to want such weapons. You will notice in the Olympics there is no category for sports with these weapons, because it is stupid.

There is hunting and target places with an automatic. A short three round burst is enough to down larger game. What did you expect? Me going out with an M60 shooting rabbits yelling " FUCK YOU CHARRRLIEE!" With a Sylvester Stallone accent? Target shooting with an automatic requires skill. My question is, have you ever been hunting?

So gun control is only regulation? Tell me, what do you call the gun buyback?

No, we don't have to invest anything. We can tax non-green energies more, encouraging them to move away from coal, and earn cash, to fund that new white paper from the ADF, education, and science.

Gun control is getting rid of guns. We have gotten rid of guns before. That was labeled as gun control, thus it is. The responsibilities of owning guns are
1) Don't shoot people.
2) Take good care of it.
Guns are a liberty. As a Truly free democracy we should have liberties, like non-harmful drugs, guns, free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to do basically anything despite the possible safety risks. Semi-autos and fully autos are hunting implements too, why can't I have them?

No, I just dislike you're a number not a name. And the other problems standardisation causes. It feels off feeling like no matter what, the teacher cannot adapt to the needs of the class. A class good at geometry and bad at algebra does not need extra Fractions.

I don't feel guns lie in the same class as non-harmful drugs. Heck, even harmful drugs only harm the person using them. Guns can and do affect all people in society, regardless of how few people have them.

Personally, I'll take a universal near-zero risk of being shot over a niche hobby like hunting or pigeon shooting.

Oh gee, the " Criminals can't get guns so I can't get shot!" No. Only gangs, criminals, the police and the army will have guns. See: Prohibition, our current ban on drugs and how prevelant marijuana is:
According to the 2007 National Drug Strategy Household Survey,[1] cannabis was used at least once by one-third of all Australians aged 14 years or older, and 1.6 million people reported using cannabis in the preceding 12 months.Of 12- to 15-year-olds 2.7% reported using cannabis in the previous 12 months, compared with 15% of 16- and 17-year-olds and 19% of 18- and 19-year-olds.
 And alcohol, and harmful drugs can do way more damage what with drink-driving, abuse, crazy mindfucking that drugs cause, and other things, including schizophrenia and others.

[Blargityblarg]

If you want to tax non-green energy, then I have no idea why you would vote Liberal. You know they are seeking to abolish the carbon tax, right?

Strawberry jam is called jam, therefor all jam is strawberry jam! Association fallacy in a nut shell, I'm sure one day we will have gone through all the fallacies of the rainbow!
Still, why would you want to hunt with an automatic? Are you fucking insane? Have you ever been hunting? It is a calm, meditative exercise that requires you to actually aim. An automatic is not what you want. There is no reason to want such weapons. You will notice in the Olympics there is no category for sports with these weapons, because it is stupid.

There is hunting and target places with an automatic. A short three round burst is enough to down larger game. What did you expect? Me going out with an M60 shooting rabbits yelling " FUCK YOU CHARRRLIEE!" With a Sylvester Stallone accent? Target shooting with an automatic requires skill. My question is, have you ever been hunting?

So gun control is only regulation? Tell me, what do you call the gun buyback?

No, we don't have to invest anything. We can tax non-green energies more, encouraging them to move away from coal, and earn cash, to fund that new white paper from the ADF, education, and science.

Gun control is getting rid of guns. We have gotten rid of guns before. That was labeled as gun control, thus it is. The responsibilities of owning guns are
1) Don't shoot people.
2) Take good care of it.
Guns are a liberty. As a Truly free democracy we should have liberties, like non-harmful drugs, guns, free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to do basically anything despite the possible safety risks. Semi-autos and fully autos are hunting implements too, why can't I have them?

No, I just dislike you're a number not a name. And the other problems standardisation causes. It feels off feeling like no matter what, the teacher cannot adapt to the needs of the class. A class good at geometry and bad at algebra does not need extra Fractions.

I don't feel guns lie in the same class as non-harmful drugs. Heck, even harmful drugs only harm the person using them. Guns can and do affect all people in society, regardless of how few people have them.

Personally, I'll take a universal near-zero risk of being shot over a niche hobby like hunting or pigeon shooting.

Oh gee, the " Criminals can't get guns so I can't get shot!" No. Only gangs, criminals, the police and the army will have guns. See: Prohibition, our current ban on drugs and how prevelant marijuana is:
According to the 2007 National Drug Strategy Household Survey,[1] cannabis was used at least once by one-third of all Australians aged 14 years or older, and 1.6 million people reported using cannabis in the preceding 12 months.Of 12- to 15-year-olds 2.7% reported using cannabis in the previous 12 months, compared with 15% of 16- and 17-year-olds and 19% of 18- and 19-year-olds.
 And alcohol, and harmful drugs can do way more damage what with drink-driving, abuse, crazy mindfucking that drugs cause, and other things, including schizophrenia and others.

Hence the rampant gun violence in Australia from gangs and criminals relative to countries with little or no gun control. You're trying to argue that gun control doesn't work when it already has for more than a decade and a bloody half. Growing marijuana is absolutely comparable to manufacturing reliable and effective firearms (and the ammunition for them) and the two are absolutely relevant to one another in terms of accessibility.

[Max White]

~Snipped for size

Larger game? Do you mean roos or camels? Both are easily taken down with a single shot with a bolt action. I know this because I have been out roo shooting with professionals. The kind that take this shit seriously. 'If you weren't making head shots, you weren't doing it right' serious. None of this 'Oh I'll just buy a bigger gun and pump in more bullets!' shit. It was one shot one kill. There is no game that requires an automatic.
You want to go hunting? Learn to shoot correctly.

If there is jam that isn't strawberry jam, tell me, what do you call this jar of strawberry jam? Do you even understand how association fallacy works?


You know there are two things I find very immoral here.
The first is the assumption that your hobby is more valuable than others health and well being. We know that the tighter the gun control, the less criminals can get hold of them. The more power the police have to stop crime. The less exposure the mentally ill have to fire arms. This is an objective truth. You can look at gun control in different countries and see how tighter control = less crime. It doesn't matter how much you want to shoot a machine gun, it is just a juvenile fetish compared to the lives it would cost.
The second is the assumption that gun rights is the most important issue any party has to offer. When a party has so much bad policy about things like marriage, a broadband scheme, green energy and a host of others, why is gun laws the trump card? Would you fuck over many people just so you can get a hard one over a more expensive gun?

[kingfisher1112]

~Snipped for size

Larger game? Do you mean roos or camels? Both are easily taken down with a single shot with a bolt action. I know this because I have been out roo shooting with professionals. The kind that take this shit seriously. 'If you weren't making head shots, you weren't doing it right' serious. None of this 'Oh I'll just buy a bigger gun and pump in more bullets!' shit. It was one shot one kill. There is no game that requires an automatic.
You want to go hunting? Learn to shoot correctly.

If there is jam that isn't strawberry jam, tell me, what do you call this jar of strawberry jam? Do you even understand how association fallacy works?


You know there are two things I find very immoral here.
The first is the assumption that your hobby is more valuable than others health and well being. We know that the tighter the gun control, the less criminals can get hold of them. The more power the police have to stop crime. The less exposure the mentally ill have to fire arms. This is an objective truth. You can look at gun control in different countries and see how tighter control = less crime. It doesn't matter how much you want to shoot a machine gun, it is just a juvenile fetish compared to the lives it would cost.
The second is the assumption that gun rights is the most important issue any party has to offer. When a party has so much bad policy about things like marriage, a broadband scheme, green energy and a host of others, why is gun laws the trump card? Would you fuck over many people just so you can get a hard one over a more expensive gun?

You know what? How can i take you seriously when you bring up ' HURR DURR YOU GET ERECTIONS OVER GUNS'
It's just fucking annoying. It's discrimination and a negative stereotype. Quit using it.
Once more, getting rid of the national curriculum is a good thing. It's the most important thing to me in my life at this time. The broadband scheme won't even affect me because the Nation's cash cow always comes last, same with green energy. Gun laws are important to me. Getting head shots can be difficult, and even then, semiautos. Miss? Fire again!
So Britain, with it's high impact Gun Control laws is a safe haven with so little crime. Once more, gangs, drugs, and mental health is the issue. Guns are not the problem. You're still fucked if a criminal came up to you with a knife or a gun, but you're less fucked if you have a gun. And once more, target shooting with fullautos requires skill. If the goal is to reduce crime give police more power. Focus at the young level to snip crime in the bud. Drug checks on welfare. Some sort of uproot time for welfare. Better child services to prevent abusive households becoming a problem.

And finally, I really don't know where you are going with this damn jam analogy.

[Blargityblarg]

~Snipped for size

Larger game? Do you mean roos or camels? Both are easily taken down with a single shot with a bolt action. I know this because I have been out roo shooting with professionals. The kind that take this shit seriously. 'If you weren't making head shots, you weren't doing it right' serious. None of this 'Oh I'll just buy a bigger gun and pump in more bullets!' shit. It was one shot one kill. There is no game that requires an automatic.
You want to go hunting? Learn to shoot correctly.

If there is jam that isn't strawberry jam, tell me, what do you call this jar of strawberry jam? Do you even understand how association fallacy works?


You know there are two things I find very immoral here.
The first is the assumption that your hobby is more valuable than others health and well being. We know that the tighter the gun control, the less criminals can get hold of them. The more power the police have to stop crime. The less exposure the mentally ill have to fire arms. This is an objective truth. You can look at gun control in different countries and see how tighter control = less crime. It doesn't matter how much you want to shoot a machine gun, it is just a juvenile fetish compared to the lives it would cost.
The second is the assumption that gun rights is the most important issue any party has to offer. When a party has so much bad policy about things like marriage, a broadband scheme, green energy and a host of others, why is gun laws the trump card? Would you fuck over many people just so you can get a hard one over a more expensive gun?

You know what? How can i take you seriously when you bring up ' HURR DURR YOU GET ERECTIONS OVER GUNS'
It's just fucking annoying. It's discrimination and a negative stereotype. Quit using it.
Once more, getting rid of the national curriculum is a good thing. It's the most important thing to me in my life at this time. The broadband scheme won't even affect me because the Nation's cash cow always comes last, same with green energy. Gun laws are important to me. Getting head shots can be difficult, and even then, semiautos. Miss? Fire again!
So Britain, with it's high impact Gun Control laws is a safe haven with so little crime. Once more, gangs, drugs, and mental health is the issue. Guns are not the problem. You're still fucked if a criminal came up to you with a knife or a gun, but you're less fucked if you have a gun. And once more, target shooting with fullautos requires skill. If the goal is to reduce crime give police more power. Focus at the young level to snip crime in the bud. Drug checks on welfare. Some sort of uproot time for welfare. Better child services to prevent abusive households becoming a problem.

And finally, I really don't know where you are going with this damn jam analogy.

Whilst you are less fucked if someone tries to mug you with a knife than with a gun, the point of gun control is not to reduce armed robbery; there are, surprise surprise, other situations in which guns hurt people. An immediately available method of suicide sharply increases the rate, and there's no method of mass murder quite as effective as a shooting spree, as nutcase after nutcase has patiently explained to us.