Support NeoGAF

[TheWasTheJoke]

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ft-the-biggest-challenge-to-indigenous-reform

Thoughts?

Person does point out some of the inherent contradictions of Leftist ideology, such as how Environmentalist efforts often clash with short-term economic interests, which often affects poorer groups the most.
On the whole however, he seems to be lashing out on the moderate left's absolutely warranted scepticism on his schools and DI. To insinuate that 'soft bigotry', which he never really details, is any worse than the deluge of harm someone would harm on an Aboriginal community seems to me at least, ridiculous. Leftists might slightly harm indigenous economic interests at the benefit of the environment, but right-wingers would frack it all destroying both the environment and incomes

Then again I'm not aboriginal and my voice should definitely be subservient on issues of discrimination and challenges only Indigenous people would face. I just feel that it is going after the left, those who wish to help pragmatically, and therefore splitting movements and allowing conservatives to sneak through is a demonstrable negative and precisely what allowed Trump to get elected. Its either baby steps or nothing in the real world and I don't think Pearson is aware of that.


Just on the above post does is this by any feasible? Climate change was explained to me as a prisoner's dilemma so an SA only ETS would really weaken the state comparatively and more do more symbolically than in reality

 

[Dryk]

Climate change isn't a Prisoner's Dilemma. The Prisoner's Dilemma involves you being able to get ahead by betraying. In the case of climate change that's only true in the short term.

 

[Yagharek]

So SA Premier Jay Weatherill has basically gone and stated "look, if the government isn't going to actually lead the way on climate policy, the states are going to have to implement a state-based emissions trading scheme themselves".

Cue Frydenberg scream "BUT MUH ENERGY SECURITY".

Brisbane had a blackout during last week's storms. Areas south of Perth did too. Neither relied on renewables.

Every power outage ever needs to be followed up with making the point that it was the fault of coal until the RWNJs concede its a network issue which emerges during severe conditions.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Climate change isn't a Prisoner's Dilemma. The Prisoner's Dilemma involves you being able to get ahead by betraying. In the case of climate change that's only true in the short term.

Specifically the prisoners dilemma is a situation where the best personal outcome is for 1 party to betray the other alone (and thus the worst personal outcome is to be the loyal party betrayed), the best net outcome is for both to remain loyal and the worst net outcome is for both to betray. Which is pretty accurate in the short term, in the long run you need at least the majority to stay loyal or everyone loses in an epic fashion.

 

[bobnowhere]

So what about the Greens ? The media usually treats them like they are as far from the centre as One Nation but that doesn't really match your theory.

I imagine Rudd's ETS is a pretty good example of The Green's shear bloody mindedness. They wanted it their way or the highway and the result was Rudd went to Malcolm, Abbott rolled Malcolm and now any sort of ETS is political poison even though 2 separate reports this week alone show it will drive down electricity prices and is the best plan over the long term to meet out targets.

Di Natale has driven them to a more sensible place but flushing the NSW Greens would be a further improvement.

 

[Elaugaufein]

I imagine Rudd's ETS is a pretty good example of The Green's shear bloody mindedness. They wanted it their way or the highway and the result was Rudd went to Malcolm, Abbott rolled Malcolm and now any sort of ETS is political poison even though 2 separate reports this week alone show it will drive down electricity prices and is the best plan over the long term to meet out targets.

Di Natale has driven them to a more sensible place but flushing the NSW Greens would be a further improvement.

Thats not the take I heard, which was that Rudd went to Turnbull first with the intent of wedging him vs his party and only went to the Greens after Turnbull got rolled. Though your version does explain some other things I heard.

 

[D.Lo]

Thats not the take I heard, which was that Rudd went to Turnbull first with the intent of wedging him vs his party and only went to the Greens after Turnbull got rolled. Though your version does explain some other things I heard.

Your version is as I understood it, but what else have you heard on that?

 

[Yagharek]

It'd be nice if people wouldnt play politics with some serious fucking policy for once. This is a matter of economic, environmental, social and agricultural urgency.

As others have said, science doesnt give a toss what your opinions are. Either we sort this out now or we have to eventually start telling the regions that their failing crops cannot be subsidised because their denialist Nationals didn't believe in what there is already half a century of impacts from.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Your version is as I understood it, but what else have you heard on that?

Labor people telling me how much the Greens sucked on that :ETS proposal basically.

 

[TheWasTheJoke]

I imagine Rudd's ETS is a pretty good example of The Green's shear bloody mindedness. They wanted it their way or the highway and the result was Rudd went to Malcolm, Abbott rolled Malcolm and now any sort of ETS is political poison even though 2 separate reports this week alone show it will drive down electricity prices and is the best plan over the long term to meet out targets.

Di Natale has driven them to a more sensible place but flushing the NSW Greens would be a further improvement.

Lee Rhiannon and her gang are honestly insufferable. One of those ideologues that is more concerned with fringe pet projects like Israel and Animal Rights than actually pushing a progressive Agenda and growing membership. Its because of people like her that the Greens flopped in Sydney. Saying that however, all political parties in NSW are stuck in the gutter.

On Climate Change I meant it was a collective action problem in the form that if SA sets up an ETS they will economically hamstrung as businesses relocate to other states with cheaper pricing. These other states then have a structural advantage, further disincentivizing them from implementing their own carbon schemes.

 

[D.Lo]

It's a game as well though. Howard managed to be in for so long and push so much of his small minded shit because he wedged Labor constantly.

We're stuck with two dirty boys clubs/corporations full of power fighting factions as the major parties and neither wants to change. Look at Conroy immediately becoming a gambling lobbyist, ugh.

 

[Yagharek]

It's a game as well though. Howard managed to be in for so long and push so much of his small minded shit because he wedged Labor constantly.

We're stuck with two dirty boys clubs/corporations full of power fighting factions as the major parties and neither wants to change. Look at Conroy immediately becoming a gambling lobbyist, ugh.

WAT?

 

[Elaugaufein]

Oh yes, while I think of it:

This is your last chance to get in on the Group Crikey Sub for next year. I need to get the information in by the end of next week, so drop me a PM / email if you're interested. Currently looking like it'll be 149 or 139 pp (still 3 people I'm waiting to get confirmation from). We can work out a payment plan if necessary.

 

[D.Lo]

WAT?

About my rant about both major parties sucking or Conroy being a transparent shill?

 

[Quasar]

About my rant about both major parties sucking or Conroy being a transparent shill?

Certainly for me its the latter. First I'd heard pf Conroys new employer.

 

[bobnowhere]

Certainly for me its the latter. First I'd heard pf Conroys new employer.

Conroy is a grub, always has been. One day I'll tell a story about him, Steve Dargavel and Bob McMullin.

The funny thing is Conroy is only a member of the gambling board, Richard Colbeck the recently unseated Tasmanian Liberal Senator who unsuccessfully ran an insurgency campiagn unlike Lisa Singh is the Chairman of said Board.

 

[Yagharek]

About my rant about both major parties sucking or Conroy being a transparent shill?

Conroy. I know they all suck, but the defection to gambling lobbyists is disgusting, especially in light of the deal Labor reneged on when Gillard turned away from Wilkie in the previous Labor Gov't. Now we know why, given Conroy's standing in whatever faction he was part of.

I think there needs to be some serious legislation preventing ministers or MPs from jumping ship to lobbyists, especially in portfolios related to their previous job. Andrew Robb is another one where the circumstances stink.

It's one of the other heads of the hydra that ICAC has been battling.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Conroy. I know they all suck, but the defection to gambling lobbyists is disgusting, especially in light of the deal Labor reneged on when Gillard turned away from Wilkie in the previous Labor Gov't. Now we know why, given Conroy's standing in whatever faction he was part of.

I think there needs to be some serious legislation preventing ministers or MPs from jumping ship to lobbyists, especially in portfolios related to their previous job. Andrew Robb is another one where the circumstances stink.

It's one of the other heads of the hydra that ICAC has been battling.

Conroy was basically one of the leaders of the ShortCon Right subfaction (with Shorten), they were the dominant right faction and combined with Carr's left subfaction in a stability pact effectively ran Victoria.

 

[TheWasTheJoke]

Stephen Conroy once proposed to my mates mum

Also is Crikey an especially good paper? Does it offer insights that I couldn't garner from my trusty SMH/Guardian/Conversation trifecta (apoligies for my ignorance)

 

[Elaugaufein]

Stephen Conroy once proposed to my mates mum

Also is Crikey an especially good paper? Does it offer insights that I couldn't garner from my trusty SMH/Guardian/Conversation trifecta (apoligies for my ignorance)

I wouldn't say it's especially good, its just different (though definitely a very leftist slant socially and fairly so economically (Keane excepted to some extent). The news you'll get is focused on politics and economy with some social coverage, nothing you wouldn't get elsewhere. The analysis/opinion is sort of unique though given Bernard Keane, Guy Rundle and Helen Razer who have reasonably uncommon views. They also occasionally do some very comprehensive drill Downs into some political issues. William Bowe also does an excellent polling report about once a week but most of it can be found on his blog (Pollbludger) which isn't paywalled.

 

[D.Lo]

Conroy. I know they all suck, but the defection to gambling lobbyists is disgusting, especially in light of the deal Labor reneged on when Gillard turned away from Wilkie in the previous Labor Gov't. Now we know why, given Conroy's standing in whatever faction he was part of.

I think there needs to be some serious legislation preventing ministers or MPs from jumping ship to lobbyists, especially in portfolios related to their previous job. Andrew Robb is another one where the circumstances stink.

It's one of the other heads of the hydra that ICAC has been battling.

Yeah it's completely filthy. He's of course being paid his massive ($150k PA?) pre-Latham rule change parliamentary pension on top of whatever high six figures the gambling parasites will pay him while he still has insider connections.

If I were running Labor (lol) I would force him out of the party for it at the very least. So damaging to the party brand, it's something you only expect from the corporate cartel party.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Yeah it's completely filthy. He's of course being paid his massive ($150k PA?) pre-Latham rule change parliamentary pension on top of whatever high six figures the gambling parasites will pay him while he still has insider connections.

If I were running Labor (lol) I would force him out of the party for it at the very least. So damaging to the party brand, it's something you only expect from the corporate cartel party.

There was definitely something odd going on before Conroy quit, he and Shorten seemed to be fighting a shadow war, especially interesting given Carr forming his own Industrial Left faction.

 

[darkace]

Ok so I was banned for a month for calling out people attacking all Trump voters and white people as racists. Doing that is ok, calling it out is apparently a terrible breach of site rules. Top-tier moderation.

Also the ETS was doomed the moment Rudd used it to wedge Turnbull rather than attempted to pass it in a bi-partisan manner. The 2007 election had both parties run on climate change action, and we would have it implemented if Rudd had actually acted on 'the greatest moral challenge of our generation' rather than used it for political BS.

That's not to say both sides don't use things for political gain, but maybe he shouldn't have used action on climate change.

 

[Yagharek]

Disappointing to see (presumably only partially in-context) comments from Cormann about how domestic violence leave has a cost to the economy. Evidently it does have a cost, but surely the primary measure of DV policy should not be an economic one. Why must everything be viewed through this lens?

If we are to play the neocon game though, what about the economic costs of:
1. Dead victims of DV -
2. Lengthy custody battles in DV cases
3. Lost productivity because DV victims are too injured/distressed to work well (or at all)
4. Lost productivity because children exposed to DV are unable to focus on school and get "the innovative jobs for the future which grow the economy"
5. Higher unemployment as DV victims lose their jobs when they run out of non-DV leave

But then there are opportunities!

1. More rentals/housing sales as DV victims and perpetrators require separate dwellings
2. Increased opportunity for privately funded correctional facilties with more DV convictions acted upon
3. Opportunity for expansion of Chaplains in Schools program, with mandatory outreach to support DV Leave claimants
4. More days in the year for temp workers/work for the dole to backfill DV temporary vacancies, reducing welfare reliance!
5. Innovation opportunities for work-from-home via NBN for DV victims through the innovation and agility schemes.

If we are going to listen to the IPA, let there be no half-measures!

Praise be to The Economy and Malcolm who is its Profit.

 

[darkace]

The point I assume Cormann was trying to make is that all government action that alters markets enacts a cost on the economy through distorting incentives. Unemployment benefits ensure that we have more unemployed people than otherwise. Income tax ensures labour supply is lower than it would be otherwise and that consumption decisions are altered. Company tax/CGT/FTT lower capital stock and long-term wage growth. DV leave ensures we have lower LFPR through subsidising leave. And I'd bet a large amount of money that this outweighs the costs of DV.

It's not to say that it shouldn't be undertaken, just that pros and cons exist for everything. And with our budget in its current shape it's very hard to justify policy that reduces work incentives. Hell I find it hard to justify cutting company tax even though it's brilliant long-term policy.

 

[Yagharek]

What does LFPR stand for?

I'll use parental leave and maternity leave as an analogue to DV leave. It sounds egregious to pay for people to have time off to have kids on the face of it, but we are a society of social animals. We have better quality of life for parents and children if they have time together to bond and establish healthy attachment relationships.

You cannot measure everything in economic terms.

If we were to start holding everything to economic standards we would find ourselves in an economic singularity, because as we all know, economics does not fit mathematical reality.

I get the point Corman was trying to make, even if it was inelegantly stated. But some things we bear the cost of becuse we know it needs to be done. This is one of those things. Fiscal extremism and its fundamental assumptions must be challenged. Environmental and social perspectives go ignored far too often.

 

[darkace]

What does LFPR stand for?

Labour force participation rate, essentially the ratio of people in the workforce to the total cohort of working age. Subsidising leave lowers it.

I'll use parental leave and maternity leave as an analogue to DV leave. It sounds egregious to pay for people to have time off to have kids on the face of it, but we are a society of social animals. We have better quality of life for parents and children if they have time together to bond and establish healthy attachment relationships.

You cannot measure everything in economic terms.

If we were to start holding everything to economic standards we would find ourselves in an economic singularity, because as we all know, economics does not fit mathematical reality.

I get the point Corman was trying to make, even if it was inelegantly stated. But some things we bear the cost of becuse we know it needs to be done. This is one of those things. Fiscal extremism and its fundamental assumptions must be challenged. Environmental and social perspectives go ignored far too often.

I don't really disagree. This isn't something that can be measured completely economically, as much as it hurts my cold, calculating soul. But the cost is, and we're hardly in the position to add locked-in spending: http://www.budget.gov.au/2016-17/content/bp1/html/bp1_bs3-01.htm (Chart 2. It's our structural budget balance, the area that must be positive or neutral over the long-term so that our government taxation and expenditure balances over the business cycle).

Give it like four-five years, we're currently still trying to fund the NDIS and the NBN. Government programs have costs, and ones that will essentially run forever need higher taxes or other spending offset to pay for them, especially since this will lower long-term revenue. And structural reforms to do this have been a very hard sell recently.

 

[Dead Man]

The point I assume Cormann was trying to make is that all government action that alters markets enacts a cost on the economy through distorting incentives. Unemployment benefits ensure that we have more unemployed people than otherwise. Income tax ensures labour supply is lower than it would be otherwise and that consumption decisions are altered. Company tax/CGT/FTT lower capital stock and long-term wage growth. DV leave ensures we have lower LFPR through subsidising leave. And I'd bet a large amount of money that this outweighs the costs of DV.

It's not to say that it shouldn't be undertaken, just that pros and cons exist for everything. And with our budget in its current shape it's very hard to justify policy that reduces work incentives. Hell I find it hard to justify cutting company tax even though it's brilliant long-term policy.

That is a meaningless point. And the costs of DV just for health care and sick days taken already are enormous. You are acting like people don't take leave (paid or otherwise) when battered.

Edit: And correct me if I'm wrong, but would an increased participation rate just lead to higher reported unemployment, unless there's enough jobs to go around? So what's the problem anyway?

 

[darkace]

That is a meaningless point.

I'll take that as a comment.

And the costs of DV just for health care and sick days taken already are enormous. You are acting like people don't take leave (paid or otherwise) when battered.

I'm telling you what will happen when this policy is enacted. You can't pretend there are no downsides to policy. I'd be all for some of the social programs the left wants to enact if they actually funded them and took into account the negatives.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but would an increased participation rate just lead to higher reported unemployment, unless there's enough jobs to go around? So what's the problem anyway?

No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy

 

[TheWasTheJoke]

Didn't see any discussion of Danny Andrews Euthanasia Proposal, I am for the bill in it's current form and hope it will pass. I think in it's current form it likely does have popular support, the tricky stuff is for non-voluntary assisted dying, though to be fair the juries still out on it's effects.

One annoyance on 'conscience' issues such as this though is that MP's are expected to vote on how they 'feel', rather than through substantive research, which allows pollies do defend their position with claptrap phrases like 'its my personal opinion....'. Attempting to rebut this non-argument then leads defendants to slither back into the usual paradigm of 'muh free speech', an essentially unfair shifting of the goalposts which changes the debate from one of which policy maximises utility to one of whether individuals possess a constitutional right. I just hope when Q&A starts again the left grows some balls and calls out this bs.

 

[Elaugaufein]

So what did darkace get banned for this time ? I've been moving into a new place so didn't even get to say welcome back before he was banned again.

 

[TheWasTheJoke]

So what did darkace get banned for this time ? I've been moving into a new place so didn't even get to say welcome back before he was banned again.

Ye fuck that was quick

EDIT: I did a quick look and found he got bad in Trump thread for alleging Hillary was as corrupt as the Don and also stating his personal disapproval of identity politique
Pretty harsh stuff imho

 

[Yagharek]

A Trump thread? That narrows it down!

Found it. It was his usual MO of pretending to have deep insight into an issue that noone else has. Comes across as disingenuous even if it is unintentional.

Maybe stay out of politics threads for a while if it's not a perm.

 

[legend166]

Didn't see any discussion of Danny Andrews Euthanasia Proposal, I am for the bill in it's current form and hope it will pass. I think in it's current form it likely does have popular support, the tricky stuff is for non-voluntary assisted dying, though to be fair the juries still out on it's effects.

One annoyance on 'conscience' issues such as this though is that MP's are expected to vote on how they 'feel', rather than through substantive research, which allows pollies do defend their position with claptrap phrases like 'its my personal opinion....'. Attempting to rebut this non-argument then leads defendants to slither back into the usual paradigm of 'muh free speech', an essentially unfair shifting of the goalposts which changes the debate from one of which policy maximises utility to one of whether individuals possess a constitutional right. I just hope when Q&A starts again the left grows some balls and calls out this bs.

I mean, not every policy decision can be decided with cold hard logic and reasoning. I don't believe there's a "correct" decision when we're talking about the state offering sanctioned suicide assistance.

 

[Fredescu]

I mean, not every policy decision can be decided with cold hard logic and reasoning. I don't believe there's a "correct" decision when we're talking about the state offering sanctioned suicide assistance.

Agreed. I don't see how this is a "left" issue at all, and the arguments against it aren't all religious. I used to be for it, but now I'm not so sure. This article describes objections pretty well: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/i-...i-no-longer-believe-that-20161118-gss921.html

The only real argument against that is if palliative care isn't available across the board, but here, at least for now, our universal health care is decent.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Agreed. I don't see how this is a "left" issue at all, and the arguments against it aren't all religious. I used to be for it, but now I'm not so sure. This article describes objections pretty well: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/i-...i-no-longer-believe-that-20161118-gss921.html

The only real argument against that is if palliative care isn't available across the board, but here, at least for now, our universal health care is decent.

Palliative care isn't available across the board though, my grandmother died very slowly, only 4 years ago now. The nursing home she was in at the end was badly understaffed too.

ETA - Of course I'm talking about Qld not Vic.

 

[Yagharek]

I mean, not every policy decision can be decided with cold hard logic and reasoning. I don't believe there's a "correct" decision when we're talking about the state offering sanctioned suicide assistance.

Why not? The state is happy to sanction killing when war is declared. Often most vocally by the people who retreat to dogmatic reasons when prolonging the suffering of terminally ill people.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Why not? The state is happy to sanction killing when war is declared. Often most vocally by the people who retreat to dogmatic reasons when prolonging the suffering of terminally ill people.

The state doesn't usually sanction the killing of its own Citizens though those deaths tend to be a side effect of killing other countries citizens.

 

[legend166]

Why not? The state is happy to sanction killing when war is declared. Often most vocally by the people who retreat to dogmatic reasons when prolonging the suffering of terminally ill people.

Those things aren't even remotely comparable and you know it.

And the hypocrisy of people supporting a position means nothing about whether that position is incorrect in and of itself.

 

[Fredescu]

Palliative care isn't available across the board though

Isn't it? I stand corrected. Though I would point out that dying slowly and dying slowly in constant pain is the key difference. And I would argue that if people are dying slowly in constant pain without access to palliative care, we should be campaigning for more people to have access to it. I had a similar situation to you with my great grandmother, and she once told me "I want to go but the lord won't take me." But she was able to tell me this at my grandmothers house where she was able to travel from her "old age accommodation." So she wasn't in the kind of pain described in the article, where some need to be on pain killers 100% of the time.

The main thing is, I don't think someone should be in the position of feeling like they're morally obligated to die just to be less of a burden on their family. The current laws allow doctors to apply doses of painkillers that are life shortening, as long as shortening life isn't the primary reason they're administering them, so it seems we already have the legal capacity to reduce suffering, without also adding the psychological suffering of making someone believe that taking their own life is the right thing to do.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Isn't it? I stand corrected. Though I would point out that dying slowly and dying slowly in constant pain is the key difference. And I would argue that if people are dying slowly in constant pain without access to palliative care, we should be campaigning for more people to have access to it. I had a similar situation to you with my great grandmother, and she once told me "I want to go but the lord won't take me." But she was able to tell me this at my grandmothers house where she was able to travel from her "old age accommodation." So she wasn't in the kind of pain described in the article, where some need to be on pain killers 100% of the time.

The main thing is, I don't think someone should be in the position of feeling like they're morally obligated to die just to be less of a burden on their family. The current laws allow doctors to apply doses of painkillers that are life shortening, as long as shortening life isn't the primary reason they're administering them, so it seems we already have the legal capacity to reduce suffering, without also adding the psychological suffering of making someone believe that taking their own life is the right thing to do.

I don't think people should feel a moral obligation to take their own life, I just don't think we should be placing moral and legal obligations on people to not do so, if they genuinely feel going on living is intolerable.

 

[Fredescu]

I don't think people should feel a moral obligation to take their own life, I just don't think we should be placing moral and legal obligations on people to not do so, if they genuinely feel going on living is intolerable.

You can't have one without the other. If it's a legal option, the possibility hangs in the air, even if the rest of the family doesn't bring it up.

 

[Elaugaufein]

You can't have one without the other. If it's a legal option, the possibility hangs in the air, even if the rest of the family doesn't bring it up.

Should it not;? If someone is terminal and has at best nothing else to do but die slowly and helplessly , I don't see how forcing them to ensure that is particularly more moral than your alternative.

 

[Fredescu]

Should it not;?

If you want to avoid people feeling a moral obligation to take their own life, then it shouldn't. If you don't want to avoid that, then you should accept that it will happen and defend that position. Remembering that the alternative is essentially to be high on doses of morphine that will be bringing the end around quicker anyway, "passive euthanasia" as the article puts it. This is already legal.

 

[TheWasTheJoke]

Agreed. I don't see how this is a "left" issue at all, and the arguments against it aren't all religious. I used to be for it, but now I'm not so sure. This article describes objections pretty well: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/i-...i-no-longer-believe-that-20161118-gss921.html

The only real argument against that is if palliative care isn't available across the board, but here, at least for now, our universal health care is decent.

Wew

So by no means do I believe the left has a moral monopoly on every issue, my problem is that many on the right are held to a lower standard of debate as they often make religious or anecdotal arguments which are accepted as legitimate or at least on par with more nuanced, factual exposition by the left. The article you linked actually makes a compelling case against euthanasia and I respect the case it fights for, it just annoys me that it isn't an argument you see in prominent public discourse all that much .

Anyway
Palliative Care, while it has made great strides, has is limitations. A mother of my friend is stuck in a wheelchair with a neurological disease, she cant take care of herself, is in constant pain and has the lost the will to live. There is nothing any doctor can do for her except offer increasingly powerful drugs. She, to me at least, should be allowed to die.
So let's say it's then a clash between allowing the terminally ill to die and slightly eroding societies sanctity of life. On that balance, one harm is concrete, the other is not only murky but may also be in fact in our best interest, why shouldn't someone choose to die (if their terminally ill), simply to make it easier on their family? Its their choice and also a utilatrian benefit.

Even past this theres a bunch of positives to Euthansia
- Allowing a dignifed to death to those terminally ill who were considering suicide
- Allowing those who are terminally ill to die in Australia rather than to travel to Europe
- Making it much easier for families
- Saving money (I know, I know but this is money that will save other lives)

 

[Elaugaufein]

If you want to avoid people feeling a moral obligation to take their own life, then it shouldn't. If you don't want to avoid that, then you should accept that it will happen and defend that position. Remembering that the alternative is essentially to be high on doses of morphine that will be bringing the end around quicker anyway, "passive euthanasia" as the article puts it. This is already legal.

I don't want people to feel an obligation to either take their life if they do not wish too or to continue living if they do not wish too. I realise given human nature that's impossible. I just fail to see the moral justification for holding the former superior to the latter.

 

[Yagharek]

Those things aren't even remotely comparable and you know it.

And the hypocrisy of people supporting a position means nothing about whether that position is incorrect in and of itself.

The hypocrisy is relevant because the people voting for or against the legislation cite morality when it is convenient and you know that.

 

[Fredescu]

I just fail to see the moral justification for holding the former superior to the latter.

The choice to end all choices must be held at a higher standard to all other choices. It's not like we're ever going to read a long form thinkpiece on The Atlantic titled "Taking my own life was the ____ decision of my life" to make us stroke our beards and go "hmm", so we need to tread carefully and consider all consequences. I agree that there are cases where euthanasia would be obvious and justifiable. It's the the not so obvious cases, where we ask people to weigh up the pros and cons of ending their life, that has the potential to introduce just as much pain as the legalisation would be taking away.

 

[Candescence]

So now Morrison is decrying an epidemic of "shameless layabouts" on welfare as a response to a News Corp article, which is not only hilariously inaccurate, but this "slacker crisis" is composed of a mere 35,000 people Australia-wide. That's not a crisis, the actual crisis is a huge job shortage that the government is doing absolutely nothing about.

Oh, and he's calling for cutting off the dole if you reject a job offer, regardless of reason - nevermind that (sadly) this is basically how it already works thanks to Abbott. Either Morrison has a hilariously short memory, or he's just trying to bring up "welfare bludgers" to try and distract from the government being an incompetent shambles.

 

[TheWasTheJoke]

So now Morrison is decrying an epidemic of "shameless layabouts" on welfare as a response to a News Corp article, which is not only hilariously inaccurate, but this "slacker crisis" is composed of a mere 35,000 people Australia-wide. That's not a crisis, the actual crisis is a huge job shortage that the government is doing absolutely nothing about.

Oh, and he's calling for cutting off the dole if you reject a job offer, regardless of reason - nevermind that (sadly) this is basically how it already works thanks to Abbott. Either Morrison has a hilariously short memory, or he's just trying to bring up "welfare bludgers" to try and distract from the government being an incompetent shambles.

It's like those people who always screech 'cut foreign aid!)' every time the budget is in a bad shape not realising it takes up less than half of a percent of our total expenditure.