• PRE should be functioning as per usual. Please email admin@puntroadend.com to report anything odd that is occuring over the next few days as we settle a few database issues.

Talking Politics

MD Jazz

Tiger Champion
Feb 3, 2017
3,791
454
Coburgtiger said:
Yep. We simply need to move the world's supply of tomatoes to the Sahara, and murder half the population.

Thanks Thanos, you got things under control.

It would be really nice if, like the rate of population growth, the rate of increase in CO2 production had decreased every year for the last 30 years.
But population is still increasing. And, as wealth increases so will demand for meat/dairy etc. like it or not population increase is effectively what’s gonna **** us.
 

HR

Tiger Superstar
Mar 20, 2013
1,312
57
TT33 said:
seems to be that if someone doesn't agree with another poster they're immediately with the "Leftist or Rightist" tag. Mostly it seems to be "Leftist" is seen as an insult.
If that makes me a lefty then I'll proudly wear that moniker & see it as good thing, not an insult which is how some folks wish it to be.
Well now TT, leftist is far more accurate and also far less insulting than what non leftists are called on this site. Very rarely is "Rightist" ever used, normally just childish mean words are used to hurt non believers and to make people cry. Being a leftist isn't bad in my eyes, we need a world with difference and challenge.
Good luck with your new moniker.
 

HR

Tiger Superstar
Mar 20, 2013
1,312
57
easy said:
well yeah. Human generated CO2. More humans. More Co2.

where's the trick? Is it code for immigration is driving climate change?

in which case, it would need to be immigration from beyond our atmosphere?

Its a similar cognitive cross wiring, as Latham confusing immigration (driving up house prices) with foreign investment.

what are you saying? Approve Adani, and offset it by killing 100m Indians?

I don't get it.

what is a population denialist?
It is my new term for myself and others to use when they cannot really think what they should write. I will probably be the only one to use it. :help
Adani is the effect.
The root cause is something else.
Immigration isn't driving climate change Easy. Population is driving climate change and in turn driving participants to immigration.
Why shouldn't we sell coal to India?
Should we start donating solar panels to indian families who have no power to their houses and who don't have access to battery storage. Or should we just tell them to use more nuclear power. What do you want really?
I guess if we don't sell the coal they will live in poverty for just that little bit longer hey. Keep em down yeah.
By the way, you mention killing 100m Indians like I want that. Why do you do that?
You do the same with immigration! And race!
Out of interest did you think Bill won the debates?
 

HR

Tiger Superstar
Mar 20, 2013
1,312
57
Labour wil lose the next election.
Albo has no chance.
Just read his media briefing and the dude has no clue.
By the way who owns News.com.au?
Talk about a one eyed supporter. How the Reds lost is beyond me when this site is the largest form of news in Australia.
 

TT33

GO TIGES!!!
Feb 17, 2004
3,754
207
Melbourne
HR said:
Labour wil lose the next election.
Albo has no chance.
Just read his media briefing and the dude has no clue.
By the way who owns News.com.au?
Talk about a one eyed supporter. How the Reds lost is beyond me when this site is the largest form of news in Australia.

Rupert Murdoch owns News.com.au he couldn't be any more in the Libs camp if he tried. If you think he's a lefty. You really are misinformed.
 

tigerman

Nank should grow a mullet.
Mar 17, 2003
9,244
668
Very funny, it sums up my feelings pretty damn well though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAMnSxCmgYY

Here's another one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4H2-xyqYX4
 

LeeToRainesToRoach

Get out Gillon
Jun 4, 2006
23,675
899
Melbourne
TT33 said:
Rupert Murdoch owns News.com.au he couldn't be any more in the Libs camp if he tried. If you think he's a lefty. You really are misinformed.
It's getting harder to tell. They've run nearly as many anti-Trump articles as Fairfax. Often without the facility for reader comment.
 

scottyturnerscurse

Tiger Champion
Apr 29, 2006
4,140
201
TT33 said:
Rupert Murdoch owns News.com.au he couldn't be any more in the Libs camp if he tried. If you think he's a lefty. You really are misinformed.
news.com.au is oddly surprisingly balanced and might even drift a little left. Assume it's because its target audience is younger than the Murdoch print titles.
 

LeeToRainesToRoach

Get out Gillon
Jun 4, 2006
23,675
899
Melbourne
Coburgtiger said:
Don't you see the issues with claiming climate change isn't a massive and critical factor affecting the world's ecosystems while simultaneously claiming its a factor affecting a massive ecosystem?
Climate change brings both positive and negative effects. I don't believe we can do much to influence change, hence we are best to focus on adapting to change. Focusing all our effort on minimising man's 3% contribution to global carbon emissions is an (expensive) exercise in futility.

Overpopulation results in encroachment on natural habitats and is a much greater threat to the environment than climate change, but the United Nations can't harness it to bring about wealth redistribution like it is doing with climate.
 

HR

Tiger Superstar
Mar 20, 2013
1,312
57
TT33 said:
Rupert Murdoch owns News.com.au he couldn't be any more in the Libs camp if he tried. If you think he's a lefty. You really are misinformed.
I know who owns it Thirty3. 8-
I can't believe that you or any others think that the crap rolled out on news.com platform is biased towards The liberals.
Do you think Shorten won any of the debates?
 

Coburgtiger

Tiger Champion
May 7, 2012
2,761
271
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
Climate change brings both positive and negative effects. I don't believe we can do much to influence change, hence we are best to focus on adapting to change. Focusing all our effort on minimising man's 3% contribution to global carbon emissions is an (expensive) exercise in futility.

Overpopulation results in encroachment on natural habitats and is a much greater threat to the environment than climate change, but the United Nations can't harness it to bring about wealth redistribution like it is doing with climate.
In terms of encroaching on 'natural' habitats, any population is overpopulation.


Again, what are you suggesting to do about 'overpopulation'?
 

Panthera Tigris

Tiger Superstar
Apr 27, 2010
2,367
0
Coburgtiger said:
In terms of encroaching on 'natural' habitats, any population is overpopulation.


Again, what are you suggesting to do about 'overpopulation'?
Regarding population growth being the central root cause to all environmental issues. The Sustainable Australia Party is the only one openly talking about it in the context of their environmental policies. Not even the Greens, a supposedly environmentally focused party, will engage in a discussion on it - unimaginatively screaming, "RACIST" to anyone trying to have a discussion on the issue, without even listening to their argument.

https://www.sustainableaustralia.org.au/

If one takes the time to read their policy platform, it is actually very reasonable. I voted for these guys instead of the Greens as my environmental vote on my Senate ticket.

Dick Smith is a member and donor. Former ALP member for the Federal seat of Wills, Kelvin Thomson, is a member and advisor.

What should we do about population growth? Reduce immigration to our long term average of 70k-100k per year would be a start. 200-240k people per year that we are importing at present is crazy and well above the OECD average. Handing out $$ to breed under Costello was absurdly ridiculous policy too.

Quite rightly, you may comment that this is a bit NIMBY and not looking holistically at the rest of the world. Below provides some ideas on that front.

https://www.sustainableaustralia.org.au/sustainable_population_global/

I find it bizarre how established environmental parties, like the Greens, are so flippant on the issue. There's a kind of bizarre alliance, or at least, common ground, between neo-capitalists growth at all costs crowd (who stand to disproportionately benefit from rapid population growth) and the Green-left, who are happy to ignore the effects of rapid population growth on the alter of 'diversity'. This is where it's a tragedy that the ability to interpret nuance seems to be lost. It is possible to be concerned about population growth and the particularly high level of immigration, while also respecting diversity. I'm not calling for a stop to immigration, just bringing it down to our historical average, so our natural environment and infrastructure can keep pace. And this doesn't just go for Australia. Globally I hold a consistent view.
 
E

easy_tiger

Guest
Coburgtiger said:
Again, what are you suggesting to do about 'overpopulation'?
we all know what these blokes use overpopulation as a euphemism for.

They know it, we know it.
 

Coburgtiger

Tiger Champion
May 7, 2012
2,761
271
Panthera Tigris said:
Regarding population growth being the central root cause to all environmental issues. The Sustainable Australia Party is the only one openly talking about it in the context of their environmental policies. Not even the Greens, a supposedly environmentally focused party, will engage in a discussion on it - unimaginatively screaming, "RACIST" to anyone trying to have a discussion on the issue, without even listening to their argument.

https://www.sustainableaustralia.org.au/

If one takes the time to read their policy platform, it is actually very reasonable. I voted for these guys instead of the Greens as my environmental vote on my Senate ticket.

Dick Smith is a member and donor. Former ALP member for the Federal seat of Wills, Kelvin Thomson, is a member and advisor.

What should we do about population growth? Reduce immigration to our long term average of 70k-100k per year would be a start. 200-240k people per year that we are importing at present is crazy and well above the OECD average. Handing out $$ to breed under Costello was absurdly ridiculous policy too.

Quite rightly, you may comment that this is a bit NIMBY and not looking holistically at the rest of the world. Below provides some ideas on that front.

https://www.sustainableaustralia.org.au/sustainable_population_global/

I find it bizarre how established environmental parties, like the Greens, are so flippant on the issue. There's a kind of bizarre alliance, or at least, common ground, between neo-capitalists growth at all costs crowd (who stand to disproportionately benefit from rapid population growth) and the Green-left, who are happy to ignore the effects of rapid population growth on the alter of 'diversity'. This is where it's a tragedy that the ability to interpret nuance seems to be lost. It is possible to be concerned about population growth and the particularly high level of immigration, while also respecting diversity. I'm not calling for a stop to immigration, just bringing it down to our historical average, so our natural environment and infrastructure can keep pace.
How does immigration affect global population?
 

Panthera Tigris

Tiger Superstar
Apr 27, 2010
2,367
0
Coburgtiger said:
How does immigration affect global population?
I covered global population as part of the overall post. Have a read through the link I provided on that portion. Some interesting ideas.