Talking Politics | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Talking Politics

HR

Tiger Superstar
Mar 20, 2013
2,441
1,517
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

Yellow & Black Member
Feb 17, 2004
6,815
5,802
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

It's Tiger Time
Mar 17, 2003
24,150
19,618
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

Tiger Legend
Jun 4, 2006
33,186
11,546
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 Legend
Apr 29, 2006
5,167
2,009
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

Tiger Legend
Jun 4, 2006
33,186
11,546
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
2,441
1,517
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
4,955
6,939
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 Champion
Apr 27, 2010
3,705
1,729
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.

*smile* 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
4,955
6,939
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.

*smile* 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 Champion
Apr 27, 2010
3,705
1,729
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.
 

JoMamma

Tiger Rookie
Oct 4, 2004
243
52
HR said:
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?

Bolt, Panahi, Miranda Devine and that scumbag Chris Kenny are all News.com. If they were to lean any further to the right they'd fall over.
 

Panthera Tigris

Tiger Champion
Apr 27, 2010
3,705
1,729
easy said:
we all know what these blokes use overpopulation as a euphemism for.

They know it, we know it.
Again, ignoring nuance in a debate.

I acknowledge, absolutely there are people who use it in the way you are inferring. But does that mean we should ignore the issue of overpopulation, both locally and internationally as the single root cause to all environmental issues, just because a few rednecks use it for their own purpose?

To do so, I feel is cutting off your nose to spite your face. We cannot grow infinitely in a finite world. It's a logical fallacy to believe otherwise.
 

Coburgtiger

Tiger Champion
May 7, 2012
4,955
6,939
Panthera Tigris said:
I covered global population as part of the overall post. You just chose to ignore that bit.

I read your post. And the link. The only way you covered global population is to say you didn't cover it.

Local (Australian) population size is unambiguously, and objectively not an issue.

We are one of the most sparsely populated countries in the whole world. 3 people per square km!

If you want overpopulation to be a topic of any significance in climate discussions, you need to address any strategies we have to deal with it. Immigration is irrelevant (obviously). I'm all for greater sex Ed and access to prophylactics. That's one of the reasons the average person has had less kids every year for the last 50 years. Let's keep it up. And then address the actual global issues.
 

Panthera Tigris

Tiger Champion
Apr 27, 2010
3,705
1,729
Coburgtiger said:
I read your post. And the link. The only way you covered global population is to say you didn't cover it.

Local (Australian) population size is unambiguously, and objectively not an issue.

We are one of the most sparsely populated countries in the whole world. 3 people per square km!

If you want overpopulation to be a topic of any significance in climate discussions, you need to address any strategies we have to deal with it. Immigration is irrelevant (obviously). I'm all for greater sex Ed and access to prophylactics. That's one of the reasons the average person has had less kids every year for the last 50 years. Let's keep it up. And then address the actual global issues.
If you want to keep concreting over hectares and hectares of native SE QLD forests, to house an ever growing population - and in the process, sending Koalas to extinction, be my guest. Afterall, "Local (Australian) population size is unambiguously, and objectively not an issue."

I repeat, 200-240k per year is crazy numbers of immigration if we want our natural Australian environment and infrastructure to keep up. Bring it back to something more sustainable of 70-100k per year, which is our long term average.