Well you've swung my vote. **** the science.
The Greens
- Thread starter Herzog
- Start date
- Tagged users None
You're against human existence?
Then keep burning lots of coalI'm leaning that way
Collateral damage!
Sure. How can you justify it?
I like living and I'm not a misanthrope.
I listened to much of Bandt's address and also read the article.
The article has a point perhaps when it comes to style - Adam used emotive language to drive home a very anti-establishment message. Not at 'drain the swamp' levels but clearly letting us know what he thinks of politicians in this country and their motives. Indeed, it may be a good tactic to get votes.
But the thing that resonated most with me from the address was the word 'outcomes'. This wasn't really addressed in the article, Bandt clearly wants to be outcome driven and thinks the current mobs are simply not. Trump doesn't really speak much about outcomes, it's all personal stuff with him.
It's a half baked article.
Gralin
Super Moderator
- Moderator
- #4,988
I reckon the guy in the tweet might be right that the ABC article is full of centrist crap
claiming Brandt is like the left wing trump is meant to scare off voters
given trump is a convicted felon, a rapist and a pedophile its pretty shit form
also emotive language gets used by politicians all the time
suggesting that someone being passionate about change is "doing a trump" who lets be honest isn't passionate about change at all is just straight up lying
Consciousness is not only justifiable but the only known thing of value in existence. And human consciousness is the most advanced of all. Without happiness, self awareness and love then what exactly is the point of anything?
Last edited:
I'm not sure there has to be a point?
I think the comparison in the article is also weak but the article clearly states its comparing bandt to Trump on his style only. Not anything else. It certainly doesn't compare him on his personal behaviour. Comparisons on specific elements unrelated to personal behaviour can be completely valid (even if this one isnt) even if their personal behaviour is completely the opposite. It's not poor form as you state. To say its poor form is a logical fallacy.
Not Important
never test the depth of water with both feet.
- Oct 4, 2016
- 9,137
- 14,908
- AFL Club
- Tasmania
no need for the big grin, we know it's true.I'm leaning that way
If there is no point then nothing can be justified or unjustified.
No idea. This isn't pedantic. The decision of what to do is in fact the most important decision of all. Philosophy/ideology tells you what to do. A good ideology is informed by science. But science does not tell you what to do. As an example. How do you value reduced climate impacts upon future generations vs the costs of ambitious climate abatment on the current generation without some ideological judgement? Science can't provide this answer. It can only inform the answer. My long term utilitarian ideology suggests we should rank current and future generations almost equally. But other ideologies have a very different view. Science provides zero answer.
Last edited:
It's not just weak, it's silly. The article calls Bandt's rhetoric a "doom-and-gloom approach", implying it's unreasonably negative. But it isn't. He's right. Millions of people are indeed being screwed by corporations and the Labor and Liberal parties are indeed either doing nothing about it or enabling it further. On the other hand, Trump spits tens lies a minute and acts like the US under Biden has the starvation levels of Somalia and the government control levels of the Soviet Union. These aren't comparable.
Another silly comparison the article makes is that Trump declaring the political system is rigged against him is like Bandt declaring the economy is rigged for corporations. Those are two different subjects!
Gralin
Super Moderator
- Moderator
- #4,998
lol no wonder they're attacking Brandt
www.theguardian.com
‘How to save whales and produce gas’: ABC changes headline of interview with Woodside CEO Meg O’Neill
Climate scientist Bill Hare says it was a shock to see the headline which he described as ‘laughable’, accusing the ABC of ‘innovation in greenwashing’
