OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[Gary Gutful]

#nothanks

Don't you have dildos to insert into kids meals, you f**ken pest!

 

[Happy MEel]

Don't you have dildos to insert into kids meals, you f**ken pest!

 

[Bazal]

Is that the new Joker movie?

 

[Happy MEel]

Is that the new Joker movie?

That hack job could only dream of inflicting the same devastation on society as I have!!

 

[Gary Gutful]

 

[Happy MEel]

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

That's still being overly simplistic to push a point, energy policy as a whole has been a partisan clusterf**k for well over a decade now. The only issue that both the majors seem to act in a remotely bi-partisan manner upon is the importance of ensuring favourable conditions for the corporate sector to invest, which despite their protestations has invariably meant that Joe public has been f**ked over.

The situation we have here is just the latest instalment of decades of attempts to grab short term cash without any real long term planning.

Is anyone surprised? After we Balkanised East Timor for the sole purpose of taking their LNG resources? Everything after that has been small cookies.

 

[Bandwagon]

Is anyone surprised? After we Balkanised East Timor for the sole purpose of taking their LNG resources? Everything after that has been small cookies.

Well, that's an excellent outcome, why limit yourself to screwing over the Australian public when you can screw over an entire third world nation?

Nothing beats financial prosperity gained on the back of exporting your exploitation to the third world.

 

[Gronk]

Nothwithstanding the BS that Morrison throws about with climate change. This is the attitude of the cabinet. Energy companies are saying that renewables are the future, the Minister puts his fingers in his ears.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Well, that's an excellent outcome, why limit yourself to screwing over the Australian public when you can screw over an entire third world nation?

Nothing beats financial prosperity gained on the back of exporting your exploitation to the third world.

But it would've been fine for the Javanese to continue exploiting them instead?

 

[Bandwagon]

But it would've been fine for the Javanese to continue exploiting them instead?

Sorry, I didn't realize those were the only two options............

Or perhaps this just a rather blatant attempt at arguing a fallacy of false dilemma?.

 

[Gary Gutful]

After we Balkanised East Timor

 

[hindy111]

Sorry, I didn't realize those were the only two options............

Or perhaps this just a rather blatant attempt at arguing a fallacy of false dilemma?.

Everyone exploits each other. But without someone willing to take some control then the people being exploited would be floating around meaninglesly.

People who take bigger risks get bigger rewards.
Same goes for businesses. It would be great to live in a world where everyone was equal and treated the same. But it's a pipe dream. People who put in more effort will want to be rewarded and rightfully so.
It's easy to knock rich first world countries but where would these 3rd world ones be without them? Same goes for people with wealth. They provide us stability and jobs. And money that gives us an easier and longer life.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Sorry, I didn't realize those were the only two options............

Or perhaps this just a rather blatant attempt at arguing a fallacy of false dilemma?.

There's nothing false about it. People live on an island and have resources to sell. Some of them were happy to do what the Javanese wanted while others weren't. Australia was happy to back the latter (who were the majority btw). In a country that tiny with a divided population there is no true independence. They will always be a client state. The question is who pulls the strings. The only other option for Timor Leste would be China, who are very influential there anyway.

Who knows, China may yet win control of Timor's resources. Especially if Australia decides to just leave them alone.

If the Timorese state needed to ignore human rights to maintain order they might prefer to be a Chinese client. Most countries don't though. And the fact they're not Muslim is what pushed them away from Indonesia in the first place. This is win-win for Australia and Timor Leste.

 

[Bandwagon]

There's nothing false about it. People live on an island and have resources to sell. Some of them were happy to do what the Javanese wanted while others weren't. Australia was happy to back the latter (who were the majority btw). In a country that tiny with a divided population there is no true independence. They will always be a client state. The question is who pulls the strings. The only other option for Timor Leste would be China, who are very influential there anyway.

Who knows, China may yet win control of Timor's resources. Especially if Australia decides to just leave them alone.

If the Timorese state needed to ignore human rights to maintain order they might prefer to be a Chinese client. Most countries don't though. And the fact they're not Muslim is what pushed them away from Indonesia in the first place. This is win-win for Australia and Timor Leste.

It is most certainly an argument of false dilemma, as you presented it as a choice between the status quo, and exploitation by Indonesia, when clearly there are other options, even if they only amount to a more favorable ( for Timor Leste ) level of exploitation.

That is literally the very definition of that particular logical fallacy.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

There has to be a dilemma for there to be a false one. The only thing worse than being exploited by capitalism is not being exploited by capitalism.

 

[Bandwagon]

There has to be a dilemma for there to be a false one. The only thing worse than being exploited by capitalism is not being exploited by capitalism.

Mate, shit means what it means. Not what you'd like it to mean. That is the label used to identify the type of logical fallacy you presented, it is what it is.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

You are yourself committing a logical fallacy by trying to shoehorn this example into the false dilemma box. Timor might've had more than two choices regarding who would help exploit its resources, but for Australia there was only two choices - help exploit the resources or let somebody else do it. There's no dilemma, false or otherwise.

 

[Bandwagon]

You are yourself committing a logical fallacy by trying to shoehorn this example into the false dilemma box. Timor might've had more than two choices regarding who would help exploit its resources, but for Australia there was only two choices - help exploit the resources or let somebody else do it. There's no dilemma, false or otherwise.

Nonsense, your post is what it is, and again there's a whole shit ton of varying degrees in the idea of "help exploit the resources", from actually helping them to do it, through to no, f**k off, we'll do whatever the f**k we like dickheads.

So no, there was not only two choices, and yes, whilst you continue to proffer up the same line of it is either this or that without recognising there are further choices or varying degrees within each choice, you are still running with the same logical fallacy.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

So what were Australia's choices beyond help exploit or watch some other state do it?