Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Recent Posts
1
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments
Last post by DJC -
Quote from: Gointocarlton – on
The Victorian and Federal Governments appear untouchable despite fark up after fark up.
Locally I'd like to think Wilson will give it a good shake leading up to November but once Labour start with the playing the man (or woman) muck raking  tactics, the Victoria public seem just lap it up.

I know that senior Liberals don't give Wilson much chance, but is that more about the boys' club than reality?

History is on Wilson's side, no Premier that assumed the role after an election has won the next election.
3
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments
Last post by DJC -
We’re veering away from Victorian and Australian governments 😢

What happens in the US affects us, and the rest of the world - and that’s why the Taco thread is generally buzzing.

Our governments’ actions may have negative outcomes but they won’t create another GFC or world war.  Those negative outcomes, or positive outcomes, aren’t globally significant but they’re important to us.  So let’s keep this thread for them and discuss Taco and global issues elsewhere.
4
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments
Last post by kruddler -
Quote from: dodge – on
I see hope in countries starting to work together without the US - we'll see how it all goes!

This is the key right now.

You have those who are 'under the wing' of the US (australia included) but are more frequently finding themselves disagreeing with their views. But they are the big brother, so better to be on their right side.

Problem is their right side changes with the breeze as denmark (greenland) are finding out. So what is the benefit of staying aligned with them?

They bully the rest of the world into doing what they want....and we just go along with it.


I was listening to a podcast on 'appeasing Hitler' and giving into his demands (pre-war) and how the rest of the world essentially said, "Ok, lets just give him that and THEN he'll go away". But he would ask for something else.....and something else...Countries found it easier to go along with it rather than stand up to it....and eventually it was too late, and he got too powerful and then it was on.

Right now there is a lot of that going on with the US, but less obvious. Countries continue to turn a blind eye to their 'tactics' as its easier to not rock the boat. Eventually it may be too late to stand up to them. As bad as Trump is, there could always be someone worse.

The more we band against the US now, the better off the rest of the world may be later.
5
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments
Last post by dodge -
Quote from: shawny – on
How many pages are we up to for the 'Red Trump' who runs a country on the other side of the world?

For me, living in Victoria, I see the consequences of what our government (s) do everyday and have an understanding of the effect that it has on people - and I agree that it's bad and I'm looking hopefully for a viable alternative. 

In the US, I see the dismantling of government, disregard of the constitution, blatant corruption (including from the Pre$ident) democracy falling by the wayside, not treating people decently and no respect for society.  The cover ups on the Epstein files are an absolute disgrace - it is surely beyond politics that people (loose use of the word) need to be accountable for their actions, not matter who they are.  Lack of justice for migrants. The lack of compassion and kindness that is increasing (this is not unique to the US).  I struggle to see how the US is going recover from the destruction from 2020 (we won the election), the insurrection, pardons and denials of the seriousness of what happened on Jan6.  (Democrats are no angels with pardons!).  The US has a butterfly effect in many countries.

The global political situation is pretty stark.

I see hope in countries starting to work together without the US - we'll see how it all goes!
6
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: General Discussions
Last post by kruddler -
Writing an article about scientific papers BEFORE they are peer reviewed should be banned.

Someone makes a bold claim to cure cancer, invents teleportation, solves world hunger and finds proof of intelligent life oustide our own little rock.......it gets talked about, everyone goes crazy!

Then....it gets peer reviewed and found that all is bunk.


......but you never get an article saying as much so people continue to believe those things.

Then there is a conspiracy about it all....etc...

7
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: General Discussions
Last post by LP -
Quote from: Thryleon – on
Was the article peer reviewed?  :P
Very funny. ;D

But more seriously, in case someone thinks you made a valid point, editorials are not peer reviewed because they are opinion and commentary, they can be debated but that is not peer review. If an editorial references scientific papers, then those reference papers should be peer reviewed, commenting on papers that are yet to be reviewed is like commenting on a mirage.

Scientific papers that contain hypothesis, theory and scientific finding are peer reviewed because they are meant to contain testable claims. Many good quality papers typically offer ways to put the hypothesis to the test, and very rarely if ever do they make claims of certainty.

When an alleged scientific paper makes claims that aren't testable you know it's probably bogus. Like fool who told the world MMR vaccine caused Down Syndrome, what a jerk, can you think of others? The scientific papers in response made testable claims that the MMR vaccine was safe, they didn't argue the jerks false claims because it's impossible to prove a negative, they just let you infer from the testable evidence that the jerk was a jerk.

Scientific papers might never offer certainty about the subject matter, but they often rule out assertions that obviously cannot be true.
9
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: General Discussions
Last post by LP -
Quote from: PaulP – on
https://theconversation.com/the-peer-review-system-is-breaking-down-heres-how-we-can-fix-it-275317
I don't know about the validity of the various fixes being proposed, but the headlines claiming peer review is diminished are true for a variety of reasons.

What's not true are the claims that science is broken because peer review is broken.

The real situation is that peer review is actively under attack by those trying to assert that science is broken, they frame science like a religion. But science has no component of faith. Those with influence are using restriction of funding to try and influence or restrict peer review and careers, to the point people are reluctant to review because of retribution.
10
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Shawny’s concerns about Victorian and Australian Governments
Last post by LP -
Quote from: ElwoodBlues1 – on
Thats part of what I said, yep its all Democratic but thats not what Shawny was arguing imho, Allan didnt enter the election as Premier and as I suggested a lot of voters often vote for the personalities/leaders rather than knowing too much about the policies.
If Andrews had lost his seat, we'd have a Premier nobody voted for because nobody votes for the Premier, regardless of which party forms power.

An interpretation of the wider meaning of a debate is fine, but it doesn't mean those getting involved can't be free to highlight factual errors. Taking offense isn't a defence for being called out for posting stuff that is blatantly incorrect, and the poster is not a victim of bullying or under a personal attack, such claims are just diversionary, an attempt to avoid debate.

If people do not debate stuff, it usually means they have no opinion, or no basis for an informed opinion, not that the point being ignored is right or wrong, non-debate is a neutral stance. It's completely counterfactual for some to claim that a point ignored is proof of validity.

Further, on the issue of the state politics, it's fine to talk about the mistakes, mismanagement and morality, but stick to the facts which are more than enough to debate without slathering it in a veneer of bullsh1t! As Paul Keating would say, there is no need to paint the turd, it's clearly already an obvious turd!