23 Mar
2018
23 Mar
'18
12:45 p.m.
Hello Rick, Trent and Russell
I would not call Abbot an Arsehole, that is assigning him purpose and
function, and I think he has no valid purpose or function. Tom Switzer
has a program on Radio national, "Between The Lines", where he tries
to think, but fails to think things through. He is one of John
Howard's "Right Wing Phillip Adams", a delusion as Phillip Adams is a
thoughtful intellectual who happens to sound "Left Wing". It is good
to hear someone from the nominal "Right" trying to think, but I wish
they would actually think things through. They accuse the "Left" of
being ideological, when they are actually so ideological as to make
the "Left" look pragmatic.
On 3/23/18, Trent W. Buck via luv-talk <luv-talk(a)luv.asn.au> wrote:
Rick Moen via luv-talk wrote:
As to what is anomalous in this day and age, there is so much out
there that it is becoming a moot point.
Regards,
Mark Trickett
[Terry] also forwards Forteana.
For lurkers unfamiliar with this Americanism,
| Charles Fort (1874 – 1932) was an American writer and researcher who
specialized in anomalous phenomena.
| The terms Fortean and Forteana are sometimes used to characterize various
such phenomena. 
23 Mar
23 Mar
1:25 p.m.
New subject: Does Australia Need a Donald Trump?
Mark Trickett via luv-talk wrote:
He is one of John Howard's "Right Wing
Phillip Adams", a delusion as
Phillip Adams is a thoughtful intellectual who happens to sound
"Left Wing". It is good to hear someone from the nominal "Right"
trying to think, but I wish they would actually think things
through. They accuse the "Left" of being ideological, when they are
actually so ideological as to make the "Left" look pragmatic.
You're right to use scare quotes; for example,
very few "right wingers" these days wear stockings and favour Bourbons.
(Cf. "progressive" vs. "reactionary" terminology; or for bonus snark,
"protagonist" vs. "antagonist".)
24 Mar
24 Mar
7:29 p.m.
New subject: Does Australia Need a Donald Trump?
On Friday, 23 March 2018 12:45:46 PM AEDT Mark Trickett via luv-talk wrote:
thoughtful intellectual who happens to sound
"Left Wing". It is good
to hear someone from the nominal "Right" trying to think, but I wish
they would actually think things through. They accuse the "Left" of
being ideological, when they are actually so ideological as to make
the "Left" look pragmatic
The left side of politics is based on science and the left is mostly
pragmatic. There are some people who believe in homeopathy etc on the left,
but they are a minority.
No-one has time to properly research the science on every issue, so to some
extent everyone has to trust experts in most fields other than the one they
study. As an aside I reject the idea that "appeal to authority" is always a
logical fallacy.
Simplified scientific conclusions become ideology. For example cutting down
old-growth forests is regarded has been shown to be bad for climate change,
bad for the local ecology, and also bad for tourism (so it's usually not good
economically). So left wing people are generally against such logging, while
left wing parties have a fairly pragmatic approach (cutting down trees that
cause danger for people, cutting fire breaks, etc) there are followers who
oppose cutting trees in any situation.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
9:59 p.m.
New subject: Does Australia Need a Donald Trump?
Hello Russell,
On 3/24/18, Russell Coker <russell(a)coker.com.au> wrote:
On Friday, 23 March 2018 12:45:46 PM AEDT Mark
Trickett via luv-talk wrote:
There are some ideologically blinkered folks on the left who do not
listen to the evidence. All of us have trouble with evidence that runs
counter to our beliefs, some will reconsider, some reject.
thoughtful intellectual who happens to sound
"Left Wing". It is good
to hear someone from the nominal "Right" trying to think, but I wish
they would actually think things through. They accuse the "Left" of
being ideological, when they are actually so ideological as to make
the "Left" look pragmatic
The left side of politics is based on science and the left is mostly
pragmatic. There are some people who believe in homeopathy etc on the left,
but they are a minority. No-one has time to properly research the science on
every issue, so to some
extent everyone has to trust experts in most fields other than the one they
study. As an aside I reject the idea that "appeal to authority" is always a
logical fallacy.
The problem is in appealing to an authority, as to whether they are an
appropriate authority in that field. A real understanding of the
physical realities, and an interest in learning is a valuable basis
for critical decisions as to whom to believe.
Simplified scientific conclusions become ideology.
For example cutting down
old-growth forests is regarded has been shown to be bad for climate change,
bad for the local ecology, and also bad for tourism (so it's usually not
good economically). So left wing people are generally against such logging,
while left wing parties have a fairly pragmatic approach (cutting down trees that
cause danger for people, cutting fire breaks, etc) there are followers who
oppose cutting trees in any situation.
Trees are a renewable resource, but the current clear felling is a
short sighted stupidity. A longer growing cycle can yield much better
returns on both economic and ecological grounds, along with selective
logging. I gather that the current growth cycle for Pinus Radiata is
30 years, and it produces mainly poles, not merchantable lumber for
building.
If we were to consider a 100 year to maturity cycle, that would imply
being able to harvest one tree in a hundred each year with selective
logging, from an established forest. However that fails to account for
losses from seedlings that die before maturity, and leaving some older
trees past maturity as habitat, and that a more realistic maturity
time is 250 years for good timber.
That is how things were considered before the chainsaw and modern
heavy machinery. it was a long term sustainable activity. Then we
develop the capacity to clearfell large acreages, and make large short
term profits, and wipe out a lot of habitat and biodiversity. Then we
say that we cannot put a price on that, so it is worthless.
That is the economics of money. Economics does not need to have such a
narrow focus, it can encompass the study of the resource flows in an
environment, which are plentiful, and which are the limiting factors,
without any mention of money.
We need people who take the longer perspective, and wider and deeper,
in government. The current crop, especially on the Coalition side, and
particularly the likes of Cory Banardi, are failing their duty of
care, which the law will not enforce.
Regards,
Mark Trickett
1833
days inactive
1834
days old
3 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Mark Trickett -
Russell Coker -
Trent W. Buck