Instigate @ Instigate @aussie.zone

Posts

3

Comments

334

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yeah I’ve never really bought into the whole ‘but they’re the only stable choice’ argument as that’s the exact thinking that leads you to a two-party system. Multiparty rule is far better than majority rule in my opinion as it represents far more discrete circumstances simultaneously. Personally I’m in favour of scrapping parties altogether, but that’s a far deeper rabbit hole.

Wait… what happened to the orifices?

“im”

Where I’m from, some people will still use feet/inches only for heights of human beings (weird, I know), but the most common response is in cm. For instance, if you asked me how tall I am I’d say 173cm, but I would say it like “I’m about a hundred and seventy-three” or “one-seven-three” - you don’t really have to say the units. Much the same as you’d say “I’m five foot seven” and you don’t need to specify “inches”.

Wow. That’s a bunch of great ideas right there!

I really like using federal government to set direction but pushing for local changes ASAP. Honestly that seems like the most logical way to cater to individual needs while moving as quickly as possible.

Obviously we also have to invest heavily in public transport, right? Not only do we need to beef up what existing but we’ll need to create new linkages in order to prevent transportation deserts. Part of the issue with that is it might require some compulsory acquisition of land. That’s always a super tetchy area because I don’t always ascribe to a utilitarian “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one” view.

I think another area that needs to be looked at is mandating some level of working from home in roles where that’s possible. Travelling to and from work causes the most congestion both on roads and in public transport, and it’s just silly to be forcing people to travel when they don’t need to all the time. That’s something that will need another top-down approach - probably set down either at State or Federal level and mandated legislatively.

Can I just say thank you so much for your considered and good-faith reply. This is what I come to Lemmy for - the ideas and the opinions that really spark debate and discussion!

That sounds like a good place to start to me!

A few other concerns that I have with a blanket ban are around implementation - if it’s done suddenly then public transport systems will be extremely overwhelmed and will underperform, leading to large losses in productivity across the economy. Do you think a staged approach or a fast approach is more appropriate, and what sort of timeframes do you think are feasible for enacting a ban?

You’re absolutely right - just about any action taken on a population-wide scale will have both positives and negatives, and they’re also not likely to be shared equally among stratified groups in that population. Just to be clear - I’m not discounting a car ban as an option entirely but rather trying to determine how it would actually work. In my utopia there would rarely be need for personal vehicles, but I’m not smart enough to know the steps to get there. I’m keen on discussing what those steps might be, and how we can engage them in a way that their impact on individuals is as equitable as possible.

I think you might’ve made an unfair assumption about my position just because I asked a question. To clarify: I am all for reducing car usage as much as possible by implementing high-quality no-cost public transport solutions. I am however concerned that a blanket ban on all cars will negatively impact already underprivileged communities, and so a more methodical approach that limits and disincentivises car usage for those who don’t need it, while still retaining options for those who do, would better address the issue with the least unintended consequences possible.

I see the confusion - my semicolon usage was to denote items in a list. Physical disabilities, Autism and obesity were three separate conditions that I was suggesting may be impacted by removing all cars from the road. My apologies if that was not clear. I included Autism in there specifically because my cousin recently got his licence and has been over the moon about how he no longer has to deal with the sensory overload shit he puts up with on public transport. It was an example close to my heart, and clearly it was close to yours as well.

I’m sorry that it seems as though I’ve presented concepts as absolute truths - that was not my intention. My intention was to list some circumstances where some people may be negatively affected as a starting point for discussion around disability accommodations in a car-free world.

Just to state - I personally do believe we need to reduce car usage as much as possible and seriously ramp up accessibility while removing all costs for high-quality public transport. I think cars are a blight on our society and we rely far too heavily on them. I just don’t know how to get rid of them without any negative unintended consequences. I was seeking a debate, or to be informed on how this could be done well. Instead it seems as though I’ve offended you, which was not my intention.

I know that understanding tone from text can be difficult at the best of times but I’ve honestly tried to be as genuine and non-combative as possible. I’m sorry there’s not more I can do to convey that I agree with your sentiment and am asking for help in how that can be put into place without accidentally harming anyone.

That’s a fair call mate, but I would like to remind you that Autism is a spectrum, and many different people have many different presentations and symptomatology associated with their conditions. I’m sorry that you’re not able to drive due to your condition, but many others are able to including some of my close family members.

My bad if what I wrote made you feel like a prop - it wasn’t my intention. I was genuinely trying to spark conversation about disability accommodations in car-free world.

Serious question: are you concerned that banning all cars will negatively impact some groups more than others - for instance, people living with disability? Cars are a far more preferable mode of transport for someone who has a physical disability; someone who has autism and struggles with sensory overload; or someone who is morbidly obese and struggles to walk even short distances. What are your thoughts on how their needs can be accommodated if we take all cars off the road overnight tonight?

I assume one of the only scenarios in which you’d need to use this full Lagrangian is when developing a virtual universe whose laws mirror the Standard Model of Particle Physics. We’re nowhere near even close to being able to do that in any genuine capacity, at least not until our quantum computing gets up off the ground and properly developed.

That’s interesting, because “the apple doesn’t/didn’t fall far from the tree” is a known Anglophonic saying that basically means that a child turned out a lot like a parent (gender not necessarily specified). I wonder if one is a calque of the other.

Advice regarding product availability doesn’t always translate well on a universally accessible platform - for instance where I’m located in Australia I’d have to drive over 50km to my nearest Beyond Meat stockist and both Beyond and Impossible are around 3-4 times the cost of their true meat alternatives. Sadly my economic situation doesn’t allow me to pay $40-$50/kg for plant-based meat alternatives, and any ones that are near affordable are stuffed full of wheat or flavoured with barley. Another important note to remember is that the definition of ‘gluten-free’ varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so not all products that are labelled gluten-free in one market can be said to be the same in other markets.

There are definitely ways to balance a vegetarian or vegan diet well enough to manage your nutrient intake, however this requires a lot of fresh foods that are also very expensive where I am. I’m also trying to follow my dietician’s advice who recommended that I eat red meat, white meat and fish once each per week as my body struggles with nutrient intake.

I get where you’re coming from - if everyone tomorrow halved their meat intake the entire industry would collapse as it is by definition a demand-driven industry, but I’m afraid all I can do for my part is reduce my meat intake to where I have. I also don’t think it’s fair for me to place responsibility on myself to fix an issue that requires regulatory and governmental intervention to affect real change.

That’s totally fair, but I generally don’t like to ascribe to the idea that we as individuals need to take on responsibility for solving issues that are systemic in nature. I think anyone doing anything they can to make an impact is great and should absolutely be lauded, but we should never be placing or accepting responsibility for solving these issues onto individuals.

I have coeliac disease, which makes most plant-based meat alternatives off-the-menu because of the use of wheat or barley, so I don’t tend to feel so bad for consuming meat a few nights a week. My body struggles to maintain healthy vitamin levels at the best of times, so I have to compensate how I can and balance the ethics of the matter. I’m also not rich, which means I can’t afford a high-quality vegetarian or vegan diet right now. For someone like me, waiting for cultured meats is the best I can do right now unless a cure for autoimmune diseases is found.

I’m really looking forward to cultured meats for similar reasons. I take no issue with one animal (human) hunting another wild animal to eat its meat for sustenance - that’s just biology bro - but our farming practices have just become insanely abhorrent with regards to animal ethics. I can’t wait until some bioengineer makes my minced meat in a lab with no animal cruelty involved because while I hate torturing animals, I love me some meat.

…does the chicken’s power level need to be over 9000 in order to be safe to eat?

There are differing schools of thought regarding the vast amount of deities in Hinduism. One school, which is what most outsiders are aware of, is that each god is individual from one another and they have varying domains, powers and relationships, much like the ancient Roman and Greek gods. Another school suggests that all of the different gods are expressions of a singular God, much as how Christianity has the Holy Trinity who are three separate beings (Lord, Jesus, Holy Spirit) that are also simultaneously one being.

You’ll find that oftentimes outside of the context of a puja or a religious holiday Hindu people will often just refer to ‘God’ rather than a specific deity e.g. “Thank God” rather than “Thank Durga” or “God is watching over you” and not “Ganesh is watching over you”. I’m not sure if this reflects their school of thought on mono/polytheism or is just language simplification, but from what I’ve gathered from Indian communities here in Australia the ‘many gods; one God’ idea seems to be pretty prevalent.

Yeah, it’s hard to imagine two strangers sitting at a chessboard at the park when one goes “LOL checkmate d00d u suck bro!!”. People are far more willing to be toxic arseholes when they don’t have to look the other person in the eye. Anonymity allows for the worst behaviour a person can engage in - just look at platforms with forced anonymity like 4chan. The more anonymous you are, the more of a dick you’re willing to be.

donated blood for a few dollars

If they were paid for it then it’s not a donation - it’s a sale. They sold their blood. I get that that sounds weird, but it’s accurate. That’s why in Australia it’s illegal to give any financial or other incentives for blood, so it truly makes it a donation.

Communities