Leo Lane,

Nice attempt at conjuring up alleged instance of hypocrisy on my part. You even go as far as to claim that what I did was dishonest!

<<You changed”perverts” to gay people”, by dishonestly pretending you were inserting something to clarify the meaning.>>

Firstly, I enclosed my alteration in square brackets to make it clear that it was my edit. Secondly, there is nothing wrong with me doing that, given that you have been unable to demonstrate that gay people are perverts, and for such a long time now, too. And, yes, then there's the issue of clarity.

<<Your dishonesty makes you extremely resistant to education, and to facts …>>

You are yet to point to a single instance of dishonesty on my part.

<<... like the fact that perverts have no status in the question of marriage which is a union between a man and a woman.>>

In Australia at the moment, sure. I have never denied that. Once again, though, what I’m interested in is how this means that they SHOULD NOT have any status.

<<[Gay people] have no standing in relation to marriage.>>

Correct, and this is precisely why an inequality exists, despite your denial that it does.

<<He says he needs educating …>>

No, I didn’t say that. What I did was request that you educate me on how marriage equality is a lie, since you seem to think that it is.

I know exactly what you’re getting at, though. It's a misconception (or sleight-of-hand) of yours that I corrected at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19110#340457.

You have a short memory, don't you Leo Lane?

--

Joe,

It may be spurious, but I don’t think there was anything fallacious about it, if that’s what you’re getting at.

I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing to what history may or may not show. Appealing to something, like history, becomes fallacious when one claims that something is good/bad, right/wrong, or preferable/not-preferable simply because that has been the case historically.

Jayb "I don't think 10000 is enough. It depends on where the Poll are held."

I meant a random selection from the electoral roll.
10,000 was just an example. It could be more or less, depending on whether the issue is local, state or federal.

Multi-question polls pose a problem if you want direct democracy on a routine basis.
There are *thousands* of potential questions, law reforms and policy issues that may need public input.
You would need to stagger it gradually, so you may as well do one thing at a time.

ALTRAV, electronic would be easiest and cheapest.
But not everyone has the technology at home, so would need to "attend a polling booth" (or use postal vote anyway).
Everyone has a mail box.
Physical paper votes can have a recount verified, if needed.

Shockadelic: There are *thousands* of potential questions, law reforms and policy issues that may need public input.

Exactly, all the Politicians put these in the "Too Hard Basket" & those questions/problem reforms never get solved. They create problems & division everywhere. Politicians have to get out of the, "I don't want to go there" attitude.

Shockadelic: You would need to stagger it gradually, so you may as well do one thing at a time.

Doing it one at a time would be too slow & costly. This one is $122 million. To add four more questions would only be the cost of the Ink.

Eg;
1. Adult Status; 16, 17, 18.
2. Stop moslim immigration into Australia, Yes, No.
3. Politicians Pension to qualify & receive the same Pension under the same rules as ordinary people. Yes, No.
4. Everybody to Retire at 65, Yes, No.
5. Use your Superannuation before you retire, Yes, No.

No long winded confusing Paragraph. Just a straight simple sentence & a simple Yes or No answer. Two of these a year would clear up the unanswered/too hard basket questions in a couple of years. Make the answers to be compulsorily passed by Parliament. Instead of one Question costing $122 million Five Questions would only cost, say, $123 million. There is no need to have a long winded Media Debate about the Questions. People have a set opinion on these things already.

"This one is $122 million"

Only because *everyone* is being polled.
Smaller random selections would be much cheaper, so you could have more of them.

We also need polls to repeal the many nanny-state laws/policies that weren't "too hard" for the pollies to introduce (smoking, fireworks, seatbelts, bike helmets, etc).

Shockadelic:We also need polls to repeal the many nanny-state laws/policies that weren't "too hard" for the pollies to introduce (smoking, fireworks, seatbelts, bike helmets, etc).

Hmmm... Smoking kills. Seatbelts/Bike Helmets save lives, Banning Fireworks & Weapons save lives now because there are too many idiots that have survives into adulthood instead of being removed from the GENE Pool early. Unfortunately now-a-days there is a plethora of idiots because of Helicopter Mums & cottonwool children being allowed to advance into adulthood.

I have a 17 year old grandchild, in Townsville, at the moment, a product of that system. He is in intensive care as we talk with a fractured skull & it touch & go at the moment. Even at 14/15 he was not even allowed to wash-up because he "might" cut himself on a knife & on & on & on. He was an extremely bright kid early in his life but got turned into a Dur by his mother. He's seventeen & he has removed the halter & is Pig-rooting all over the place. This is the result. He & his mates have no idea of consequences.

He & two other mate were riding in the back of a Ute leaning up against the Tailgate when the driver "Swerved to miss a Wallaby" The three were thrown out & he was to only one injured. I'd say the driver gave them a bit of a gee up, unfortunately, but we'll go with the Wallaby, knowing what kids are like. A prayer, if you are inclined, would be nice.

Jayb, I cannot describe how pleased I am to hear someone else echo my very thoughts. I absolutely agree with the repeal of these nanny laws. I never deny the fact that all these nanny laws are 'mostly' for our own good. I know crash helmets 'help' save lives, I know seat belts 'mostly' save lives, I know airbags 'mostly' save lives. So it goes on. We must all be mindfull that firstly laws are made 'for the greater good'. What I am incensed about is that I am not given a choice. With all the safety features surrounding the vehicles today we can back off a little on the enforcement of many laws. The truth is road traffic laws have nothing to do with saving lives, as we are told. It has to do with the health budget. That's why they recently added $100 to every vehicle registration recently. We were told it was for single vehicle accident (a car hits a tree, ie; no other car involved). OH and BTW and before I forget, people have died wearing crash helmets, seat belts and air bags, just to keep perspective on these issues. I am truly sorry to hear about your grandchild. As a father of two boys, both adults, even though I dis-agree with the word 'adult'. The govt considers a 18 year old to be an adult. I can tell you I have met many 'adults' and I can tell you all too many of them are still 'children' at 80. Hang in there Jayb we can give a thought and a prayer that he will pull through. Remember he's young and at that age will recover surprisingly well.