Agreeing to disagree is the last refuge of those with deeply flawed arguments who are too stupid to concede.
Aidan,
you'll find that agreeing to disagree is in fact not what you're saying. You just don't have any relevant argument so you resort to ridicule.
To call a term of serving National Service a "confiscation of Liberty" is bordering on the least possible form of culture of a society ! To fail to see the benefit of a NS is beyond having a mentality at all.

Aidan,

Fair enough the 2017 blackouts were due to the complete failure of SA wind generators to generate any power leading to load shedding to prevent a total blackout.

The 2016 total SA blackout while triggered by the storm failure of a tower which did not cut off the wind generators, the main reason was due to the over sensitive protection which dropped the wind generators out causing the blackout which is why they are being sued.

individual,
Your Wednesday post was incoherent. You appear to be relying on some false assumptions, but your non sequiters meant I couldn't tell which false assumptions!

Regarding your Friday post, I'm puzzled why you think the Labor governments' decisions are any worse than the Libs? The problem is bipartisan, but ISTM the Libs are usually slightly worse as they tend to focus more on short term budgetary objectives.

Agreeing to disagree may be appropriate after a long discussion when nobody's prepared to give ground, but it's intellectually dishonest to be so unwilling to change your position that you claim (before it's discussed in detail) that we will HAVE TO agree to disagree.

>You just don't have any relevant argument so you resort to ridicule.
No, I resort to ridicule when you display the-moon-is-made-of-green-cheese level delusion!

When you said:
:A national Service is most definitely not a confiscation of peoples' liberty,
you were making an absurd claim. If you look at it objectively, that's exactly what it is. That doesn't necessarily mean it's not justified, but you can't honestly claim it's justified if you're basing that justification on a lie.

When you added:
:the exact opposite is the case.
That's thoroughly deserving of ridicule.

>To call a term of serving National Service a "confiscation of Liberty"
>is bordering on the least possible form of culture of a society !
You think culture depends on not calling things as they are?

>To fail to see the benefit of a NS is beyond having a mentality at all.
You assume I fail to see the benefit, but that's not the case. Looking at historical examples I see two major benefits: firstly the defence benefit (as there have been times when a huge army was needed) and secondly the social cohesion benefit (helping unite a society deeply divided along ethnic lines). I don't think either of those benefits would meet Australia's current needs, but they're there.

The big difference is I also see the disbenefits, which I think dwarf the benefits. You apparently ignore the disbenefits and instead imagine a lot of illusory benefits.