• Join ccmfans.net

    ccmfans.net is the Central Coast Mariners fan community, and was formed in 2004, so basically the beginning of time for the Mariners. Things have changed a lot over the years, but one thing has remained constant and that is our love of the Mariners. People come and go, some like to post a lot and others just like to read. It's up to you how you participate in the community!

    If you want to get rid of this message, simply click on Join Now or head over to https://www.ccmfans.net/community/register/ to join the community! It only takes a few minutes, and joining will let you post your thoughts and opinions on all things Mariners, Football, and whatever else pops into your mind. If posting is not your thing, you can interact in other ways, including voting on polls, and unlock options only available to community members.

    ccmfans.net is not only for Mariners fans either. Most of us are bonded by our support for the Mariners, but if you are a fan of another club (except the Scum, come on, we need some standards), feel free to join and get into some banter.

"I for one welcome our insect overlords" - The Politics Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

marinermick

Well-Known Member
Sorry Mick but the only reason renewables are touted as being the cheapest form of energy is because they are so heavily subsidised by our government using our money. Sure, once they are up running the generation cost might be minimal but that statement has to be balanced by the large capital cost including the related transmission infrastructure.

It would be nice if politicians debated this issue on the total cost instead of only doing that for the nuclear side of things but since when did those that govern us last tell the truth sadly and they think we are all too dumb to know the truth.

And how much will nuclear be subsidised?

My debate was nuclear v renewable in response to Spack’s arguments. Subsidies aside renewable is still cheaper:

 

Spacks

Well-Known Member
Google algorithms and confirmation bias
That's assuming I am incapable of identifying what propaganda is.

However, google isn't a right wing platform, so why would they be brainwashing my mind with the polar opposite of what they're trying to achieve?
 

Spacks

Well-Known Member
Thats it - no one can be this obtuse. This is epic level trolling and I salute you.
what I said made perfect sense, Google's not right wing so why would they be trying to brainwash me with right wing propaganda. Unless of course you're under the impression propaganda isn't real and being utilised everywhere by everyone.
 

marinermick

Well-Known Member
That's assuming I am incapable of identifying what propaganda is.

However, google isn't a right wing platform, so why would they be brainwashing my mind with the polar opposite of what they're trying to achieve?

Where did I mention right wing? I said algorithms and confirmation bias to your response to where you get your “information”.

Are you actually that naive to believe that your online sources of information are not manipulated to your patterns of behaviour and your past history of online investigation?
 

Hello Sailor

Well-Known Member
Thats it - no one can be this obtuse. This is epic level trolling and I salute you.
I dont always agree with Spacks but he identified propaganda [Che Guevara} where you didn't so don't be too hard on him. He is entitled to his opinion as are you.

If you mean that google results are customised to previous search interests then yes the algorithms produce biased results. This is not to say that ALL information on Google is inaccurate or biased as are plenty of reputable sources and databases on line.

While I think that Voldemort raised nuclear energy as a wedge to destabilise the ALP the fossil/renewable/nuclear mix is a discussion that needs to be seriously addressed and this is better achieved with courtesy and respect rather than with dismissal or name calling those with an opposing view.
 
Last edited:

Spacks

Well-Known Member
Where did I mention right wing? I said algorithms and confirmation bias to your response to where you get your “information”.

Are you actually that naive to believe that your online sources of information are not manipulated to your patterns of behaviour and your past history of online investigation?
Of course they do that, that's common knowledge at this point. Unless of course you're claiming google isn't trying to brainwash people to conform to a particular mindset and to only continue clicking in which case I'd say that's naive.
 

Spacks

Well-Known Member
While I think that Voldemort raised nuclear energy as a wedge to destabilise the ALP the fossil/renewable/nuclear mix is a discussion that needs to be seriously addressed and this is better achieved with courtesy and respect rather than with dismissal or name calling those with an opposing view.
I think Australia wins either way, we have large lithium deposits as well as Uranium. Just wish we could compete with CHYNA in the manufacturing of DPVs.
 

marinermick

Well-Known Member
I dont always agree with Spacks but he identified propaganda [Che Guevara} where you didn't so don't be too hard on him. He is entitled to his opinion as are you.

If you mean that google results are customised to previous search interests then yes the algorithms produce biased results. This is not to say that ALL information on Google is inaccurate or biased as are plenty of reputable sources and databases on line.

While I think that Voldemort raised nuclear energy as a wedge to destabilise the ALP the fossil/renewable/nuclear mix is a discussion that needs to be seriously addressed and this is better achieved with courtesy and respect rather than with dismissal or name calling those with an opposing view.

The Che and China comments on here were just stupid. Just because someone has more left or centralist views doesn’t mean they should align with more extremes versions of the left. No one is drawing Hitler or Putin comparisons to those here aligning with the right.
 

Big Al

Well-Known Member
Why does anyone have to be a wing left or right. It annoys me when either side uses that as argument.

It’s simply a point of view on a topic. The labels are lazy discredits.
 

Big Al

Well-Known Member
Sorry Mick but the only reason renewables are touted as being the cheapest form of energy is because they are so heavily subsidised by our government using our money. Sure, once they are up running the generation cost might be minimal but that statement has to be balanced by the large capital cost including the related transmission infrastructure.

It would be nice if politicians debated this issue on the total cost instead of only doing that for the nuclear side of things but since when did those that govern us last tell the truth sadly and they think we are all too dumb to know the truth.
It’s new technology that is constantly getting cheaper.

But like any form of energy it will profiteered by businesses or governments.

There is a big resistance to to renewables by big companies with a lot to loose. Power companies, oil companies.

I think they should all exist so we have choice. I don’t like the government trying to squash gas and coal and pushing everything electric. Guess what happens once we are fully electric. The prices go up with no alternative.

Competition and choice are key
 

Big Al

Well-Known Member
Do we need this thread on a mariners forum really?
Sometimes i agree as it can get heated in here and i don’t want us turning on each other.
But like the old saying goes.
Don’t discuss politics and blondes vs brunettes

As adults we need to excise the ability to either not pay attention to it (i can’t) or join in and attack before you get attacked 😂

I don’t follow politics enough to fight with the heavily vested and there are some very passionate people here and i wish they would discuss the issue sometimes instead of playing the man or the political side but that’s part of life and as @marinermick says. It’s a side thread. Also it’s still the offseason so we need to get our anger out somewhere instead of Wilson
 

pjennings

Well-Known Member
It’s new technology that is constantly getting cheaper.

But like any form of energy it will profiteered by businesses or governments.

There is a big resistance to to renewables by big companies with a lot to loose. Power companies, oil companies.

I think they should all exist so we have choice. I don’t like the government trying to squash gas and coal and pushing everything electric. Guess what happens once we are fully electric. The prices go up with no alternative.

Competition and choice are key
So subsidising renewables to the same extent as the fossil fuel industry would provide competition and choice. I'm sure renewables would like $14.5billion ($541 pp) that the fossil fuel industry received last year compared with the average of $2.9billion ($108pp per year) they have received per year over the last decade.

The question should be more are the these subsidies (to both industries) an effective allocation of public resources to support the nation’s energy mix now and into the future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
15
Guests online
412
Total visitors
427

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
6,809
Messages
398,335
Members
2,766
Latest member
GwenMorell
Top