MisterFrog

One of your neighbours sounds eminently reasonable

but as long as these loopholes exist, there must be an alternative

The current alternative is pretty funny, if you live in a council who's really strict about parking.

It's really hilarious when people park like wankers in Melbourne CBD because there's an online form you can fill out to sic the parking inspectors on them really quickly depending how busy they are.

I've done it multiple times to people parking in the car-share dedicated spots. It's always Teslas, BMWs, Mercedes.

Though, now we've had this conversation, I'll keep an eye out for oversized car parking too.

Them when they get the fine: wHaT dO tHeY eXpEcT mE tO Do?

Buy literally any other ute/van that easily fits in the spots.

I'm a bastard haha, I can't wait.

Why I think we should do literally nothing to accommodate this ridiculous vehicles, accommodation is a precedent they will come to expect and feel entitled to.

People already feel entitled to large roads, and right of way for cars. Let's not give them a single mm.

That said, it is amusing driving through certain housing estates where there is one normal-sized car in the driveway; which is being blocked in by the Dodge Ram that is too big to fit in the driveway.

I suppose they're doing their best haha

Nah. Until vaping took off, smoking rates plummeted.

Smells a lot better in this country compared to the ones they smoke in.

Ugh. (I do empathise with people who've picked up the habit, but not those who advocate for it)

Say what you will, the taxes worked, and have without a doubt saved us a tonne in avoided medical costs from all the people who gave up or never started smoking in the first place.

People talk as if a black market existing somehow negates the benefits of smoking reductions.

If it's black market, it's still more of a hassle to buy. Unless it's really out of control. In which case the answer is blaringly obvious.

Law enforcement.

Edit: in B4 nAnNy StAtE!!! Look, we live in a society people, where there are trade offs between freedom from and freedom to. It's not hard to argue that costing us all uncessarily with Medicare, making places smell like shit, and causing suffering to loved ones as you die an early death is a freedom from that trumps your "freedom" to sell your soul to the tobacco industry.

Go live on an abandoned oil rig for all I care, but if you want to live in stable, social (somewhat) democracy, that's the deal.

I vote we don't do that because it's taking up valuable space that creates urban sprawl. We already have dedicated truck parking (as in, actual trucks, not oversized utes & SUVs) in places where they're needed for deliveries.

Utes have fit in regular parking spots for decades. We should just say - no, these oversize utes/SUVs just can't be bought.

Have you ever wondered why you even need a car to pop to the shops?

Because we've designed our cities around cars. (Unless you live in the CBD or other dense pockets in this country where you can literally just go downstairs. Weekly shop? What's that?).

Let's not have them park anywhere (in my opinion).

Make them buy a real vehicle, not one for emotional support.

You simply don't understand why most people in this country are against the death penalty.

I'm not defending his actions whatsoever, even want to see his sentence extended.

If you'd like to actually read my position as to why I, and most of this country (though perhaps not for the same reasons as me) are against the death penalty, you will see you're being a bit dishonest by saying I'm defending him.

You've literally just repeated the same thing twice.

And it looks like you don't want to actually engage in an honest defence as to why society should have the death penalty.

Kicking out transphobes being probably fair notwithstanding, it would be nice to see the Greens democratise their internal party functions. Members aren't really consulted on policy creation, they don't get to vote on the leader etc.

Note: I'm not a member but know people who are or have been.

You make valid points. I do think there's still quite a big shift in people's lives when they turn 18 (most), or rather, when they leave secondary school.

Much more so than when they turn 16.

And that learning accelerates a lot in the last 2 years of school.

I will say, I'm not 100% opposed.

And that my previous comments about this being a distraction were not fair statements.

This is fair. And I'm sorry for how I responded because of my strong dislike for her.

I should have just left the reminder that she's anti-worker as an off-topic aside.

The rest of it, as you rightly point out, is not my best work.

Yeah. I'm gonna do something rare on the internet: you're right to call me out on this.

I let my dislike for a class enemy get the better of me in the way I expressed myself. Instead of commenting on the topic of voter age.

She's still a wanker for being against wage theft criminalisation. I'll stand by that.

I'm not necessarily opposed, but beyond "they deserve a say in their future" I'm not really sure what the argument for it is.

There's a lot of learning that goes on between the ages of 16 and 18. Like the level of stuff you're learning accelerates quite a lot.

While education isn't a pre-requisite for voting, we gotta set a line somewhere. 18 is the line we've set for a bunch of other things.

I would need more convincing that this line should be changed.

This is fair and reasoned criticism of my somewhat uncareful expression. And I apologise for being a rage merchant on the internet.

She's better in many ways than the Liberals.

But I'm still going to call her a fuckwit on something as black and white as making wage theft criminal.

There's just no justification for that. Unless your worldview is fundamentally inequitable, where you believe some people are more deserving than others.

Which is why I can never see her as anything other than right-wing, despite all her decent positions as you point out.

When I was 16 I also didn't see much of a need for it (this topic is raised every couple of years). Even though I was much more engaged with politics than the average person at that age, at the time.

I'm not saying 16 year olds are unqualified to vote, but we gotta draw the line somewhere.

Adulthood isn't totally arbitrary because of how we've structured our society (though, the age at which this is, depends on when people are leaving school/are legally defined as independent).

The reason I think this is a distraction is because this has been suggested time and time again, and it's not likely to get off the ground and it wouldn't make huge swings in voter numbers.

I dunno. As in my edited comment, I just think Monique Ryan is a wanker, who I happen to agree with on wanting to do something urgently about the climate.