# Malcolm Roberts... oh my goodness gracious!



## Jens-Kristian (5/8/16)

Having followed the news on One Nation's Malcolm Roberts over the past 24 hours, I have to ask: What the Hell is going on?

This is a guy who believes grammar is a government tool to enslave the population. I don't know what that makes me, as I'm an editor. Perhaps I'm a concentration camp guard or something? The warden of the lunatic asylum from which he's escaped?

His other schtick, is the one about the 'Global Jewish Conspiracy' having invented climate change and are fully controlling the UN to take away Australia's sovereign rights as a nation.

I believe in democracy to the extent that while I understand it has its very real flaws, it is far superior to any alternative I care to contemplate. As a believer in democracy, I also believe that even One Nation (with which I fundamentally *DIS*agree on nearly everything) needs to be heard, because they received their votes and therefore represent a part of society. As a party however, ON are testing that right when they choose to take on board someone as fundamentally screwed up in the head as Malcolm Roberts. Seriously, this man doesn't just have a screw loose; the parts the screws are supposed to hold together seem to be entirely missing as well. 

Perhaps we should have some more stringent tests on what is considered mental suitability to being elected. This man is bonkers.


*Edit: In the first version, I had managed to claim that I fundamentally agree with One Nation. Some editor I am. *


----------



## Judanero (5/8/16)

Yup he is the only bonkers one at One Nation.


----------



## pcmfisher (5/8/16)

You fundamentally agree with nearly everything from One Nation? 
I hope to christ that's a typo.


----------



## Jens-Kristian (5/8/16)

I just realised that I somehow managed to write:



Jens-Kristian said:


> One Nation (with which I fundamentally agree on nearly everything)



That should have been *DIS*agree.

Jeez.


----------



## Jens-Kristian (5/8/16)

pcmfisher said:


> You fundamentally agree with nearly everything from One Nation?
> I hope to christ that's a typo.



You have no idea how sick to the stomach it made me feel.


----------



## Jens-Kristian (5/8/16)

pcmfisher said:


> You fundamentally agree with nearly everything from One Nation?
> I hope to christ that's a typo.



You have no idea how sick to the stomach it made me feel.

I may have to start exercising a slightly more professional approach to posting. :chug:


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (5/8/16)

Jens-Kristian said:


> *Edit: In the first version, I had managed to claim that I fundamentally agree with One Nation. Some editor I am. *


Spelink


----------



## Danscraftbeer (5/8/16)

Plenty of bonkers people vote. As well as the unwitting, fear mongered, haters, deniers. The list goes on.


----------



## Jens-Kristian (5/8/16)

This is from a letter he sent to Julia Gillard, or as he feels it should be written in order to escape the yoke of grammar slavery imposed on him, 'The Woman, Julia-Eileen: Gillard.'


_I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul has not seen or been presented with any material facts or evidence that the Commonwealth of Australia CIK# 000805157 is not a corporation registered on the United States of America securities-exchange, is not a society and is not a trustee in the public trust, and believe that none exist. _

You have to wonder what it says about someone, that they can think that way about their country and still both seek and achieve election to the Senate.


----------



## Rocker1986 (5/8/16)

You also have to wonder what it says about the fucktards who voted for him...


----------



## Bribie G (5/8/16)

Note my signature.

edit: apart from that, Turdball called the DD to get rid of the looney tunes who were infesting the cross benches so he could pass the anti union legislation at the behest of Murdoch and the 1%. To ensure this the electoral rules were changed so that parties such as the stop the crutching of pink poodles party or the bring back the genuine lamington party would no longer get elected.

Turncoat already knew that he had been handed a poisoned chalice, but at least a win against the unions could have ensured he kept his nose in the trough for at least another term.
Well that was a smart move wasn't it Cayman Mal.

hahaha

Back to the polls before December.


----------



## DU99 (5/8/16)

pauline hanson where she fit in with all this


----------



## pcmfisher (5/8/16)

Pauline Hanson aint no slave to grammar either....


----------



## Newy (5/8/16)

Puleese uxplain...


----------



## Dave70 (5/8/16)

Tell me you cant judge a book by the cover.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (5/8/16)

Jens-Kristian said:


> This is from a letter he sent to Julia Gillard, or as he feels it should be written in order to escape the yoke of grammar slavery imposed on him, 'The Woman, Julia-Eileen: Gillard.'
> 
> 
> _I, Malcolm-Ieuan: Roberts., the living soul has not seen or been presented with any material facts or evidence that the Commonwealth of Australia CIK# 000805157 is not a corporation registered on the United States of America securities-exchange, is not a society and is not a trustee in the public trust, and believe that none exist. _
> ...


https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Australia-listed-with-the-US-Securities-and-Exchange-commission







Why is Australia listed with the US Securities and Exchange commission?




Someone I work with claims that because the Commonwealth of Australia is listed with the SEC - that means it is privately owned by shareholders. I consider his conclusion completely absurd - but not knowing terribly much about the SEC, I am at a loss as to why a sovereign country like Australia is listed with the SEC? I have confirmed they are listed - CIK#: 0000805157.
























3 Answers






















David Tadman

745 Views








The answer is quite simple. When the government guaranteed our citizens money held in banks they had to register with the SEC to make this enforceable in US all the documents are readily accessible in the US if anyone took the trouble to read them including the "*AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME FOR LARGE*
*DEPOSITS AND WHOLESALE FUNDING RULES" you can check it out for free just by clicking on the document filings at CIK#0000805157. The scheme went from November 2008 to March 2010.*

*You can see the original letter from the solicitors in NSW and the agreement of the Secretary of the Treasury. There is a document that explicity prohibits the use of the name Commonwealth of Australia for other purposes. SORRY TO BURST THE PARANOID BUBBLE! If anyone was really concerned they could look up the shareholders names but that would ruin a good story. The fact is that this company was incorporated to protect Australian Citizens in US. It cannot as claimed buy some enslave us to the us.*

*You could register a company with your name in the US but you would not be allowed to claim you are a US citizen because of this!!*

Written 12 Jun 2013 · View Upvotes


----------



## madpierre06 (5/8/16)

Dave70 said:


> Tell me you cant judge a book by the cover.


Frightening!!! And there were 77 people who voted directly for him.


----------



## lost at sea (5/8/16)

im looking at you queensland! h34r:


----------



## Airgead (5/8/16)

The thing with conspiracy ideation is that it rapidly becomes self referential and self re-enforcing. Any evidence that the conspiracy is in fact bollocks is rejected as being part of the conspiracy. Once you are into a conspiracy thinking mode it becomes very hard to get out and very easy to go deeper. It's actually a very small step for a conspiracy thinker to go from "global warming is a bit sus" to "the royal family are shapeshifting lizard aliens farming humans for food" and "there are secret Nazi bases under Antarctica where the Reich keeps the crop reserved body of Hitler ready to emerge again and global warming is a Jewish plot to expose the base". 

That's why so many conspiracy nuts are into more than one conspiracy. As they "dig deeper" (follow the money trail as our dear Mr Roberts puts it) they uncover more and more conspiracies that all become part of one giant global conspiracy and it just snowballs from there. 

In many ways conspiracy thinking is very similar to OCD. Persistent thoughts drive behaviour which reinforce the thoughts which drive more behaviour and so on. 

I used to work with a guy who wore an actual tinfoil hat. To work. I bet he was one of the 77.


----------



## drsmurto (5/8/16)

Airgead said:


> The thing with conspiracy ideation is that it rapidly becomes self referential and self re-enforcing. Any evidence that the conspiracy is in fact bollocks is rejected as being part of the conspiracy. Once you are into a conspiracy thinking mode it becomes very hard to get out and very easy to go deeper. It's actually a very small step for a conspiracy thinker to go from "global warming is a bit sus" to "the royal family are shapeshifting lizard aliens farming humans for food" and "there are secret Nazi bases under Antarctica where the Reich keeps the crop reserved body of Hitler ready to emerge again and global warming is a Jewish plot to expose the base".
> 
> That's why so many conspiracy nuts are into more than one conspiracy. As they "dig deeper" (follow the money trail as our dear Mr Roberts puts it) they uncover more and more conspiracies that all become part of one giant global conspiracy and it just snowballs from there.
> 
> ...


Or more simply, confirmation bias.

The conspiracy theorists nutters are at the pointy end of the spectrum but the same attribute belongs to religious people (and ironically, the anti-islam, anti-halal crowd), anti-vaxxers, anti-GMO, naturopaths, homeopaths and all alt-med peddlers. Evidence is too hard so belief takes over and becomes like a cancer in the mind that resists treatment. No amount of evidence can be presented to convince someone they are wrong and in doing so, you are branded a shill.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (5/8/16)

that's what the lizard people want you to think h34r:


----------



## MHB (5/8/16)

Is this the guy who wanted an enquiry into the CSIRO, because they keep saying climate change is real, in spite of the absence of empirical evidence.
Strikes me as a shoot the messenger, if they don't bring you the answers you like response - where the hell does he think empirical evidence comes from?
Not from climate scientists clearly.
Mark


----------



## Dave70 (5/8/16)

Airgead said:


> The thing with conspiracy ideation is that it rapidly becomes self referential and self re-enforcing. Any evidence that the conspiracy is in fact bollocks is rejected as being part of the conspiracy. Once you are into a conspiracy thinking mode it becomes very hard to get out and very easy to go deeper. It's actually a very small step for a conspiracy thinker to go from "global warming is a bit sus" to "the royal family are shapeshifting lizard aliens farming humans for food" and "there are secret Nazi bases under Antarctica where the Reich keeps the crop reserved body of Hitler ready to emerge again and global warming is a Jewish plot to expose the base".
> 
> That's why so many conspiracy nuts are into more than one conspiracy. As they "dig deeper" (follow the money trail as our dear Mr Roberts puts it) they uncover more and more conspiracies that all become part of one giant global conspiracy and it just snowballs from there.
> 
> ...


We're pattern seeking primates two chromosomes shy of a chimp and genetically pre disposed to type one reasoning errors. Its literally in our genes. Hence nonsense will suffice over an incomplete, albeit totally plausable theory.
Just ask a new earth creationist about all that evolution rubbish.


----------



## madpierre06 (5/8/16)

DrSmurto said:


> Or more simply, confirmation bias.
> 
> The conspiracy theorists nutters are at the pointy end of the spectrum but the same attribute belongs to religious people (and ironically, the anti-islam, anti-halal crowd), anti-vaxxers, anti-GMO, naturopaths, homeopaths and all alt-med peddlers. Evidence is too hard so belief takes over and becomes like a cancer in the mind that resists treatment.* No amount of evidence can be presented to convince someone they are wrong and in doing so, you are branded a shill.*


You did forget atheists. There is just as much a refusal to believe or even consider the validity of the evidentary experience of those who in particular came to a faith from a position of non-faith.


----------



## lost at sea (5/8/16)

MHB said:


> Is this the guy who wanted an enquiry into the CSIRO, because they keep saying climate change is real, in spite of the absence of empirical evidence.
> Strikes me as a shoot the messenger, if they don't bring you the answers you like response - where the hell does he think empirical evidence comes from?
> Not from climate scientists clearly.
> Mark


lets not forget he also wants an enquiry into the bureau of meteorology, those cunning weather forecasters!

nor the fact that he worked for big coal for decades....i wonder how his decsion making has been molded over the years.


----------



## wide eyed and legless (5/8/16)

He is spot on about the weather forecasters. I don't even know why we bother paying them good money to forecast the weather there's **** all we can do about it anyway.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (5/8/16)

Yes those pesky meteorologists taking actual known measurement and telling it how it is


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (5/8/16)

madpierre06 said:


> You did forget atheists. There is just as much a refusal to believe or even consider the validity of the evidentary experience of those who in particular came to a faith from a position of non-faith.


Bloody atheists. Whats with this "There is no God " bullshit..........Oh...wait.....hang on a second


----------



## LAGERFRENZY (5/8/16)

wide eyed and legless said:


> He is spot on about the weather forecasters. I don't even know why we bother paying them good money to forecast the weather there's **** all we can do about it anyway.


Damned straight - I heard that some of these bastaards earn more money than train drivers only to warn us about flood events so that we may sandbag ti protect our homes. ******* elitist pinkos...


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (5/8/16)

And that live radar map thing on the interweb showing where the storms and rain are so people can prepare

How very dare they


----------



## Vini2ton (5/8/16)

I bet Noah was thankful that he had the hotline. Most of those old Jewish weather-forcasters went on to become world bankers and invented the myth about climate change. Not alot of people know that.


----------



## wide eyed and legless (5/8/16)

LAGERFRENZY said:


> Damned straight - I heard that some of these bastaards earn more money than train drivers only to warn us about flood events so that we may sandbag ti protect our homes. ******* elitist pinkos...





Ducatiboy stu said:


> And that live radar map thing on the interweb showing where the storms and rain are so people can prepare
> 
> How very dare they


That's the whole point no-one does prepare, the sand bags come out when its to late, same with climate change by the time anyone starts to prepare its to late.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (5/8/16)

madpierre06 said:


> You did forget atheists. There is just as much a refusal to believe or even consider the validity of the evidentary experience of those who in particular came to a faith from a position of non-faith.


haha. sadly subjective experience doesn't count as evidence. The brain is a wonderful thing, though, and delusions are as real as concrete to those who experience them. Did you know that our entire perceived reality is around 80ms delayed, as in, everything that you touch see smell taste & hear* are fabricated in the brain based on correlated past experience? How cool is that.

*hearing is almost direct, but the brain delays it to sync with our other senses.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (5/8/16)

I blame it all on over paid train drivers


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (5/8/16)

Liam_snorkel said:


> haha. sadly subjective experience doesn't count as evidence. The brain is a wonderful thing, though, and delusions are as real as concrete to those who experience them. Did you know that our entire perceived reality is around 80ms delayed, as in, everything that you touch see smell taste & hear* are fabricated in the brain based on correlated past experience? How cool is that.
> 
> *hearing is almost direct, but the brain delays it to sync with our other senses.


Except after Eleventy beers.

Then the concrete is hard and you cant even perceive reality well after 80ms


----------



## Vini2ton (5/8/16)

wide eyed and legless said:


> That's the whole point no-one does prepare, the sand bags come out when its to late, same with climate change by the time anyone starts to prepare its to late.


I'm preparing. I'm building a scale model of the Queen Mary (1/1) in my backyard.


----------



## LAGERFRENZY (5/8/16)

wide eyed and legless said:


> That's the whole point no-one does prepare, the sand bags come out when its to late, same with climate change by the time anyone starts to prepare its to late.
> 
> Yes those cyclone warnings in FNQ in the past decades only saved thousands of ingrate, unwashed socialist lives (many of them suspected of driving trains or mowing lawns) whereas it was too late to save the things that matter (yachts, luxury cars, mansions, etc).


----------



## Dave70 (5/8/16)

madpierre06 said:


> You did forget atheists. There is just as much a refusal to believe or even consider the validity of the evidentary experience of those who in particular came to a faith from a position of non-faith.


My refusal to 'believe', I'll admit, is solely based on an obviously misguided reluctance to surrender all reason in the face of zero evidence.


----------



## madpierre06 (5/8/16)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Bloody atheists. Whats with this "There is no God " bullshit..........Oh...wait.....hang on a second


You haven't actually said anything there....oh wait.....yeah.


Liam_snorkel said:


> haha. sadly subjective experience doesn't count as evidence. The brain is a wonderful thing, though, and delusions are as real as concrete to those who experience them. Did you know that our entire perceived reality is around 80ms delayed, as in, everything that you touch see smell taste & hear* are fabricated in the brain based on correlated past experience? How cool is that.
> 
> *hearing is almost direct, but the brain delays it to sync with our other senses.


I'm not talking subjective experience......I'm very aware of delusions, having lived in them for the majority of my life. And in spite of my (maybe) perceived insanity, the most very real of these experiences are far from subjective or imagined. No alcohol was present during these experiences. And any hearing experiences wre in no way able to be related to past experiences. Believe or not, I do know what happened. But I go back to my original point....there is a complete unwillingness on the part of most atheists to even consider that they may be wrong...ridicule...etc....I will always be open to changing my perspective on any point of view I may have, unless someone else's experience gives me cause to reconsider....and even though I may not change my perspective, I still have to be open to having it changed. Until a concrete point of view is reached, based on evidence rather than opinion.


----------



## Dave70 (5/8/16)

Liam_snorkel said:


> haha. sadly subjective experience doesn't count as evidence. The brain is a wonderful thing, though, and delusions are as real as concrete to those who experience them. Did you know that our entire perceived reality is around 80ms delayed, as in, everything that you touch see smell taste & hear* are fabricated in the brain based on correlated past experience? How cool is that.
> 
> *hearing is almost direct, but the brain delays it to sync with our other senses.


Ha ha. You should read Sam Harris's Free Will. It will blow your mind. Apparently 300 milliseconds before you consciously realize it.


----------



## drsmurto (5/8/16)

madpierre06 said:


> You did forget atheists. There is just as much a refusal to believe or even consider the validity of the evidentary experience of those who in particular came to a faith from a position of non-faith.


That's funny! You have zero idea what passes for evidence. Opinions, feelings are not evidence anymore than 'it's the vibe' is a valid legal defense.


----------



## madpierre06 (5/8/16)

DrSmurto said:


> That's funny! You have zero idea what passes for evidence. Opinions, feelings are not evidence anymore than 'it's the vibe' is a valid legal defense.


Please explain! As you have zero experience of what someone else's experience is. How would you respond to someone who said you have no idea how to brew beer, even though you know very well that your beers DO hit the spot.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (5/8/16)

Is there evidence of god...?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (5/8/16)

madpierre06 said:


> . How would you respond to someone who said you have no idea how to brew beer,


I would tell them to go to www.aussiehomebrewer.com


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (5/8/16)

madpierre06 said:


> . How would you respond to someone who said you have no idea how to brew beer, even though you know very well that your beers DO hit the spot.


Show them a nice shiny WW


----------



## madpierre06 (5/8/16)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Is there evidence of god...?


Would you be willing to accept it...?


----------



## Mardoo (5/8/16)

Is there evidence of evidence? See, back on topic!


----------



## drsmurto (5/8/16)

madpierre06 said:


> Please explain! As you have zero experience of what someone else's experience is. How would you respond to someone who said you have no idea how to brew beer, even though you know very well that your beers DO hit the spot.


There is zero evidence of a deity. Until you or anyone else provides evidence then the zero point hypothesis holds: there is no God.

Your lack of understanding of what constitutes actual evidence is noted. Your experience or any person's experience of the existence of a deity is not evidence. 

Provide me with evidence and my mind can be changed. As a scientist I'm proven wrong vastly more often than I'm right but this is decided by the evidence not my feelings.


----------



## Danscraftbeer (5/8/16)

Oh no. Its turning into a religious debate. Last time I saw that on a forum ended up the banning of the subject because of flame wars.
Agnostic is the only choice left I feel. On the fence not because of undecided but between two unprovable belief structures. Cant sign up for a belief structure either way. I think its *evident* that science cant disprove god. Just got to except that as a fact. God does exist. In peoples minds. How do you disprove that? Impossible.
So the definition of Atheist is to *believe* that God doesn't exist. Only arguments that could go to the end of time itself for that one. 

ps. Good laughs from this thread..


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (5/8/16)

This, from the Bible that is Wikipeadia

Russells Teapot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Invisible Pink Unicorn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn


----------



## drsmurto (5/8/16)

Danscraftbeer said:


> Oh no. Its turning into a religious debate. Last time I saw that on a forum ended up the banning of the subject because of flame wars.
> Agnostic is the only choice left I feel. On the fence not because of undecided but between two unprovable belief structures. Cant sign up for a belief structure either way. I think its *evident* that science cant disprove god. Just got to except that as a fact. God does exist.
> In peoples minds. How do you disprove that? So the definition of Atheist is to *believe* that God doesn't exist. Only arguments that could go to the end of time itself for that one.
> 
> ps. Good laughs from this thread..


Another who fails to understand the fact science is not required to disprove a negative since we always start from a zero point hypothesis. Therefore, atheism is not a belief structure. It is an acceptance that there is no evidence of a God.

Edit - Russell's teapot, the invisible pink unicorn and the flying spaghetti monster all demonstrate this point.


----------



## Blind Dog (5/8/16)

I'd happily accept evidence of a deity, or ghosts, fairies, goblins and any other fantastical entity. Never seen any. I'm an atheist simply because I don't see any other rational conclusion.


----------



## madpierre06 (5/8/16)

DrSmurto said:


> There is zero evidence of a deity. Until you or anyone else provides evidence then the zero point hypothesis holds: there is no God.
> 
> Your lack of understanding of what constitutes actual evidence is noted. Your experience or any person's experience of the existence of a deity is not evidence.
> 
> Provide me with evidence and my mind can be changed. As a scientist I'm proven wrong vastly more often than I'm right but this is decided by the evidence not my feelings.


You didn't answer my question. You assumed that my evidence was around feelings and opinion, both things which I have little to no time for. To say that another's actual experience is not evidence is astounding. Apple lands on head, evidence of something.......


----------



## Danscraftbeer (5/8/16)

Darn this threads too fast


----------



## Danscraftbeer (5/8/16)

DrSmurto said:


> Another who fails to understand the fact science is not required to disprove a negative since we always start from a zero point hypothesis. Therefore, atheism is not a belief structure. It is an acceptance that there is no evidence of a God.
> 
> Edit - Russell's teapot, the invisible pink unicorn and the flying spaghetti monster all demonstrate this point.


Then what planted the seed of it into the minds of humans to times before written history? I'll go for it being a result of intelligence and self awareness. But that's so boring. Maybe it was aliens.


----------



## manticle (5/8/16)

madpierre06 said:


> You did forget atheists. There is just as much a refusal to believe or even consider the validity of the evidentary experience of those who in particular came to a faith from a position of non-faith.


You've suggested this before MP but I personally have never been presented with any compelling evidence or even much experiential/anecdotal from non faith to faith.

The stuff I do see ranges from this:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A to this :https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzcu_BU3ndI 

The reason I find faith odd is the same reason I find homeopathy odd. It simply makes no sense to me and the answers to questions beg more questions.


As for Mal - I'm waiting for him or another ON candidate to mention the lizards.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (5/8/16)

Are well paid train drivers atheists.........That is the question we need to ask


----------



## Liam_snorkel (5/8/16)

madpierre06 said:


> You didn't answer my question. You assumed that my evidence was around feelings and opinion, both things which I have little to no time for. To say that another's actual experience is not evidence is astounding. Apple lands on head, evidence of something.......


how does one test this experience?

dreams are equally 'real' to the brain, but if it can't be observed or measured in a controlled environment, it's a brain fart.


----------



## madpierre06 (5/8/16)

manticle said:


> You've suggested this before MP but I personally have never been presented with any compelling evidence or even much experiential/anecdotal from non faith to faith.
> 
> The stuff I do see ranges from this:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A to this :https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzcu_BU3ndI
> 
> ...



From my perspective, I rarely share my experience as those who ask for it are looking for a reason to scoff rather than even be willing to accept it...not that I am averse to sharing it, but it comes back to 'casting pearls to swine'.....it would simply be wasted. If the request was genuine, I have always been willing to put it out there. Those videos....I honestly thought that banana one was a tongue in cheek effort.

The highlighted phrase.....probably one of the most honest things I've seen posted.


----------



## madpierre06 (5/8/16)

Liam_snorkel said:


> how does one test this experience?
> 
> dreams are equally 'real' to the brain, but if it can't be observed or measured in a controlled environment, it's a brain fart.


You either be willing to accept it or not...what you do with it after that is your responsibility. I accept full responsibility for my farts, brain or otherwise.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (5/8/16)

what if you claimed you could fly? Should I accept that without any supporting evidence?


----------



## manticle (5/8/16)

Unfortunately Ken Ham is a very earnest evangelist.

Personally not looking to scoff. I'm fascinated by myth, culture, story, belief, philosophy and human psychology.
I have, however not found a religion in which I would willingly participate should convincing evidence of its particular deity be provided.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (5/8/16)

No one ever thinks of the kittens


----------



## madpierre06 (5/8/16)

Liam_snorkel said:


> what if you claimed you could fly? Should I accept that without any supporting evidence?


You'd be well within your rights to scoff and ask for supporting evidence, [particularly when the definitely proven gravity context is in play. Although I have been known to land with style.



manticle said:


> Unfortu.ately Ken Ham is a very earnest evangelist.
> 
> Personally not looki g to scoff. I'm fascinated by myth, culture, story, belief, philosophy and human psychology.
> I have, however not dound a religion in which I would willingly participate should convincing evidence of its particular deity be provided.


Me...I despise much about religion itself, a man-made construct which in many cases abuses the concepts preached by Christ. When He was here, He made a point of tearing the religious leaders of the day a new one.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (5/8/16)

manticle said:


> I have, however not found a religion in which I would willingly participate should *convincing evidence of its particular deity be provided.*


----------



## Dave70 (5/8/16)

Liam_snorkel said:


> what if you claimed you could fly? Should I accept that without any supporting evidence?


*Only *if his horse is named Buraq. 

Giddy up!


----------



## manticle (5/8/16)

madpierre06 said:


> You'd be well within your rights to scoff and ask for supporting evidence, [particularly when the definitely proven gravity context is in play. Although I have been known to land with style.
> 
> 
> 
> Me...I despise religion itself, a man-made construct abusing the concepts preached by Christ. When He was here, He made a point of tearing the religious leaders of the day a new one.


Forget the people involved - many of the fundamental principles specific to Christianity as outlined in its scriptures (most of which I have read) are anathema to my philosophy. If Christ really was the son of god and god is anything like his biblical description, I'd turn my back.


----------



## lost at sea (5/8/16)

Can someone point me in the direction of the thread about overpaid train drivers. Im looking forward to reading that


----------



## drsmurto (5/8/16)

madpierre06 said:


> You didn't answer my question. You assumed that my evidence was around feelings and opinion, both things which I have little to no time for. To say that another's actual experience is not evidence is astounding. Apple lands on head, evidence of something.......


Your example of Newton demonstrates you have no understanding of evidence whatsoever. The apple was followed up by vast amounts of experimenral evidence. Faith stopped at the apple hitting the head.

Experience is not evidence. Why is that so hard for you to understand? You have an opinion without evidence to back it up. Opinions are like arseholes.

Professor Brian Cox summed it up very eloquently.


----------



## manticle (5/8/16)

Danscraftbeer said:


> Oh no. Its turning into a religious debate. Last time I saw that on a forum ended up the banning of the subject because of flame wars.
> Agnostic is the only choice left I feel. On the fence not because of undecided but between two unprovable belief structures. Cant sign up for a belief structure either way. I think its *evident* that science cant disprove god. Just got to except that as a fact. God does exist. In peoples minds. How do you disprove that? Impossible.
> So the definition of Atheist is to *believe* that God doesn't exist. Only arguments that could go to the end of time itself for that one.
> 
> ps. Good laughs from this thread..


Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief.


----------



## madpierre06 (5/8/16)

DrSmurto said:


> Experience is not evidence. Why is that so hard for you to understand? You have an opinion without evidence to back it up. Opinions are like arseholes.
> 
> Professor Brian Cox summed it up very eloquently.


Seriously...experience is NOT evidence? So others who take the same stance as yourself who say that personal experience is the firmest point of evidence are wrong?

Regarding the bloke you quoted.....No opinions here, by the way. I've found throughg personal experience (evidence) that having an opinion can be very humbling so I try and leave it at the door...or take to case swaps when the footy season is on. And I'm always willing to be proven incorrect, I've grown sick of taking opinions out for a walk...they cause me more drama than I need. And you still didn't answer the question about your beer....which I was happy to try out.


----------



## LAGERFRENZY (5/8/16)

lost at sea said:


> Can someone point me in the direction of the thread about overpaid train drivers. Im looking forward to reading that


Meanders in and around many threads of late mate but most frequently appears in the Pauline on Q&A one, which of course has very little content about Pauline and Q&A


----------



## Danscraftbeer (5/8/16)

Liam_snorkel said:


> what if you claimed you could fly? Should I accept that without any supporting evidence?


I reckon If Donald Trump said that with great confidence and conviction to a crowd of supporters they would cheer and scream with ecstasy like they do with all his vomit.
Honestly, WTF? we are supposed to be evolving?
Also. Viral things are still always bad in my opinion. All things viral are bad. I'll be hard to being converted in that opinion either. 

Hence the only decent exposure to the internet convo being a brewing forum? Ha!


----------



## Liam_snorkel (5/8/16)

madpierre06 said:


> Seriously...experience is NOT evidence?


anyone who's had a psychedelic experience would agree with this


----------



## drsmurto (5/8/16)

madpierre06 said:


> Seriously...experience is NOT evidence? So others who take the same stance as yourself who say that personal experience is the firmest point of evidence are wrong?
> 
> Regarding the bloke you quoted.....No opinions here, by the way. I've found throughg personal experience (evidence) that having an opinion can be very humbling so I try and leave it at the door...or take to case swaps when the footy season is on. And I'm always willing to be proven incorrect, I've grown sick of taking opinions out for a walk...they cause me more drama than I need. And you still didn't answer the question about your beer....which I was happy to try out.


I take it you've never studied science? 

There is no evidence i make good beer, only opinion.


----------



## madpierre06 (5/8/16)

Liam_snorkel said:


> anyone who's had a psychedelic experience would agree with this


No drugs involved here though mate. Just unadulterated reality. And a previously violent opposition to anything to do with God stuff, which was turned around due to personal experience coupled with a willingness to come to whatever point it landed....no preconceived ideas, just as it happened. It grew from there.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (5/8/16)

lost at sea said:


> Can someone point me in the direction of the thread about overpaid train drivers. Im looking forward to reading that


Just put WEAL in the search box near the top and sit back.... its a religious experience B)


----------



## madpierre06 (5/8/16)

DrSmurto said:


> I take it you've never studied science?
> 
> There is no evidence i make good beer, only opinion.


Many blokes who make and rate quality, unique beers which are different from the bland which has become the norm rate your beers highly...that these beers are spoken of so highly and brewed so often (anecdotal, personal experience) is I think evidence of the quality of them. If they weren't any good....no one would speak of them.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (5/8/16)

madpierre06 said:


> Many blokes who make and rate quality, unique beers which are different from the bland which has become the norm rate your beers highly...that these beers are spoken of so highly and brewed so often (anecdotal, personal experience) is I think evidence of the quality of them. If they weren't any good....no one would speak of them.


OMFG....a WW owner


----------



## madpierre06 (5/8/16)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> OMFG....a WW owner


Haha...seriously, if I could afford a WW, I'd a spent the cash on a boat and be out in it right now.


----------



## LAGERFRENZY (5/8/16)

Anyone who say otherwise is an Internet Troll


----------



## manticle (5/8/16)

Sorry MP but while the anecdotal or experiential may lead to a thorough investigation in order to find evidence for something, it is not, in and of itself evidence. I think, I feel, I believe - all subjective. Even sensory perception (I saw, I smelt, I heard) can be subject to biases and error. The whole point of evidence, especially where science is concerned is that it is demonstrably, observably and repeatedly free from subjective bias.
Your experience may be utterly valid but is not evidence.
Psychedelic experiences are not necessarily all drug inspired either.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (5/8/16)

Liam_snorkel said:


> anyone who's had a psychedelic experience would agree with this


Or has been to an original QLD Xmas swap meet


----------



## madpierre06 (5/8/16)

manticle said:


> Sorry MP but while the anecdotal or experiential may lead to a thorough investigation in order to find evidence for something, it is not, in and of itself evidence. I think, I feel, I believe - all subjective. Even sensory perception (I saw, I smelt, I heard) can be subject to biases and error. The whole point of evidence, especially where science is concerned is that it is demonstrably, observably and repeatedly free from subjective bias.
> Your experience may be utterly valid but is not evidence.
> Psychedelic experiences are not necessarily all drug inspired either.



And Manticle, you've headed towards hitting the nail. In the end it comes back to the individual...if he or she is willing to come to believe, genuinely, it will happen. But the subject of God or not is merely a distraction from the real question which is belief or not IN Christ. No more, no less. God reveals Himself to whomever He chooses, or whoever is willing to believe. My experience.....it happened. I could relate the despicable things I've done in my life and these would be believed without question, there would be nobody querying or asking for evidence...actually, the evidence is that I didn't do them as I've not done time...those who know me now may doubt I could do those things...yet I could relate the things which confirmed my faith and there are those who would try and convince me that my experience was not real or valid. So it comes back to the individual.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (5/8/16)

manticle said:


> Psychedelic experiences are not necessarily all drug inspired either.


Do tell...please...do tell


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (5/8/16)

madpierre06 said:


> And Manticle, you've headed towards hitting the nail. In the end it comes back to the individual...if he or she is willing to come to believe, genuinely, it will happen. But the subject of God or not is merely a distraction from the real question which is belief or not IN Christ. No more, no less.


You have not yet had a brief look at the Quran I am guessing


----------



## stewy (5/8/16)

madpierre06 said:


> You did forget atheists. There is just as much a refusal to believe or even consider the validity of the evidentary experience of those who in particular came to a faith from a position of non-faith.


"I don't believe you"

This is Atheism in a nutshell.
I've never met an Atheist who hasn't considered the theist position, in fact the vast majority were indoctrinated themselves.
I have no idea what you mean by the "evidentary (sic) experience". There is either empirical evidence for something or there is not. The latter is a very poor epistemology.

If religious stories were unable to be told to people until they turned 18, religion would likely die out in a single generation. You have to ask yourself why...


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (5/8/16)

stewy said:


> "I don't believe you"
> 
> This is Atheism in a nutshell.
> I've never met an Atheist who hasn't considered the theist position, in fact the vast majority were indoctrinated themselves.
> ...


Thats why I love Aboriginal dreamtime

And its not a religion, but I believe in it


----------



## Danscraftbeer (5/8/16)

stewy said:


> If religious stories were unable to be told to people until they turned 18, religion would likely die out in a single generation. You have to ask yourself why...


I believe that. Yet we are a democracy. I believe in that too. So religious education enforcement is a can of worms to say the least.


----------



## manticle (5/8/16)

madpierre06 said:


> And Manticle, you've headed towards hitting the nail. In the end it comes back to the individual...if he or she is willing to come to believe, genuinely, it will happen. But the subject of God or not is merely a distraction from the real question which is belief or not IN Christ. No more, no less. God reveals Himself to whomever He chooses, or whoever is willing to believe. My experience.....it happened. I could relate the despicable things I've done in my life and these would be believed without question, there would be nobody querying or asking for evidence...actually, the evidence is that I didn't do them as I've not done time...those who know me now may doubt I could do those things...yet I could relate the things which confirmed my faith and there are those who would try and convince me that my experience was not real or valid. So it comes back to the individual.


People query stuff all the time, including claims of actions made.
I'm not quite following.


----------



## Jens-Kristian (5/8/16)

madpierre06 said:


> And Manticle, you've headed towards hitting the nail. In the end it comes back to the individual...if he or she is willing to come to believe, genuinely, it will happen. But the subject of God or not is merely a distraction from the real question which is belief or not IN Christ. No more, no less. God reveals Himself to whomever He chooses, or whoever is willing to believe. My experience.....it happened. I could relate the despicable things I've done in my life and these would be believed without question, there would be nobody querying or asking for evidence...actually, the evidence is that I didn't do them as I've not done time...those who know me now may doubt I could do those things...yet I could relate the things which confirmed my faith and there are those who would try and convince me that my experience was not real or valid. So it comes back to the individual.



The problem here MP, is that you are drawing parallels which are not readily applicable. If you were to say that you have done horrible things in your life and we choose to believe that you are telling the truth, then it is because we are accepting your testimony given against yourself about something that is completely believable. By that, I don't mean that I have any reason to think negatively of you (and indeed I do not), but that everyone is capable of doing something wrong. Most of us have to some extent or other been guilty of doing something which we later regret. There could be convicted murderers on this board for all most of us know. The assertion on the other hand, that there is a higher being, is in an entirely different sphere of understanding. That should be quite clear.

I'm an atheist. I grew up with religion. I've read the Bible and going by how the Bible is usually presented by its followers, I can say with some confidence that I'm pretty sure I've read it more comprehensively than 95%+ of Christians. If I reject it when people suggest they have proof of the existence of a god, it is because I have read so much, I have seen so many assertions, so many people claiming that 'this is the proof that there is a god' without even one single one of them ever even getting close to remotely suggesting a basis for that belief.

Let me hear one _*good *_reason, show me one _*good *_piece of even circumstantial evidence, and I will actually weigh it up. I'm not saying that I _*know *_there is no god. Of course I don't _*know *_that and contrary to what you suggest in your first post on the matter, I do not know of _*one single Atheist*_ who actually claims to. 

What I will say, and this seems to be in the sphere of what I think most atheists feel on the matter, is that throughout the history of mankind, there has been not one single instance of anything happening which in any way suggests that there is any basis whatsoever to believe that there is anything to support that there is even a hint of probability that there is a god. Not one. Are there individual experiences? Yes, there are. But I admit I do not rate them, despite some of these experiences being had by some of the people I respect most. My best friend, who is also my wife's aunt, is a former catholic nun. She's still very religious and we often discuss religion. She's extremely well educated on the matter, sharp as hell, and she brings fascinating insights to religious discussions. I deeply respect and love her, but there is still nothing that compels me to believe in a god. 

If I write up what originally sparked what would become my atheism, it tends to be rejected by those who are religious as being nonsense. That is the experience a lot of atheists have. Your positioning of yourself as some form of victim of those who do not believe in the same as you, is frankly galling considering the centuries of religious censorship exerted on the world. 

I'll give you what killed my religion, will you reciprocate?
____

In 1996, my sister gave birth to her first child. There were complications during labour, following which she, her husband and son were transferred to another hospital with greater expertise. Basically, he had swallowed some of the water in the womb on his way out and that clags up the lungs. After 24 hours of trying to deal with that, the hospital decided that they would have to transfer him by helicopter to the central hospital in Copenhagen (I'm originally from Denmark) as they had the capacity to clean the lungs and oxygenate his blood at the same time. This was considered a 'certain fix.' It was the 17th of December and minus 5 degrees centigrade. Do you know what you NEVER get in Denmark in minus 5 degrees centigrade? You NEVER get fog. It doesn't happen. Except for one time in the last 40 or so years; 17th of December 1996. It covered the whole country and the helicopter couldn't make the flight. It was too far to go by ambulance and to cut it short, he died the next day. 

That didn't in and of itself kill my religion, but it sure as hell made me question what the hell sort of god it is we're talking about. Evil? Inconsequential? Not there? For a while, I felt that it didn't matter whether it was one or the other. Eventually though, I reached the conclusion that 'he' is not there and that there was no reason ever to have believed he was.

My sister kept her religion to some extent, although I think that's been blasted out of the water this year, as her daughter, born a couple of years later and the whole family's treasure, was diagnosed with leukaemia in January. She's been responding incredibly well to her treatment though and everything looks like she'll get through it, but seriously... I'll thank medical science, a team of astonishing doctors and my niece's downright mind-blowing mental strength and determination for that. 

The few times I've told that to anyone religious, the response has ranged from 'god moves in *(fucked up)* mysterious ways' (emphasis mine), to 'You can't blame god for that', which is an even more fucked up thing to say if you're actually religious. Who the hell else?
___


My atheism is not frivolous. I have not stopped believing because it's 'cool' or because I won't hear peoples' testimony, or any of the other platitudes that the religious lobbies like to put out there to pretend that they are now somehow discriminated against. Guess what? Christianity has had 1800 years to make its case; it's failed. 1800 years of indoctrination and abuse of power, 1800 years to come up with something better than *ONE old book* and nothing whatsoever else that supports the claims of... that same old book, written by people who believed the sun revolved around the earth, which btw. was created a few thousand years ago in six days, to back it up.

You may believe and I will never question or seek to limit your right to do so. Do not however, claim that those who do not share your _*completely *_unfounded beliefs are somehow closed-minded for rejecting that belief.


Edit: Thanks, Manticle. I do hate it when I fail to proof read myself.


----------



## Jens-Kristian (5/8/16)

Jeez. I need to type less.


----------



## manticle (5/8/16)

Nah. What you typed was great.
Couple of errors (typos) but if you get in quick, you can fix.


----------



## technobabble66 (5/8/16)

Jens-Kristian said:


> The problem here MP, is that ...
> ...Guess what? Christianity has had 1800 years to make its case; it's failed. 1800 years of indoctrination and abuse of power, 1800 years to come up with something better than *ONE old book* and nothing whatsoever else that supports the claims of... that same old book, written by people who believed the sun revolved around the earth, which btw. was created a few thousand years ago in six days, to back it up.
> 
> You may believe and I will never question or seek to limit your right to do so. Do not however, claim that those who do not share your _*completely *_unfounded belief are somehow closed-minded for rejecting that belief.
> ...


+1,000,000
Nailed it.
Similar background, same conclusion.

If God exists, what sort of fucked up omnipotent individual allows this world to exist.
If God exists, did it forget about Africa, etc??
What ... some sort of "test the humans" concept? Totally. Fucked.
If he did exist, he's a ****, and i chose to not subscribe to that.

However, FWIW i agree with DrSmurto, zero evidence is NOT an argument of existence. Otherwise, there are little blue men on the moon & magic exists. Total bollocks. Why not believe in Zeus?

I'm sorry MP, i'd greatly respect you as an individual, and your right to believe whatever mythology you want, but this angle of yours can't be argued on rationality.


PS: Dr Smurto, not all naturopaths are complete idiots. A few subscribe to evidence based medicine  ... A few.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (5/8/16)




----------



## drsmurto (6/8/16)

technobabble66 said:


> PS: Dr Smurto, not all naturopaths are complete idiots. A few subscribe to evidence based medicine  ... A few.


We call them Doctors not naturopaths. Alt med that works is simply medicine.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (6/8/16)

DrSmurto said:


> Your example of Newton demonstrates you have no understanding of evidence whatsoever. The apple was followed up by vast amounts of experimenral evidence. Faith stopped at the apple hitting the head.
> 
> Experience is not evidence. Why is that so hard for you to understand? You have an opinion without evidence to back it up. Opinions are like arseholes.


Science says "Now why did that apple fall and what made it fall, lets do some tests and find out why the apple fell and what made it fall?

Faith says " I believe an apple fell "


----------



## goomboogo (6/8/16)

This may be getting a little too far off topic but did anyone see Malcolm Roberts interviewed on television last night? He seems like a reasonable person.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (6/8/16)

Hahahaha


----------



## yankinoz (6/8/16)

Re religion and atheism, brought in earlier, holy wandering off topic, Batman, but so be it. Maybe there should be a separate forum on God and beer.

But I'll chime in.

Atheists, agnostics and deists accept the science of the universe and of life and reject stories accepted on faith or revelation. They are not blind believers. The claim of many evangelical Christians writers that atheism is a religion accepted on faith is nonsense.

I've read philosophers on the difference between atheists and agnostics and find their arguments less than convincing, and I used to argue the point with one at length. Both camps begin with the observation that no evidence exists of God or gods, and it seems to me the difference is largely rhetorical.

Deists look at a vast, amazing universe, then at the story of evolution, and say a divine hand must be behind it all. It's an impression, rather than the proof that atheists and agnostics insist upon, but neither is it an assertion of old and sacred stories.

Religions more or rest upon tales of supernatural events, often long ago. The stories are more or less mutually exclusive, which does not prevent there being promoted with more or less zeal. The member who began the digression in this thread seems to adhere to the Christian version, but were he born in another part of the world, he'd probably be equally convinced of a different dogma.


----------



## neal32 (6/8/16)

I would consider myself on the marxist side of politics but I don't mind peoples views for and against religion. They're fighting over make believe, like two bald men fighting over a comb. But when you disagree with the science of climate change and abuse your position of power by propagating nonsense to the people that are unable to filter out the bullshit. Scary stuff.


----------



## yankinoz (6/8/16)

neal32 said:


> I would consider myself on the marxist side of politics but I don't mind peoples views for and against religion. They're fighting over make believe, like two bald men fighting over a comb. But when you disagree with the science of climate change and abuse your position of power by propagating nonsense to the people that are unable to filter out the bullshit. Scary stuff.


AHB members seem to be a diverse group politically, a good thing. My impression of some US brew forums is that rightwingers, particularly gun nuts and right libertarians, predominate, or maybe they are just the most assertive voices.


----------



## wide eyed and legless (6/8/16)

By propagating nonsense gets them noticed (as Trump has proved), keeps them in a well paid job to spout nonsense and people believing it.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (6/8/16)

neal32 said:


> I would consider myself on the marxist side of politics but I don't mind peoples views for and against religion. They're fighting over make believe, *like two bald men fighting over a comb*. But when you disagree with the science of climate change and abuse your position of power by propagating nonsense to the people that are unable to filter out the bullshit. Scary stuff.


What if they both had beards....


----------



## pcmfisher (6/8/16)

madpierre06 said:


> Seriously...experience is NOT evidence? So others who take the same stance as yourself who say that personal experience is the firmest point of evidence are wrong?
> 
> Regarding the bloke you quoted.....No opinions here, by the way. I've found throughg personal experience (evidence) that having an opinion can be very humbling so I try and leave it at the door...or take to case swaps when the footy season is on. And I'm always willing to be proven incorrect,* I've grown sick of taking opinions out for a walk...they cause me more drama than I need*. And you still didn't answer the question about your beer....which I was happy to try out.


That's not because people want to scoff, its because they don't know that you are not just making stuff up. 
And when asked why you believe these things, the answer after side stepping and avoiding the question, is eventually something like, "Well, you've just gotta have faith."

Personal experiences are necessarily first person, for everyone else it's hearsay.

Faith is believing what you know aint so.


----------



## Weizguy (6/8/16)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> What if they both had beards....


Then I'd say that a comb is not a beard brush.




Honestly though, I feel we should draw a line between allowing people like Malcom (punctuation marks) Roberts to live in the community and making a mockery of democracy by voting him into office.
...or maybe that's how we give things a shake-up, Mr Trump?

Oh, and what's God got to do with it? Let's talk about the Illuminati!


----------



## wereprawn (6/8/16)

Religion in general , and talking about Christianity specifically because it's the religion many of us know the most about , is logically inconsistent . I was bought up as a Catholic and attended a Catholic school . I asked many questions of the priests and brothers but was never given one single sane answer . 

Brother Scott was my science teacher this particular year. One day, after Scotty had told the class that time and space had sprung into existence at the moment of The Big Bang, I enquired as to how God could have created the universe if there was no 'where' to do the creating and no time to create anything . And how could God even exist before the BB if the was indeed nowhere for him to exist . That last bit really gave him the shits and he proceeded to beat me with a meter rule. (He was also the principal , so there was no one to complain to).

Another question to the head priest was met with a similar , albeit somewhat less physically violent response . " But Father, if God knows all and created Lucifer , why would he have made him knowing he would be the arch-enemy of God and humanity , and furthermore why is there even a battle between God and Satan if God is all powerful?"

Seemed to me these were perfectly reasonable questions to ask people who should have known the answers . So , in those few years i realized I should think for myself and that any idea whose basis is bullshit should be treated with contempt . Thanks Christian Brothers for helping me become the Atheist I am today.

Having said that , I have friends that are Christians. At least they don't tend to explode unexpectedly .


----------



## goomboogo (6/8/16)

Les the Weizguy said:


> Then I'd say that a comb is not a beard brush.
> 
> 
> 
> Beard_Brush.jpg


God no. The only acceptable implement for beard combing is a comb made from bone.


----------



## wide eyed and legless (6/8/16)

Les the Weizguy said:


> Oh, and what's God got to do with it? Let's talk about the Illuminati!


And the Free Masons.


----------



## manticle (6/8/16)

Who sanitised the thread title? Must have been one of my mod brethren - it's a bit pants.

It's a forum for adults - surely we can accommodate the occasional rhetorical profanity.


----------



## lost at sea (6/8/16)

wide eyed and legless said:


> And the Free Masons.


id prefer to join the stone cutters tbh :chug:


----------



## manticle (6/8/16)

You have no choice. Jewish cabal/bankers/illuminati/elite bloodlines/cia/nwo/secret government/DARPA/Bildeberg/UN/EU/white dracos/shapeshifting reptilians/satan downloading direct to your brain via pokemon go, yoga and the music you listen to.


----------



## wereprawn (6/8/16)

manticle said:


> You have no choice. Jewish cabal/bankers/illuminati/elite bloodlines/cia/white dracos/shapeshifting reptilians/satan downloading direct to your brain via pokemon go, yoga and the music you listen to.


That's just silly . It's the insectoid aliens who control all all those clowns . Phhht...thought everyone knew that. Hmm...or maybe ...it is those reptilian aliens using mind control on me to make me think it's the insectoids. Shit,shit...shit.


----------



## manticle (6/8/16)

C
Disinformation agents/shills


----------



## wereprawn (6/8/16)

Dammit. Your one of them, aren't you? Now I've gone and exposed myself to your evil information gathering techniques.


----------



## Weizguy (6/8/16)

manticle said:


> You have no choice. Jewish cabal/bankers/illuminati/elite bloodlines/cia/nwo/secret government/DARPA/Bildeberg/UN/EU/white dracos/shapeshifting reptilians/satan downloading direct to your brain via pokemon go, yoga and the music you listen to.


Should I stop listening to music now, or is it too late?


----------



## manticle (6/8/16)

We are all one of them to a greater or lesser extent until we can alter our vibrational resonance and exist temperaneously outside the controlled flat earth hologrammatic paradigm.


----------



## manticle (6/8/16)

Les the Weizguy said:


> Should I stop listening to music now, or is it too late?


Screwed


----------



## Weizguy (6/8/16)

manticle said:


> Screwed


Glad I'm NOT suicidal, or this could be could be devastating.

OK, so back to my [email protected] C#nt record collection.


----------



## Jens-Kristian (6/8/16)

manticle said:


> Who sanitised the thread title? Must have been one of my mod brethren - it's a bit pants.
> 
> It's a forum for adults - surely we can accommodate the occasional rhetorical profanity.


Aside from the sanitation, I am most offended by it now suggesting I might use the term 'feckity-feck.' It's the same anyway, just with different spelling, which is something I've never understood in the sanitation of the word '****'.

Btw. I wasn't entirely clear on what the policy was with regard to the word '****' being used on the board, so I did a search for the word '****' in the search field and it came up with a multitude of threads and posts which used the word '****'.

Obviously, I'll abide by changes made by mods and admins; you guys are the authorities with regard to the board and how it's run, but I'm a little puzzled as to the point of censoring it thus.


----------



## manticle (6/8/16)

Do you have a preferred non profane alternative title?


----------



## Jens-Kristian (6/8/16)

manticle said:


> Do you have a preferred non profane alternative title?



Malcolm Roberts... Oh my goodness gracious!


----------



## manticle (6/8/16)

Done


----------



## Jens-Kristian (6/8/16)

Thanks. :lol:


----------



## LAGERFRENZY (6/8/16)

Ironically one of the favourite expressions of another unhinged Queensland politician but don't you worry about that.


----------



## jlm (6/8/16)

Heard him on RN in a (hot) 3 way interview with Hinch (and I thought I'd miss hearing the word senator before the name Lazarus), one of Xenophons mob, and naturally a ON rep. He sounded like what you'd expect.....until he was shown some bait with a big, big shiny chemically sharpened hook conspicuously protruding from something a politician wouldn't generally touch due to the stink it coats ones self with. But he grabbed it, gobbed it down and ran, in the meantime throwing up opinions that even Pauline must think are a little cuckoo. Bring back Ricky Muir.


----------



## manticle (6/8/16)

He got just under 80 votes so that's a mandate.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (6/8/16)

I liked Ricky.

He decided to get up and have a go and say and got elected

And he just an average person. He wasnt rich, wasnt powerfull, wasnt anything really, he was just one of us

He had never owned a suit

He didnt make any outrageous claims or make stupid statements

Its a shame that people like him, who where genuine got the ass and O.N. got in

Truly scary times

The Coalition dug them selves a ******* great big hole that may ultimately haunt them for a long, long time

And they only have themselves to blame


----------



## lost at sea (6/8/16)

i bet they put the safety catch back on that double dissolution trigger next time.....


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (6/8/16)

I dont think they will pull another one for a long time

It really did blow up in their face


----------



## wobbly (6/8/16)

The diatribe and absolute crap being posted under this topic is unbelievable 
Just remember "Slippery Shorten" and Co supported/voted for the changes to the senate vote rules.They just "hoped" that they would do better but unfortunately the electors left them (and the liberals) out in the cold
Rickey and the like got elected into parliament as a result back door deals that the majority of voters didn't know about or agree with. Remember the outrage!! Or are your memories of this outrage dimmed by the passage of time/alcohol 
The DD opened the door to a true and full democratic vote on what the electors (yes you and me) wanted in the senate Liberal, Labor, One Nation, Catter party, Xenaphone, Lambie, Hinch, Wilkie to name a few 
They were elected as a result of gaining the require number/percentage (quota) of of votes within each state and not some back room deal 
Had the DD not been called where each state was required to vote in 12 senators instead of the usual 6 then it is more than likely that more than half of the recent electors preferred representatives outside the two parties would be out looking for a real job. The Government and Opposition would have got close to their numbers just the same by default but the minor representatives such as Lambie, Wilkie etc would have been out the door.
And It goes without saying that "Slippery Shorten" and Co are thanking their lucky stars they didn't win a couple more lower house seats otherwise they would be faced with the same predicament they voted in.


----------



## goomboogo (6/8/16)

Wobbly, just to clear up a couple points you made. The Labor party didn't support the changes to Senate voting. Their opposition was based on the new paradigm whereby the opposition must oppose everything put forward by the government. It was the support of The Greens that got the legislation over the line. The changes to senate voting had no impact on the reelection of Andrew Wilkie as he sits in the lower house.

Without judgement on the outcome, I feel the changes to senate voting were reasonable.


----------



## JPS (6/8/16)

I had to LOL reading this diatribe, but most particularly RIcky Muir - car something party. 
Voted in... make a decisive decision Ricky.... no way, can I hold Kattars hand please, I dont really know what I am doing, but I will sell the unions down the drain to keep Australia Post, Ahmeds.
God riddance Ricky, enjoy your OUR TAXPAYER funded life you dud. What a miserable disgrace for Gippsland and politics.


----------



## manticle (6/8/16)

Wobbly - I sense somehow you wish to justify your own support for ON based on your perspective but unless you also believe in the climate conspiracy notions or adhere to the sovereign citizen grammar bizzo, I think you need to revisit the reasons for your support. By all means elucidate any of those reasons to which you adhere.


----------



## drsmurto (7/8/16)

manticle said:


> Wobbly - I sense somehow you wish to justify your own support for ON based on your perspective but unless you also believe in the climate conspiracy notions or adhere to the sovereign citizen grammar bizzo, I think you need to revisit the reasons for your support. By all means elucidate any of those teasons to which you adhere.


Grammar and punctuation would help too.

Edit - directed at Wobbly. Pre-coffee phone replies on this app......


----------



## jlm (7/8/16)

He's on Insiders atm with Leyonhjelm (Spjelling? There's a rouge j in there somewhere.). Don't think he intends to sit quietly on the cross benches.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (7/8/16)

I just saw that


He had a go at Lynhjelm ( or hower ever it is splet )

He sounds a bit dangerous


----------



## LAGERFRENZY (7/8/16)

As Roy and HG would put it "a dangerously stupid Goose"


----------



## Liam_snorkel (7/8/16)

Democracy would work better if politicians were randomly selected from the public IMO. The nutters & self interested types would be minimal and pragmatism would be the done thing.


----------



## manticle (7/8/16)

wobbly said:


> The diatribe and absolute crap being posted under this topic is unbelievable
> Just remember "Slippery Shorten" and Co supported/voted for the changes to the senate vote rules.They just "hoped" that they would do better but unfortunately the electors left them (and the liberals) out in the cold
> Rickey and the like got elected into parliament as a result back door deals that the majority of voters didn't know about or agree with. Remember the outrage!! Or are your memories of this outrage dimmed by the passage of time/alcohol
> The DD opened the door to a true and full democratic vote on what the electors (yes you and me) wanted in the senate Liberal, Labor, One Nation, Catter party, Xenaphone, Lambie, Hinch, Wilkie to name a few
> ...


How many votes did Roberts get again?


----------



## lost at sea (7/8/16)

JPS said:


> I had to LOL reading this diatribe, but most particularly RIcky Muir - car something party.
> Voted in... make a decisive decision Ricky.... no way, can I hold Kattars hand please, I dont really know what I am doing, but I will sell the unions down the drain to keep Australia Post, Ahmeds.
> God riddance Ricky, enjoy your OUR TAXPAYER funded life you dud. What a miserable disgrace for Gippsland and politics.


He wont get any retirement package as he didnt serve the minimum time. Back to the sawmill for ricky


----------



## pcmfisher (8/8/16)

jlm said:


> He's on Insiders atm with Leyonhjelm (Spjelling? There's a rouge j in there somewhere.). Don't think he intends to sit quietly on the cross benches.


That was like dumb and dumber.

All they needed was someone like Eric Abetz or Cory Bernardi and they could have had the three stooges.


----------

