The totally off-topic thread

[serfty]

I made an interesting observation at Aldi yesterday, the cash register tells them how much change is due.

Previously the operator had to manually calculate it. I wonder if the younger generation were simply unable to cope with mental arithmetic?

Errrm ... POS* systems for Coles, Wollies, Safeway, IGA, Auspost etc. have been calculating change like that for several decades!

*Point of Sale

 

[Pushka]

I made an interesting observation at Aldi yesterday, the cash register tells them how much change is due.

Previously the operator had to manually calculate it. I wonder if the younger generation were simply unable to cope with mental arithmetic?

That’s the case with most registers these days. Has been around for quite some time. It’s what I used to hate about doing tuck shop at school - having to calculate change due in the midst of a pack of kids.

 

[GarrettM]

Free alcohol is not as good as staff air travel

Meh. As they are sure to stuff up the subsequent emergency exiting, and block the way, its better that they take a little oxygen-deprived nap until most of us are off the plane. Then they are welcome to follow.

As if you'd ever be BEHIND other pax when exiting a plane.

 

[JohnM]

Why people need to pay attention to the safety brief.

View attachment 123322

Those people are just confirming that those things don't deliver oxygen, but are there just to muffle the screams...

 

[JohnK]

So I gathered from the media comments. Why appoint a politician of any ilk to run something. They think they know it all.

How did they get it so wrong?

 

[drron]

I always remember Peter Beattie's wonderful role as Health Minister in the Bundaberg fiasco.He made an inspired choice for the first Commission of Inquiry.Unfortunately not one that would deliver a report which would let politicians off the hook.Mr.Morris cross examined the DG og QLD Health himself and for once the real problem of Health funding was exposed.The next day Mr.Morris resigned due to a "Conflict of Interest."Certainly continuing would not have been in Mr.Beattie's interest.

 

[Pushka]

I just tuned in to the Folau? issue. I’m so confused these days. What is freedom of speech versus saying things that are offensive? I’m not getting where the line is.

 

[JohnK]

You're confused @Pushka? No such thing as free speech.

 

[Pushka]

You're confused @Pushka? No such thing as free speech.

Well that’s the thing. I thought that what Charlie Hebdo published was offensive to Muslims. Of course it was dreadful what happened afterwards. But Charlie Hebdo’s response was that they were defenders of Free Speech. Ein confusen.

 

[Hvr]

Errrm ... POS* systems for Coles, Wollies, Safeway, IGA, Auspost etc. have been calculating change like that for several decades!

*Point of Sale

Indeed they have and I've used them during my retail days.

However, Aldi was, for many years, an outlier in requiring their staff to manually calculate change.

 

[JohnK]

Well that’s the thing. I thought that what Charlie Hebdo published was offensive to Muslims. Of course it was dreadful what happened afterwards. But Charlie Hebdo’s response was that they were defenders of Free Speech. Ein confusen.

No such thing as free speech.

"We are bringing in too many migrants into Australia." Racist!

That's a perfectly valid statement to make. The militant minority usually get their way.

 

[sjk]

No such thing as free speech.

"We are bringing in too many migrants into Australia." Racist!

That's a perfectly valid statement to make. The militant minority usually get their way.

People expressing their disagreement with you doesn't constitute suppression of free speech.

There's no right to just say whatever you want and expect people to nod thoughtfully and acceptingly.

 

[Pushka]

People expressing their disagreement with you doesn't constitute suppression of free speech.

There's no right to just say whatever you want and expect people to nod thoughtfully and acceptingly.

Then please explain what it happening with the Rugby player. He is facing sanctions. Why? Ok, so you don’t have to agree with him and can say why, vehemently if needed but how does that convert to him facing penalties?

 

[tgh]

how does that convert to him facing penalties

Because our society has changed from a theistic society to an non theistic society.

addendum..

The result of the above is that Australian born theists are required to conduct themselves in a manner that does not offend non theists, even when this conflicts with their theistic beliefs.

Of course we must accomodate our new brothers and sisters who have come to live in our land. Their theism is quite acceptable along with any expressed features or behaviours that may seem challenging to Australian non theists.

 

[RooFlyer]

People expressing their disagreement with you doesn't constitute suppression of free speech.

It is when the 'racist' or some other '-ist' card is played. That's basically 'you are a bad person, shut up'.

There's no right to just say whatever you want and expect people to nod thoughtfully and acceptingly.

That's a bit cute, and not what anyone is saying here. The issue for many is that 'certain' opinions are not acceptable to some others and they are censored out of the debate in many ways, including labelling people as 'racist' or 'climate criminal' or the like. When that happens, you know the labeller is out of rational arguments, and has lost the debate.

 

[sjk]

Then please explain what it happening with the Rugby player. He is facing sanctions. Why? Ok, so you don’t have to agree with him and can say why, vehemently if needed but how does that convert to him facing penalties?

You appear to be confusing basic human rights and commercial contractual relationships. That particular one includes an "inclusion policy" that he could potentially have violated. "Sanctions" or "penalties" are ultimately just "disagreement" as expressed at the organisational level.

And it appears he's escaped sanctions anyway. Another media-driven storm in a teacup.

 

[Denali]

I met the guy, he came across as a decent, polite person but F me, attitudes like that, because of their belief in a God piss me off. It incites hate and ignorance.

Gay is never going to go away. You can't pray it away, conversion therapy doesn't "fix it". The person is not broken and to all those kids running on the field this weekend, that now feel threatened or ashamed because their sporting hero is ignorant, that's the real shame.

Just like the yes vote brought out a lot of hate, his words threatens vulnerable teens or kids that are already struggling.

 

[Pushka]

You appear to be confusing basic human rights and commercial contractual relationships. That particular one includes an "inclusion policy" that he could potentially have violated. "Sanctions" or "penalties" are ultimately just "disagreement" as expressed at the organisational level.

And it appears he's escaped sanctions anyway. Another media-driven storm in a teacup.

Well that didn’t clarify. Isn’t it his basic human right to have religious belief? That we may or may not completely disagree with? And Charlie Hebdo. How does that fit in? I understand the issue was with Qantas sponsorship. I’ve not read anywhere that Folau had any clause in his contract. But haven’t searched well. But even if this instance has blown over now there will be more.

Homosexuality has and will always exist. It’s part of the continuum of being human. I have no issues on that score, that isn’t really what my question is. And for the record, I gladly voted Yes, so that isn’t why I’ve posted. It was just an example of what I’ve long thought about crossing the line of freedom of speech versus outright crossing the line. Folau just happened to be the issue of the moment. Who decides?

 

[TomVexille]

Then please explain what it happening with the Rugby player. He is facing sanctions. Why? Ok, so you don’t have to agree with him and can say why, vehemently if needed but how does that convert to him facing penalties?

My only thought is that it may have contravened a social media policy that his employer has.

Personally I think that a statement like that has the real potential to cause harm to a young person who might be struggling with their identity, which is why we should be working as a society to be a tad more accepting across the board.

I think he could have been more tactful in saying what he did, but in no way do I think he meant any harm by it.

 

[Flying mermaid]

Well that’s the thing. I thought that what Charlie Hebdo published was offensive to Muslims. Of course it was dreadful what happened afterwards. But Charlie Hebdo’s response was that they were defenders of Free Speech. Ein confusen.

the problem is you can’t draw up a code or a law to define this. Everyone has different tolerance levels and what offends one person won’t another.

Free anything is unachievable. One persons freedom of speech or whatever will impact someone else’s freedoms.

I think all you can hope for is a level of free speech, where for eg governments and institutions can be held accountable and a level of containing free speech where it can cause serious harm.

As a result there are always going to be people maintaining their free speech has been eroded and others complaining they have been offended,