Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sydney's fun police have put out the light of the nightlife

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 156 posts

Re: Sydney's fun police have put out the light of the nightlife

#131

Post by stordoff »

madaxe_again wrote: post #56
hanoz wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you considered the UK, where on occasions one can easily feel like the only one in the pub not drinking Jägerbombs, and drinking to massive excess generally is a proud national pastime.

Actually, in the UK, it is illegal to serve pre-mixed caffeine and alcohol, but it's rarely enforced. This is why many bars will pour the shot in a highball, and hand you a can of red bull, so what you then do is your responsibility, not theirs.

I suspect you are right that this is only the law in Scotland. At a fairly respectable bar in Cambridge, I've set up 20-drink long "Jagertrains" [1] with the Bar Manager on more than one occasion, and he never mentioned that it was illegal to do so.

[1] https://cdn.makeagif.com/media/3-07-2012/ZdwGP4.gif

Re: Sydney's fun police have put out the light of the nightlife

#132

Post by chongli »

tamana wrote: post #122
exodust wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scientific jury is out on whether drunken violence is a genetic trait. Interesting enough idea. "So your father was an alcoholic" is common among alcoholics and their friends looking for explanation. Violence is also one of those "fallback" mentalities that stupid people embrace when cornered. Genetics aside, stupid people have few resources at their disposal. Violence is there, justified by a century of iconic p…

What do smart people do when they are cornered?

Smart people avoid getting cornered in the first place.

Re: Sydney's fun police have put out the light of the nightlife

#133

Post by jedmeyers »

tamana wrote: post #120
oldmanjay wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a national health service is an excuse to tell people how to live, I've pretty happy Obama fucked it all up here and just institutionalized health insurers.

The people drinking themselves to shit aren't honorably refusing healthcare for their self inflicted injuries

Well, then make them pay for themselves then insead of limiting the range of activities they are allowed to do.

Re: Sydney's fun police have put out the light of the nightlife

#134

Post by thatcat »

theoh wrote: post #129
oldmanjay wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a national health service is an excuse to tell people how to live, I've pretty happy Obama fucked it all up here and just institutionalized health insurers.

Obama and his advisor Cass Sunstein are ostensibly pursuing "libertarian paternalism", as is Cameron in the UK. I'm guessing you like the sound of "libertarian". Alcohol consumption is one clear case of people harming themselves. There are a lot of other areas in which the government in fact doesn't know what's best, so I don't think you can generalize about liberties either way.

Seems like you're using libertarian as a marketing buzzword that has no meaning

Re: Sydney's fun police have put out the light of the nightlife

#135

Post by switch007 »

Cyph0n wrote: post #85
switch007 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't start drinking at 5pm on a Friday, puke up twice, consume your body weight in kebab meat and then go for a greasy fry-up in the morning, you're basically a boring sod.

That sounds stupid to be honest. To each his own I guess?

No it's not !!! I don't drink much! Because I don't drink during the week. I start drinking really late on Fridays (about 7pm) and finish early (about 3am), and only repeat that again Saturday nights, so really 5 whole days without alcohol is like really good. Kebab is meat and meat is healthy. Anyway what would we do if not drink?

(Much /s)

Re: Sydney's fun police have put out the light of the nightlife

#136

Post by theoh »

thatcat wrote: post #134
theoh wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obama and his advisor Cass Sunstein are ostensibly pursuing "libertarian paternalism", as is Cameron in the UK. I'm guessing you like the sound of "libertarian". Alcohol consumption is one clear case of people harming themselves. There are a lot of other areas in which the government in fact doesn't know what's best, so I don't think you can generalize about liberties either way.

Seems like you're using libertarian as a marketing buzzword that has no meaning

It's not me, it's Thaler and Sunstein.

I'm left libertarian myself and I'd like to drink less alcohol, personally.

Re: Sydney's fun police have put out the light of the nightlife

#137

Post by vacri »

chris_wot wrote: post #117
vacri wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the fuck are you talking about? The 90 deaths mentioned by the parent are Australia-wide , not merely bound to King's Cross. It's entirely appropriate to compare them to other Australia-wide measures. Unless Victoria and Queensland, mentioned in the parent's article, are now located in King's Cross, I guess. Or hey, I can reframe it your way if you like: There were zero deaths from alcohol-fueled king hits whils…

No fool, I'm not. I wasn't aware that the god of lightning was throwing down bolts from the sky to murder innocent civilians. And those dastardly killers committing murder by making people fall out of bed, someone should set up a taskforce, stat! It's diabolical. Here's a small hint: those laws weren't just introduced due to homicides, but also for assaults.

I was putting the number of deaths into context, not the cause of it. Laws are sledgehammers, not scalpels, and keeping things in context is important. Cyclists die every year from being car-doored, yet we don't seem to be so passionate about fixing that, nor inconveniencing the whole demographic of car drivers because of a few idiots.

As for your last sentence, if you re-read what I said, you'll see "by itself". It was put there there along with "Australia has a problem with drinking and violence" to suggest that you need to argue with more than just what is actually a very few deaths. It's like you wilfully misread me.

As for "no you're not", do you mean you're not claiming that 20/100k are deaths from alcoholic assault? I can't see something else I said you were doing. Then why the hell did you bring it up? Who was talking about long-term effects of alcohol on health?

Re: Sydney's fun police have put out the light of the nightlife

#138

Post by vacri »

varjag wrote: post #130
chris_wot wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's very much incorrect. Most Australians are agnostic.

Well according to this: http://www.smh.com.au/national/is-australia-losing-its-relig... ..while non-religious make up a fair portion of Aussies, most still identify as Christians.

If you scroll down a single comment, you'll see one from me pointing out at least one issue with the religion question on the census.

Your own link shows another - the option for 'no religion' has historically been obfuscated or separated. Once upon a time, it didn't even exist. The whole point of your linked article is about how that question can be played with in order to fudge the results.

Re: Sydney's fun police have put out the light of the nightlife

#139

Post by vacri »

johnchristopher wrote: post #115
chris_wot wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong. Enrollment is compulsory.

Is it actively enforced ?

Yes, but not particularly harshly. The Electoral Commission's target is 95% of eligible voters enrolled, and it's currently at 93.5%. You are supposed to enrol at some time between your 18th birthday and the next election (which roll around every 3 years or so), so some of that non-enrolled percentage are folks who will do so shortly. A small amount of people are eligible to vote, but not capable, such as people with severe intellectual handicaps. In practice, most folks are enrolled.

The penalty isn't particularly harsh ($20 first time missed a vote, $50 afterwards). I have a 40-year-old friend that's not enrolled, and as far as I'm aware, she has never been fined for it.

Re: Sydney's fun police have put out the light of the nightlife

#140

Post by stevebmark »

predakanga wrote: post #11
stevebmark wrote: post #4

I'm an outsider to Sydney and Australia, and I'm a regular visitor. This article rings of an insider perspective, full of "we" statements. It has a vibe of personal anger and personal overreaction. What I'm genuinely curious about is the events that lead to the formation of these laws. Again, as an outsider, the main thing to do in Sydney is drink. A lot. The main thing my friends want to do after work in Sydney is d…

Over the past few years, there have been a number of deaths caused by unprovoked one-punch attacks ("king-hits", or now "coward punches"), possibly the highest profile being the death of Daniel Christie[0] after being attacked in Kings Cross, a hotspot for nightlife. In the wake of these attacks, a number of new regulations and laws have been passed, with the stated aim of reducing alcohol-related violence. These reg…

Is it telling that there's an actual name for a specific type of assault popularized by drunken people in Australia? It's almost as if this idea has become part of the culture. I'm not aware of any other types of assaults that have become so mainstream that they're given their own name (which doesn't mean they don't exist). Is it actually a part of the culture, meaning these laws are justified? I could also see the danger of naming something, when someone is drunk it just comes into their head as an action to do (which would also justify the laws).
Post reply on HN