Terms and conditions:
Valid 23 January - 28 February.
Receive $10 OFF any main meal, excludes entrees, kids meals, seniors meals and desserts. Valid in bistros only, lunch and dinner, 7 days a week. Voucher must be presented at the time of purchase. Discount will be applied to the main meal of lesser value. One voucher per transaction, maximum $10 Discount per transaction. Not valid with any other offer.
Everywhere except ACT, that'd be right
This companies main game is poker machines. I'm guessing ACT has strict laws that make running these venues unattractive.
Perth has no pokies and we still get it.
maybe the demographics just dont add up. This company is targeted at the budget market after all.
So I just tried this yesterday and the ALH pub had no idea about it. The manager honored it but when the manager changed the second one didn't.
I feel like Perth hasn't been told about it so you may or may not get away with it.
where is ACT?
Further south than Adelaide
This ahaha I put in Canberra city and nearest is NSW lmao
No ALH venues in ACT
Once porn became available for free online, ACT ceased to exist
This just looks like a flyer? So multiple uses I presume?
I would also look on shopadocket website
because buy one get one free or buy one get second for a couple dollars pub meal vouchers are very common and will come out cheaper if buying for 2 or more people
Many of these pubs have 50% off food through thefork.com.au at the moment
what thefork?
Used to be Dimmi, stupid name change.
Thanks for this, a much better deal
Which pub is offering the $33 Lobster and rump?
check this out -> https://www.greatfoodgreatvalue.com.au/offers
It's either been or hasn't happened yet.. fingers crossed
Seems to be ALH ie Woolworths owned venues
Well the website does clearly say "Copyright © 2017 ALH Group"
Sorry I didn't notice
Nowhere in Sydney CBD
really? thanks for confirming. doh….
You need to head to your nearest poor person suburb.
Their very successful business model is based on setting up addictive pokies venues in the least educated, poorest suburbs across Australia.
They may as well cut out the middleman and just lobby the government to pay peoples centrelink benefits straight to woolworths shareholders.
I will note that I have at least 3 within 5kms of my house, so I'm not speaking as some leafy eastern suburbs snob:)
It's a good thing that every child in Australia is born into a social and biological vacuum so that they all start off with the same opportunity to Make Something Of Themselves™ in accordance with the scientifically proven and universally accepted HighAndDry® Scale Of Human Worth™.
It's also pleasing that every child has the emotional ability at a very young age to identify their parents' less ideal character traits and consciously decide not to follow them down the same path.
If the above statements weren't true, your lack of compassion would be quite alarming.
It's a good thing that every child in Australia is born into a social and biological vacuum so that they all start off with the same opportunity to Make Something Of Themselves™ in accordance with the scientifically proven and universally accepted HighAndDry® Scale Of Human Worth™.
-electricity privatisation has been a great success
-the government should not prevent predatory lenders from operating
Other HighAndDry pearl's'o'wisdom …
@Diji1: Well yes, generally he's happy if an incorporated entity makes a profit and he rails against anyone who makes any suggestions that might eat into those profits.
Whether something has a net social benefit seems to be immaterial to him, so it's pretty tough to convince him of anything if a positive dollar figure isn't attached to it.
@Pantagonist: The buck has to stop somewhere. These aren't children anymore, they're grown adults exercising adult powers and adult rights.
You want me to show compassion? Yeah, I've got that for the children being brought up by people like these, but once they enter the world as adults, I have higher standards for them than I do for children.
I don't think they necessarily have any less worth - but I don't owe them any sympathy either.
@HighAndDry: No-one is asking you to sympathise, they are asking you to empathise.
Stand in their shoes and ask yourself whether it would easier, harder or the same amount of effort building self control and discipline as you encountered growing up.
@damoo: I never said it's easy to build self control or discipline. It's not easy to be an adult. That doesn't change anything: I'm only saying that that's a bare minimum to be expected of adults. I fully empathise, but I said this:
You want me to feel sorry for these people, sorry can't do it.
That's me not having sympathy for them.
Yes it's impulse control.
And it is ABSOLUTELY about education- unless you think we are born with impulse control and self discipline?
If not- then of course education is key- if we're not born with it, we have to learn it!
All our brains are hardwired to look for the easy option wherever possible- maturity, impulse control, self discipline are very much us triumphing over our own nature.
Kids that grow up in households where parents don't actively promote those behaviours become moths to a flame in adulthood for companies like ALH/Woolworths that look to exploit those, as you say- 'without a spine'.
Sounds like you got lucky and grew up in an environment where self discipline and impulse control was encouraged, great! Lots of people are which is great…but lots of people aren't.
Not everyone is so fortunate.
You don't need to pity or excuse the behaviour of those less fortunate than you were- but you do need to acknowledge that some people are born into situations which make it much harder to 'grow a spine'.
Might I suggest taking a trip out of your bubble and go see how some people actually live day to day in lower socio-economic areas before arriving at such a black and white stance.
You don't need to like or accept any of the behaviour-
but just imagine for a second YOU grew up surrounded by parents who give their kids massive energy drinks for breakfast and don't care if the kids roam the streets at all hours.
You think those kids faced the same number of hurdles and challenges 'growing a spine' as you did?
@damoo: A few people tried to unpack this with him on the last R U OK? day without much success.
He knows what it means to struggle.
He is employed in an industry which does not hire many people from his cultural background AND he once went without a job for a short period of time when he quit to search for a better-paying opportunity to finance his dreams of a large property portfolio.
He and the poor are basically one and the same, so don't lecture him about disadvantage and the myth of everyone being able to pull themselves up by the bootstraps.
He's living proof that it's possible, and if it worked for him then it'll work for everyone else.
@Pantagonist: ha, yeah right- thanks for the heads up.
Sounds like Donald Trump's rags to riches story which began when his father gave him a small loan of 60 million dollars (140 million in today's money).
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/02/trumps-small-loan-from-his-f…
He's living proof that it's possible, and if it worked for him then it'll work for everyone else.
Not really. I like to think that I had a below-average upbringing, so the rest is made up from just personal ability. If your argument is that some people had worse upbringings? Sure - but that doesn't prevent them from being productive members of society.
If your argument is that some people are just innately less capable, then even if I do agree with that, that's hella condescending, don't you think, to say that they have literally no potential to be better at all?
If your argument is that some people are just innately less capable, then even if I do agree with that, that's hella condescending
Innate implies biology. I'm saying that it is a combination of nature and nurture.
We don't tend to argue that people who are born disabled have just as much potential to do things as people who aren't. There's nothing condescending about that, it's just reality. Given that the environment that people grow up in has at least as much influence as biological factors, I'm not sure why we look at them any differently?
We also have a choice about whether we act with compassion towards those people or consign them to the dustbin of history because they're [insert unhelpful adjective here].
We ban or restrict a lot of things because they are harmful. I haven't seen any research that suggests poker machines have a net social benefit, or any benefit at all other than lining the pockets of their owners. I don't know too many people who just drop a few dollars on pokies "just for fun" and walk away.
Maybe there's an argument for having them in casinos as specific places for gambling, but mixing them in with food and alcohol is a pretty insidious practice for people who might be easily led astray.
For me they are equivalent to heroin or meth in their ability to get someone addicted. Fun enough the first time to hook you in, then a slow decline into a life of despair from that point forward.
I'm saying that it is a combination of nature and nurture.
I agree completely.
We don't tend to argue that people who are born disabled have just as much potential to do things as people who aren't.
Putting aside the fact that there are certainly people who would argue that, I disagree that people without self control are in any way similar to people with disabilities, physical or cognitive.
I'm not sure why we look at them any differently?
Because you can't overcome the "nature" component (with or without help), you can certainly overcome the "nurture" component, even without external help. (Again: Not saying this is easy, but also again, being an adult isn't easy.)
We also have a choice about whether we act with compassion towards those people or consign them to the dustbin of history because they're [insert unhelpful adjective here].
99.99% of people are consigned to the dustbin of history. Not many of us are very notable at all. But in terms of substance, there's only so much compassion you can show before you're showing the same amount of compassion to everyone and it becomes meaningless. I have compassion for people with actual disabilities. I don't for people who merely lack self control.
We ban or restrict a lot of things because they are harmful.
We don't ban all things that are potentially harmful, and very few only because they're potentially harmful. Otherwise tool shops would go out of business overnight. Gambling is entertainment, much like skydiving, going to a rock concert, playing sports. All of these carry risks of injury or harm.
but mixing them in with food and alcohol is a pretty insidious practice for people who might be easily led astray.
I mean - surely you can't say this while mentioning alcohol with a straight face. By your logic, I could say that alcohol should also be banned or restricted to far fewer places too, because "I haven't seen any research that suggests alcohol have a net social benefit, or any benefit at all other than lining the pockets of the sellers."
For me they are equivalent to a heroin or meth. Fun enough the first time to hook you in, then a slow decline into a life of despair from that point forward.
For some people, alcohol has that effect. For others, retail shopping has that effect. And yet for other still, thrill-seeking has that effect. The fact is that this isn't an unpreventable consequence, and by far the majority of people are able to enjoy these things responsibly.
I disagree that people without self control are in any way similar to people with disabilities, physical or cognitive.
That's fine, and you're entitled to believe it. ICDs are able to be diagnosed in much the same way as the cognitive disabilities you may be thinking of, so your opinion puts you at odds with the majority of the professional psychiatric community and the publishers of the DSM-5.
Because you can't overcome the "nature" component (with or without help), you can certainly overcome the "nurture" component, even without external help. (Again: Not saying this is easy, but also again, being an adult isn't easy.)
Nowadays the nature vs. nurture argument has moved on from "which one matters more" and it's generally accepted that the two can't really be picked apart in any meaningful way. When it comes to organs such as the brain, it's also very hard to draw a line between what constitutes biological factors vs. environmental impacts on it. The brain is physical but the mind is an abstract concept. There's a lot we don't understand.
Gambling is entertainment, much like skydiving, going to a rock concert, playing sports. All of these carry risks of injury or harm.
I'm still having trouble finding any research that outlines the benefits to the person playing the slot machines. There is plenty of research out there listing the social benefits of sports.
The rest of your post I've dealt with in an answer written previously. I'm just not interested in engaging in reductio ad absurdum as it leads nowhere and I'm sure you'd be hard pressed to argue the counter point (i.e. zero legislation or controls on what people can do).
That's fine, and you're entitled to believe it. ICDs(en.wikipedia.org) are able to be diagnosed in much the same way as the cognitive disabilities you may be thinking of
Right, and how many people of the ones we're discussing has diagnosed ICD? That's like a parent excusing their kid misbehaving because they think their kid has ADD despite no diagnosis. Just because it's a diagnosable disorder doesn't mean it's prevalent or even relevant in this discussion.
There's a lot we don't understand.
Then why are you still bringing it up? As I said - if you want change, you need to back your argument for that change.
I'm still having trouble finding any research that outlines the benefits to the person playing the slot machines. There is plenty of research out there listing the social benefits of sports.
It literally releases endorphins - i.e. it's fun. Likewise there are no social benefits to sky-diving, extreme sports, drinking alcohol, etc. The reason these are allowed isn't that they're beneficial, the reason is that the government shouldn't have the power to limit the freedom of adults without good reason. So far you haven't provided that.
(i.e. zero legislation or controls on what people can do).
But I'm not arguing for that. You're the one arguing for more regulation. I'm merely asking that you back your opinion, except the best you can come up with is apparently "We don't know".
Right, and how many people of the ones we're discussing has diagnosed ICD? That's like a parent excusing their kid misbehaving because they think their kid has ADD despite no diagnosis. Just because it's a diagnosable disorder doesn't mean it's prevalent or even relevant in this discussion.
Don't deflect. You said that people with self control issues are not similiar in any way to people with cognitive disabilities. I simply showed that your opinion doesn't align with current psychiatric practice. I'm not sure what "ones" you're talking about but I didn't have a particular person in my head when I wrote my reply.
As for the rest of your reply, I've responded further down with some good reasons based on research and figures. I look forward to to reading your response.
I haven't seen any research that suggests poker machines have a net social benefit,
Allowing individuals the freedom to make poor choices which affect them adversely has a eugenic effect. That is a social benefit if you value human progress. But this is stymied by dysgenic welfare policies. A population prospers when faced with a moderate level of adversity, but flounders when mollycoddled. Look at how much technology was developed during the wars. We haven't even left Low Earth Orbit since 1972! Sure we have made progress in miniaturising integrated circuits et al, but when you look at consumerist society, social media, Miley Cyrus, etc, you should ask, how much has been squandered on prolefeed?
@Scrooge McDuck: I'm pretty uncomfortable with the concept of eugenics based human progress on account of historical examples. There's also the uncomfortable truth that its proponents are often flawed humans themselves who think that their path is the most righteous and everyone who isn't on board with their ideology doesn't deserve to live.
If I was in charge all the juicers pumping themselves full of whey and ogling their figures in the gym would be the first to go. I mean, it's a pretty pointless pursuit and contributes nothing to human progress in the grand scheme of things, wouldn't you say? ;)
When does a welfare policy become dysgenic? Just interested in where you draw the line.
We haven't left low orbit because we don't have to in order to explore space. It's pretty pointless blasting people off into the far reaches of the universe if we've got no way of getting them back and robots and probes can gather the same information for us. In much the same way, we don't go toe to toe in muddy trenches during warfare anymore because we can mostly get robots and machinery to do the heavy lifting. I'm pretty sure that the moment a suitable world for human habitation is discovered within a detectable distance from this planet, we'll immediately be making plans to head there.
The idea that we haven't done anything worthwhile since 1972 is laughable. I know MAGA and the need to reclaim some mythical lost past is in vogue at the moment, but you just end up sounding like every old dude with relevance deprivation syndrome who ever lived in the history of forever.
but you do need to acknowledge that some people are born into situations which make it much harder to 'grow a spine'.
I do acknowledge it. And… then I still hold them to the same standard I hold every other adult. To me, the only other option is to infantilize them and treat them like children instead.
You think those kids faced the same number of hurdles and challenges 'growing a spine' as you did?
Some obviously had harder lives. I also know of people who had significantly easier lives who turned out worse. It's not just a matter of upbringing, at some point you have to look at the individual.
They may as well cut out the middleman and just lobby the government to pay peoples centrelink benefits straight to woolworths shareholders.
This is why food stamps/the basics card should be implemented.
That would stop poker machine use, but gamblers gonna gamble.
I've personally seen Basics Cards with PIN numbers getting chucked into gambling pots in the NT.
The other way around it is to do your mates' food and basics shopping for them, then they give you cash back minus a small fee in return or go and buy you a carton or cask.
At the end of the day it's just another form of currency.
The SNAP (Food Stamps) in the US also has some weird exclusions and rationalisations. You can't buy soap or medicine with them but soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and ice cream are A-OK.
@Scrooge McDuck: There's never been a cost-benefit analysis done on the scheme so it's a bit hard to say whether it's actually better. It's bit pointless if it costs more to administer than the problems it purportedly deals with.
Some stats suggest that theft and property crime increased since its introduction in Kununurra.
Then there's the link between its introduction and an increase in the suicide rate which was raised in the 2017 senate inquiry.
The trials have been extended and the can has been kicked down the road until 2020 so I guess we'll see what cherry picking the government will do to justify keeping it going at that stage.
@Pantagonist: So what's your solution? Ban anything that requires any element of self-control or good judgement on part of the individual, just because some people don't have these things?
@HighAndDry: My solution would be to make poker machines less accessible in places like clubs and pubs where alcohol is served and people's judgment is more likely to be impaired.
If someone has any research about any non-financial benefits provided by poker machines then I'd be happy to read it.
If we're doing the reductio ad absurdum argument, I could easily ask you whether you think we should just abolish the rule of law and people can do whatever they want, whenever they want, with zero consequences.
As with most things in society, the reality is a compromise position which some will align closely with and others won't. I'm happy to debate the pros and cons of poker machines as far as I see them and I don't think there's one answer that suits all cases.
If we were all the same then we could be more black and white about these things but all we can do is to try and make the best decisions we can with the information that's available.
I could easily ask you whether you think we should just abolish the rule of law and people can do whatever they want, whenever they want, with zero consequences.
For the most part, the rule of law does say you can do whatever you want, unless it affects someone else. You can give away all your money, for example, even if it leaves you destitute and homeless.
I'm happy to debate the pros and cons of poker machines as far as I see them and I don't think there's one answer that suits all cases.
This is the problem. The discussion isn't, and shouldn't be, one from a neutral starting point and debating the pros and cons, because as you allude to elsewhere, nothing exists in a vacuum. The context of this discussion is that the very basic tenet of a liberal democracy is that everything which isn't prohibited (and has good reasons for being so, obviously) is allowed, and that there needs to be good reasons to give government the power to limit individual freedoms.
So we start from a position of: People should be free to gamble, and others should be free to place gambling machines for the use of those who want to gamble. From this starting position, anyone restricting, or wanting to further restrict, gambling, have the onus of showing that people's liberties should be further restricted and the government given more power.
And if indeed there is no answer, then you haven't discharged this onus, and the status quo should remain.
If we were all the same then we could be more black and white about these things but all we can do is to try and make the best decisions we can with the information that's available.
I agree. And my view is that there the harm "caused" by these machines is actually caused by people's lack of self control, not by the availability of these machines. To give an example, car accidents are caused by people speeding, not paying attention, or drink driving. They're not caused because a car merely is able to go over the speed limit.
For the most part, the rule of law does say you can do whatever you want, unless it affects someone else. You can give away all your money, for example, even if it leaves you destitute and homeless.
What I'm saying is that asking me if I think that anything potentially harmful should be banned is as ridiculous as me asking you if you think that nothing that's potentially harmful should be banned. It's a poor argument that's more an attempt to wedge me and achieves nothing because neither of us think in those extremes.
So we start from a position of: People should be free to gamble, and others should be free to place gambling machines for the use of those who want to gamble. From this starting position, anyone restricting, or wanting to further restrict, gambling, have the onus of showing that people's liberties should be further restricted and the government given more power.
Of course, and this discussion is part of that debate. The issue in Australia is that the government is addicted to gambling tax revenue in much the same way as it's addicted to tobacco tax revenue. No government has an interest in changing gambling habits and as a result the debate rarely crops up unless an independent like Andrew Wilkie decides to make a bit of noise about it during an election cycle.
It's difficult to find up-to-date stats, but a Productivity Commission report from 2009 had some pretty sobering figures about how much more damaging poker machines are compared with other forms of gambling. Something like 15% of people who use pokies are problem gamblers but they account for 40% of the money that's put into the machines. Electronic machines brought in 62% of gambling revenue and out of all problem gamblers 75-80% are pokie players.
Overall there was a net monetary benefit across the whole gambling spectrum of between $3bn and $11bn, but the PC stated that this could be improved if governments did more in the areas of prevention and harm minimization.
Again, happy to read any stats that you have that present a stronger argument for the status quo.
I agree. And my view is that there the harm "caused" by these machines is actually caused by people's lack of self control, not by the availability of these machines. To give an example, car accidents are caused by people speeding, not paying attention, or drink driving. They're not caused because a car merely is able to go over the speed limit.
There are also a heck of a lot more laws governing how people drive on the road compared with how people behave when gambling. If we had cops arresting or fining people because they exceeded the enforced maximum daily spend on poker machines then I expect there'd be a lot more problem gamblers in jail and less in the clubs and pubs. Obviously I'm not suggesting this as an approach but I think it's false equivalence on your part.
Where your car analogy does hold water is that the speed limits enforced on the roads are catered towards the average driver. Sure, lots of people probably could drive faster just as safely, but the benchmark needs to be set somewhere. In much the same way, lots of people can gamble responsibly but the laws need to be set at a level where harm is minimized for people who can't and those who can are still able to enjoy themselves. In my opinion, given the stats I provided above, I think the pendulum could swing a little bit further towards tightening regulations around pokies.
What I'm saying is that asking me if I think that anything potentially harmful should be banned is as ridiculous as me asking you if you think that nothing that's potentially harmful should be banned.
But that was your argument here:
We ban or restrict a lot of things because they are harmful. I haven't seen any research that suggests poker machines have a net social benefit, or any benefit at all other than lining the pockets of their owners.
You can't blame me for arguing against what you wrote. That wasn't an ad absurdum argument, because I didn't reduce your argument.
Moving on though.
a Productivity Commission report from 2009 had some pretty sobering figures about how much more damaging poker machines are compared with other forms of gambling. Something like 15% of people who use pokies are problem gamblers but they account for 40% of the money that's put into the machines. Electronic machines brought in 62% of gambling revenue and out of all problem gamblers 75-80% are pokie players.
There's a few thing wrong with using the statistics like this (as always, "lies, damned lies, and statistics"). First of all:
Something like 15% of people who use pokies are problem gamblers but they account for 40% of the money that's put into the machines.
This says nothing. Almost by definition problem gamblers are going to be limited to people who put a disproportionate amount of money into gambling. This says they put even not even 3x as much as non-problem gamblers. That's a better ratio than most other things I'd imagine - alcoholics probably drink far more than only 3x as much as social/responsible drinkers, for example.
Electronic machines brought in 62% of gambling revenue and out of all problem gamblers 75-80% are pokie players.
These two numbers are barely related, and even then don't say much. 62% of gambling revenue vs 80% of problem gamblers - that's only a marginally higher rate.
If we had cops arresting or fining people because they exceeded the enforced maximum daily spend on poker machines
Speeding drivers can hurt others. Gamblers only hurt themselves. So going back to my previous comment: regulations generally only regulate behaviour that can harm others. You're generally free to (profanity) up your own life as much as you want.
But that was your argument here.
Um, no? If you read the paragraph after that I specifically mention that restricting pokies to casinos could be an acceptable compromise position. Hardly me advocating for a ban on all harmful things. That's just you reading what you want to read.
(as always, "lies, damned lies, and statistics"
A simpler way to break it down would be:
In summation, if you're a pokie player and a problem gambler, you're probably losing a lot more money on gambling than your average problem gambler. This is exacerbated by pokies being marketed towards lower income earners and being placed in lower socio-economic areas, as evidenced by the lack of ALH pubs in central CBD areas outlined in this thread. There is a confluence of these many factors that make pokies a more insidious form of gambling than others and why more regulation is required.
Anyway, I think my "damn lies" are a fair bit better than your "probably 3x" stat which presumably was taken from a qualitative data source with a sample size of one? I'm not really sure what other evidence you would consider to be valid from your side?
Gamblers only hurt themselves.
Tell that to the relatives and friends of problem gamblers and see how they respond.
If you read the paragraph after that I specifically mention that restricting pokies to casinos could be an acceptable compromise position.
But your reasoning is that we ban other harmful stuff. I'm debating your reasoning, not your proposed solution, since you haven't really defended or supported why that particular solution is a good one.
Problem gamblers contribute towards almost half of the pokie revenue but represent less than one fifth of total pokie players
Right, that's where I'm getting my "3x" figure from. 3 x 15 = 45%. But they account for only 40% of revenue, so they spend less than 3x normal gamblers.
There is a confluence of these many factors that make pokies a more insidious form of gambling than others and why more regulation is required.
That's no more "insidious" than there being more fast food outlets in low income areas. And in any case, no one is being forced to play them. You want to be a Good Samaritan? Go engage in a public education campaign or something.
Anyway, I think my "damn lies" are a fair bit better than your "probably 3x" stat
No, the saying "lies, damned lies, and statistics" is saying that statistics are readily taken out of context or mis-construed to be misleading. Sigh. Anyway:
Tell that to the relatives and friends of problem gamblers and see how they respond.
Again, by this logic you'll have to regulate everything that could potentially be harmful. Sky-diving. Contact sports. Alcohol (which is available in every pub too, funny that). Unsafe sex. Donating to charities (if you donate too much, your relatives will be poor too!)
So again - you still haven't presented a good enough reasoning for why it should be curtailed. Is it potentially harmful? Yes. But that's not reason enough. Does it indirectly hurt others? Yes, still not reason enough. And that's what you need to basically discharge the onus of overturning "Government restricting people's freedoms is a bad thing unless…" You need the […].
But your reasoning is that we ban other harmful stuff.
I'm certainly not saying "ban poker machines because we ban other things" and using that as my reasoning. If you don't think that an over-representation of problem gamblers within a specific subset of the gambling community who lose a disproportionate amount of money and are generally lower income earners is worth looking at more closely as an area where regulations could potentially be tightened based on the stats I've posted then I'm probably not going to be able to convince you.
I think that when a group is disproportionately over or under represented in a health or crime statistic in comparison to the general population it warrants a closer look to work out the actual reasons why. If you don't and are happy to take the easy road of blaming that over or under representation on the group themselves without any further inquiry then that's fine. Agree to disagree.
That's no more "insidious" than there being more fast food outlets in low income areas. And in any case, no one is being forced to play them.
As above. They're not forced to, but they do. My inclination is to ask why that is. Yours is to say that they have no self-control having never spoken to any of them.
No, the saying "lies, damned lies, and statistics" is saying that statistics are readily taken out of context or mis-construed to be misleading.
I'm aware of the saying as I did three units of stats at uni over three years. I'm saying that the selected statistics that I've posted are an objectively better measure to base an argument on than one person's opinion which is all you've offered. In any case, I don't think that the stats I posted have been taken out of context or misconstrued, unless you have some evidence to the contrary?
Again, by this logic you'll have to regulate everything that could potentially be harmful. Sky-diving. Contact sports. Alcohol (which is available in every pub too, funny that). Unsafe sex. Donating to charities (if you donate too much, your relatives will be poor too!)
Again with the black and white rigid thinking. Advocating for one thing to be better regulated does not mean that everything has to be regulated to the same degree. I've already pointed out how the things you've listed differ from pokies, so they require different regulation. Sky diving and contact sports are regulated by their governing bodies. Alcohol is heavily regulated at a state level. Unsafe sex is regulated in most states if you know you have an STI but don't disclose it to your partner. Charities are regulated by the ACNC.
And that's what you need to basically discharge the onus of overturning "Government restricting people's freedoms is a bad thing unless…"
You don't have much freedom if you're saddled by crippling gambling debts and still need to feed your family, pay bills and generally run your life. Presumably drugs such as heroin are illegal for similar reasons. Sure, there are lots of smacked out celebrities and movie stars who still make millions of dollars each year, but most people who get on it don't end up famous.
You're playing your cards pretty close to your chest as far as your own beliefs, but I'm assuming that you believe that some of things that are illegal in Australia have been banned for good reasons?
@Pantagonist: Here's a very recent example of gambling hurting more than just the gambler.
Magistrate Fryar acknowledged the crime "seems to be linked to a significant gambling issue" and ordered Fahey to repay the $45,150.
Your hard-earned taxpayer dollars HighAndDry! It's a good thing we have laws and regulations that govern things like spending on government credit cards otherwise he would have gotten away with it.
I could easily ask you whether you think we should just abolish the rule of law and people can do whatever they want, whenever they want, with zero consequences.
There are many more consequences of anti-social behaviours than just legal ones. But until the vast majority becomes sufficiently enlightened as to how to behave responsibly, some level of government is a beneficial compromise.
The problem is measures like that just make people who already hate the government/police/etc, hate them even more!
It makes them even more excluded from mainstream society- the chip on the shoulder just gets bigger and bigger.
TREATING adults like toddlers is not a good way of making them stop ACTING like toddlers.
Better strategies are restricting where and how such exploitative businesses can operate.
Sure some people will still go and gamble away the little money they have on pokies if they have to drive 30mins to do so….
But plenty will not when it isn't right on their doorstep.
ALH know this all too well- every km away from a person's house would directly correlate to a loss in revenue for them.
Or even better- why not put more low cost and/or public housing in wealthier areas that aren't totally overrun with fast food joints and pokie dens?
This is even better than restricting pokie venue locations, because it takes poorer people out of their own bubble where it is totally normalised in the community to blow all your dough on ciggies and pokies.
A measure like food stamps etc might work ok in the short term- but long term you'd find that rather than people spending less on pokies etc, they would be more likely resort to crime to pay for the pokies.
You need the government working WITH, not AGAINST people to address such big issues.
TREATING adults like toddlers is not a good way of making them stop ACTING like toddlers.
And yet that seems to be your approach from your earlier reply to me, where I said I like to hold these people to the same standards I hold other adults to - i.e. having impulse control and self-discipline. Or do you think these things aren't to be expected of adults?
Also, how is:
Better strategies are restricting where and how such exploitative businesses can operate.
Not treating these people like toddlers? You're effectively telling them you don't trust them to have gambling machines anywhere near them, because you think they have no self control. You're doing the adult equivalent of taking dangerous toys away from a child.
Or even better- why not put more low cost and/or public housing in wealthier areas that aren't totally overrun with fast food joints and pokie dens?
You've got this the wrong way around - businesses pop up where there are customers and demand. Fast food joints and pokies dens pop up in these places because that's what the people in these areas want and will spend money on.
@HighAndDry: hahaha, you're hilarious mate thanks for the chuckle.
The world is a scary place because it is full of grey area and uncertainty isn't it?
I applaud your strategy in dealing with the messy world in which we exist by distilling everything down to blunt, rigid, black and white- makes it far easier to feel 'right' all the time doesn't it?
My 3 year old does the same thing- he too is scared of the messy real world because it's so big and uncertain.
He's sure to grow out of that one day though, just as I (and most other adults do) after a couple of decades.
But for now he loves nothing more than reducing the world down to goodies and baddies- makes him feel more in control and 'right' all the time.
It's very cute.
@damoo: A lot of bluster and hand-waving, not so much in terms of actually addressing the point with substance. Figures you'd argue like a child since you expect adults to be children.
Hell, I'm agreeing with your own comment: Treat these adults like adults instead of like toddlers. Except you can't do this consistently when looked at in the context of your other views that to you, some adults should only be treated like children.
And so in the face of this inability to reconcile these two views, you just… dodge the actual argument. Convenient.
Edit: Oh, and in case you're wondering why your views are inconsistent, it's because you're trying to deal with it emotionally and not rationally. You want to both feel good that you're respecting their dignity as adults (e.g. Treat them like adults and not like children, so no SNAP cards), but you also want to feel good by feel sorry for them (e.g. Holding them to a lower standard than you would hold other adults, thinking that to expect them to exercise self-control is somehow unreasonable).
Pick one or the other - I don't care which. I might not agree, but at least you'll have a consistent basis from which to actually argue and propose solutions.
The problem is measures like that just make people who already hate the government/police/etc, hate them even more!
Society shouldn't pander to hateful people's emotions, just as a parent shouldn't pander to a child throwing a tantrum.
TREATING adults like toddlers is not a good way of making them stop ACTING like toddlers.
People need to be treated as they ARE not what they SHOULD BE. A mismatch causes dysfunction. Indeed these people are already being treated like children by being paid pocket money for nothing in return by the parental society. Society has accepted a level of compassion and pragmatism to manage these people, but it should be directed to encourage desirable behaviours, dissuade negative behaviours and elevate the next generation from welfare dependence or otherwise prevent their conception.
Or even better- why not put more low cost and/or public housing in wealthier areas that aren't totally overrun with fast food joints and pokie dens?
long term you'd find that rather than people spending less on pokies etc, they would be more likely resort to crime to pay for the pokies.
That's wanton speculation. Most of the pokie players I've met aren't inclined to crime. Many feed the machines in proportion to how much cash they have available.
Kirribilli Hotel prob closest which is a great hotel
Lol, cremorne
These pubs all have the same menu, and it's pretty average. Good for a cheap steak though!
Kind of. So in QLD at least there are 3 tiers of ALH pubs. Most are a Tier 2 I believe. Each Tier has a list of menu items they can choose from. A lot of them have similar menus because a lot of the popular products are picked by the Head Chefs and VMs, like schnitzels, grilled barra, steaks, pork belly, caesar salads, etc. But stuff like the other salads, and other mains usually have a bit of difference.
Nowhere in sydney eastern suburbs, wtf.
see my comment above, without checking I dare say the same applies to the richer eastern suburbs of melb and other cities too.
There's a few on Sydney's North Shore - not exactly a poor area.
Hahaha you sound like the biggest snob, why are you even on a bargain website?
Because there is plenty of great bargains to be had!
I live in Melbourne, do you know how many decent local pubs I have within arms length of me?
Because there is plenty of great bargains to be had!
*are
none because you live in melbourne and they're all full of victorians
@Scrooge McDuck: i'm not a fan of victorians, some of their beer is ok, but their food is shit, always deconstructed and served on a wooden fence post.
With a shitty attitude like that I would charge you double if I was running one. They are not obliged to give you any discount
To go eat at a pub with pokies? B!tch please you couldn't pay me.
Then why are you crying if there is nothing close to you?
so for 5 of us, we need to be seated on 5 different tables hence 5 split bills ?
From memory at these places you need to order from the counter. Just have everyone place their own individual orders and quote the same table number, should be golden
This, just order separately, and get the first person to say that you're all on the same table and you want the food to come out together.
Is this valid for take away? Do they even do take away?
Pubs generally don't do takeaway.
The ones near me don’t allowe take away - even doggy bags
So one person can use this alone?
"Discount will be applied to the main meal of lesser value."
This part makes me feel some restaurants will give your strife for trying to claim this going alone.
Hoping to go with Mrs Navalny and take one voucher each, but make it two transactions. Would be interested to hear from others who have tried that.
That's what I was thinking. A lot of these pubs you go up to the counter to order, so would it work to do it separately?
Yep ours is just walk up and get a number, we always do seperate orders.
No, it just means if you order 5 mains you will only get the discount off the cheapest main. Can't use 5 vouchers in the same transaction.
What? So if we go in group of 4, the person that orders the cheapest gets the discount and the rest pays full price? What a farce!
So go up and order separately.
are they table service or order and pay at the counter?
If the later, you can go to the counter separately and make two separate purchases, right?
Every one I know is pay at counter.
Pub next door to work is doing it.
Nice.