Australian Politics Forum - more suppression of free speech

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #105 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:13am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 5:58am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 5:42am:

Those artists should have tried one of their pranks on a plane;that would have been epic. Nothing like seeing asswipes getting armbarred.

There is an actual law against fake alerts for planes. But only from a logistical perspective. I would suggest again that freedom of speech ought not be limited and thus such actions maybe can have civil action, but never criminal.

I will ask you again.. sir...

what about "FAKE" HOME INVASIONS????>..

all in the name of ART...

we had 3 youngish men play acting at terrorism..and putting it on the web....

where they did in fact horrify everyone...

for a few days it was thought to be a FACT.

these 3 youngish males even lied about it on TV...

when asked if it was a set up......they said NO..

it wasnt until the police were involved they confessed it was all staged....

had the police not arrested them we would still be guessing if it was FACT or FICTION .....

so if we witness what appears to be a HOME INVASION>....should we all turn a blind eye in case its these same youngish men... Roll Eyes

working on ART. Angry

Back to top

IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #106 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:15am

[quote author=freediver link=1456491963/104#104 date=1456607539]If you can see the obvious difference, why bring it up?

A cop will not shoot you if you merely have a cricket bat. Compared to an automatic weapon, the urgency to disarm you is not there. If you have an automatic weapon, the cop is pretty much obliged to shoot first in the interests of public safety. And if you do not appear to be committing a crime, there is also far less urgency.

Are you just pretending to not see the difference? How many different ways do we need to explain this to you?[/quote]

hes deflecting... hes losing the plot over the fake terrorism b eing all in the name of ART..

sir is well known for deflecting.. try to keep to the topic...

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #107 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:15am

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:12am:

If you can see the obvious difference, why bring it up?

A cop will not shoot you if you merely have a cricket bat. Compared to an automatic weapon, the urgency to disarm you is not there. If you have an automatic weapon, the cop is pretty much obliged to shoot first in the interests of public safety. And if you do not appear to be committing a crime, there is also far less urgency.

Are you just pretending to not see the difference? How many different ways do we need to explain this to you?

Where do you get this? Cops get Intel before rushing into a situation. No cop is going to rush into a gun fight. Hence this belief that they'll confuse a fake gun with a real gun is ridiculous. Especially when there are no bullets flying but noises being made. Gee that isn't suspicious.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49487
At my desk.

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #108 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:16am

Alevines arguments so far:

* criminals never wear disguises
* crimes are never caught on film
* if you were a gambling man, you'd bet on them surviving
* a cop faced with an automatic weapon will stop and have a look around and realise that crimes are never filmed and criminals never wear disguises
* a kidnapping, bombing or shooting is really no different to a picnic in the park or a game of cricket.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #109 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:16am

cods wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:15am:

[quote author=freediver link=1456491963/104#104 date=1456607539]If you can see the obvious difference, why bring it up?

A cop will not shoot you if you merely have a cricket bat. Compared to an automatic weapon, the urgency to disarm you is not there. If you have an automatic weapon, the cop is pretty much obliged to shoot first in the interests of public safety. And if you do not appear to be committing a crime, there is also far less urgency.

Are you just pretending to not see the difference? How many different ways do we need to explain this to you?[/quote]

hes deflecting... hes losing the plot over the fake terrorism b eing all in the name of ART..

sir is well known for deflecting.. try to keep to the topic...

Actually I'm not. I just feel sorry for free diver that he's been so immersed in Hollywood action films that he's forgotten reality.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #110 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:18am

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:16am:

Alevines arguments so far:

* criminals never wear disguises
* crimes are never caught on film
* if you were a gambling man, you'd bet on them surviving
* a cop faced with an automatic weapon will stop and have a look around and realise that crimes are never filmed and criminals never wear disguises
* a kidnapping, bombing or shooting is really no different to a picnic in the park or a game of cricket.

That's a nice summary, but not quite accurate now is it? Wink

My argument remains consistently as it was before: people exercising their freedom of speech should not be held liable for their actions because of some what if scenarios obtained from either irrational fear or Hollywood plots.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #111 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:20am

cods wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:13am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 5:58am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 5:42am:

Those artists should have tried one of their pranks on a plane;that would have been epic. Nothing like seeing asswipes getting armbarred.

There is an actual law against fake alerts for planes. But only from a logistical perspective. I would suggest again that freedom of speech ought not be limited and thus such actions maybe can have civil action, but never criminal.

I will ask you again.. sir...

what about "FAKE" HOME INVASIONS????>..

all in the name of ART...

we had 3 youngish men play acting at terrorism..and putting it on the web....

where they did in fact horrify everyone...

for a few days it was thought to be a FACT.

these 3 youngish males even lied about it on TV...

when asked if it was a set up......they said NO..

it wasnt until the police were involved they confessed it was all staged....

had the police not arrested them we would still be guessing if it was FACT or FICTION .....

so if we witness what appears to be a HOME INVASION>....should we all turn a blind eye in case its these same youngish men... Roll Eyes

working on ART. Angry

Once again dear, a fake home invasion staged and recorded on video, where participants are aware of everything, would not be deemed illegal or criminal.

You need to understand the issue,cods.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49487
At my desk.

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #112 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:21am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:18am:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:16am:

Alevines arguments so far:

* criminals never wear disguises
* crimes are never caught on film
* if you were a gambling man, you'd bet on them surviving
* a cop faced with an automatic weapon will stop and have a look around and realise that crimes are never filmed and criminals never wear disguises
* a kidnapping, bombing or shooting is really no different to a picnic in the park or a game of cricket.

That's a nice summary, but not quite accurate now is it? Wink

My argument remains consistently as it was before: people exercising their freedom of speech should not be held liable for their actions because of some what if scenarios obtained from either irrational fear or Hollywood plots.

Yes, you do seem to have dropped the more idiotic ones. Good for you.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #113 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:24am

Freedivers argument so far: kids partaking in pranks that use a fake weapon should be charged and imprisoned because the likely outcome is a cop will arrive at the scene, ignore to assess the situation, jump out of the car, do a somersault, start shooting, before realising that while the fake guns were making a noise, somehow he survived the automatic gun fire because there were no bullets.

Yeh, completely rational.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #114 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:24am

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:21am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:18am:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:16am:

Alevines arguments so far:

* criminals never wear disguises
* crimes are never caught on film
* if you were a gambling man, you'd bet on them surviving
* a cop faced with an automatic weapon will stop and have a look around and realise that crimes are never filmed and criminals never wear disguises
* a kidnapping, bombing or shooting is really no different to a picnic in the park or a game of cricket.

That's a nice summary, but not quite accurate now is it? Wink

My argument remains consistently as it was before: people exercising their freedom of speech should not be held liable for their actions because of some what if scenarios obtained from either irrational fear or Hollywood plots.

Yes, you do seem to have dropped the more idiotic ones. Good for you.

The idiotic ones were used to highlight how preposterous your argument was.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 23619 Gender:	Re: more suppression of free speech Reply #115 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:26am Where is the public nuisance? Which public was inconvenienced? Or annoyed? Seems to me the cops overreached. and because they are trying to suppress freedom of speech.
Back to top	Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of. IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #116 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:27am

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:16am:

Alevines arguments so far:

* criminals never wear disguises
* crimes are never caught on film
* if you were a gambling man, you'd bet on them surviving
* a cop faced with an automatic weapon will stop and have a look around and realise that crimes are never filmed and criminals never wear disguises
* a kidnapping, bombing or shooting is really no different to a picnic in the park or a game of cricket.

it makes sense to him!

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49487
At my desk.

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #117 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:29am

cods wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:27am:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:16am:

Alevines arguments so far:

* criminals never wear disguises
* crimes are never caught on film
* if you were a gambling man, you'd bet on them surviving
* a cop faced with an automatic weapon will stop and have a look around and realise that crimes are never filmed and criminals never wear disguises
* a kidnapping, bombing or shooting is really no different to a picnic in the park or a game of cricket.

it makes sense to him!

Alevine do you think suicide by cop is a fundamental human right?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:24am:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:21am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:18am:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:16am:

Alevines arguments so far:

* criminals never wear disguises
* crimes are never caught on film
* if you were a gambling man, you'd bet on them surviving
* a cop faced with an automatic weapon will stop and have a look around and realise that crimes are never filmed and criminals never wear disguises
* a kidnapping, bombing or shooting is really no different to a picnic in the park or a game of cricket.

That's a nice summary, but not quite accurate now is it? Wink

My argument remains consistently as it was before: people exercising their freedom of speech should not be held liable for their actions because of some what if scenarios obtained from either irrational fear or Hollywood plots.

Yes, you do seem to have dropped the more idiotic ones. Good for you.

The idiotic ones were used to highlight how preposterous your argument was.

How did that work out for you Alevine? Did you get your point across?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #118 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:32am

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:29am:

cods wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:27am:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:16am:

Alevines arguments so far:

* criminals never wear disguises
* crimes are never caught on film
* if you were a gambling man, you'd bet on them surviving
* a cop faced with an automatic weapon will stop and have a look around and realise that crimes are never filmed and criminals never wear disguises
* a kidnapping, bombing or shooting is really no different to a picnic in the park or a game of cricket.

it makes sense to him!

Alevine do you think suicide by cop is a fundamental human right?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:24am:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:21am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:18am:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:16am:

Alevines arguments so far:

* criminals never wear disguises
* crimes are never caught on film
* if you were a gambling man, you'd bet on them surviving
* a cop faced with an automatic weapon will stop and have a look around and realise that crimes are never filmed and criminals never wear disguises
* a kidnapping, bombing or shooting is really no different to a picnic in the park or a game of cricket.

That's a nice summary, but not quite accurate now is it? Wink

My argument remains consistently as it was before: people exercising their freedom of speech should not be held liable for their actions because of some what if scenarios obtained from either irrational fear or Hollywood plots.

Yes, you do seem to have dropped the more idiotic ones. Good for you.

The idiotic ones were used to highlight how preposterous your argument was.

How did that work out for you Alevine? Did you get your point across?

It worked out fine I thought. I truly hope you understood the point.

No, I believe killing oneself is a right, but not by means that impact others.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #119 - Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:34am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 7:26am:

Where is the public nuisance? Which public was inconvenienced? Or annoyed? Seems to me the cops overreached. and because they are trying to suppress freedom of speech.

you are so weird...........the cops thought it was REAL.

it wasnt until they were ARRESTED....they confessed it was all set up..

what is it about you? you dont understand that part??????........

they were then charged with PUBLIC NUISANCE

after appearing on TV shows....

Quote:

Once again dear, a fake home invasion staged and recorded on video, where participants are aware of everything, would not be deemed illegal or criminal.

You need to understand the issue,cods.

trouble is dear... you dont know they are FAKE....

what issue is it you have in mind?...

the one where it is all on the web...

and where those involved claim it ISNT FAKE....on TV..

or the one where they are ARRESTED and then confess its all a set up??>.

you started this thread.. AFTER THEY CONFESSED.. Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged