Home Articles Forum Wiki Poll Garden Contact

 
 
 
  
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
 
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

  Australian Politics Forum › General Discussion › General Board › more suppression of free speech
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 19
Send Topic Print
more suppression of free speech (Read 12301 times)
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #225 - Mar 1st, 2016 at 5:39pm  
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
ian
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 9451
Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #226 - Mar 1st, 2016 at 6:20pm  
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 12:54am:
ian wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 12:29am:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 29th, 2016 at 10:49pm:
ian wrote on Feb 29th, 2016 at 9:14pm:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 29th, 2016 at 7:42pm:
[
Have I ever been in a gun fight? No. Do I base my thinking on movies, like you? No. I don't believe I can go in against armed assailants with my bare hands and kill everyone. You seem to think you're some kind of batman. A drunk batman.

Lol, I never said i would go in against armed assailants with bare hand and kill everyone. I do have reflexes built on personal experience though, so do others. Your emotions are ruling you. Relax, take a chill pill, take time to read what people post instead of getting emotional, just because you havent personally experienced something doesnt mean others havent. Thats the basis of learning, from others.

So how would you go ahead and take out armed assailants shooting at you on the street, Ian? Prey tell us, drunk batman.
the basis of your arguement is that these people were immediately recognisable as nothing more than pranksters. Are you changing that?

that's not the basis of my argument.   The basis of my argument is that people have a right to express their freedom of speech without the threat of persecution from an overzealous police force. In this case, there is no danger to the public and there are reasonable steps taken by the kids to specifically ensure their artistic expression does not cause public havoc during the filming.
The only way there would be no danger involved is if the public knew it was fake. Get it?

Quote:
Now, I'm more interested in how you are designed to kill people with your bare hands and run into a dangerous situation without any arms what so ever, drunk batman?
Again I stated no such thing. Calm down, stop the wrist flapping and read what i actually posted.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
ian
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 9451
Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #227 - Mar 1st, 2016 at 6:23pm  
Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 12:37am:
ian wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 12:29am:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 29th, 2016 at 10:49pm:
ian wrote on Feb 29th, 2016 at 9:14pm:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 29th, 2016 at 7:42pm:
[
Have I ever been in a gun fight? No. Do I base my thinking on movies, like you? No. I don't believe I can go in against armed assailants with my bare hands and kill everyone. You seem to think you're some kind of batman. A drunk batman.

Lol, I never said i would go in against armed assailants with bare hand and kill everyone. I do have reflexes built on personal experience though, so do others. Your emotions are ruling you. Relax, take a chill pill, take time to read what people post instead of getting emotional, just because you havent personally experienced something doesnt mean others havent. Thats the basis of learning, from others.

So how would you go ahead and take out armed assailants shooting at you on the street, Ian? Prey tell us, drunk batman.
the basis of your arguement is that these people were immediately recognisable as nothing more than pranksters. Are you changing that?



Difference between one small iota of real life and just thinking about it, ian.

These declaimers will never be called upon to control a threat.  TV and video games kids.....
Yeah, you are right, i dont even know why i am engaging. i wish i was 18 years old again so i could know everything without the benefit of any life experience.
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 #228 - Mar 1st, 2016 at 7:26pm  
ian wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 6:20pm:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 12:54am:
ian wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 12:29am:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 29th, 2016 at 10:49pm:
ian wrote on Feb 29th, 2016 at 9:14pm:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 29th, 2016 at 7:42pm:
[
Have I ever been in a gun fight? No. Do I base my thinking on movies, like you? No. I don't believe I can go in against armed assailants with my bare hands and kill everyone. You seem to think you're some kind of batman. A drunk batman.

Lol, I never said i would go in against armed assailants with bare hand and kill everyone. I do have reflexes built on personal experience though, so do others. Your emotions are ruling you. Relax, take a chill pill, take time to read what people post instead of getting emotional, just because you havent personally experienced something doesnt mean others havent. Thats the basis of learning, from others.

So how would you go ahead and take out armed assailants shooting at you on the street, Ian? Prey tell us, drunk batman.
the basis of your arguement is that these people were immediately recognisable as nothing more than pranksters. Are you changing that?

that's not the basis of my argument.   The basis of my argument is that people have a right to express their freedom of speech without the threat of persecution from an overzealous police force. In this case, there is no danger to the public and there are reasonable steps taken by the kids to specifically ensure their artistic expression does not cause public havoc during the filming.
The only way there would be no danger involved is if the public knew it was fake. Get it?

Quote:
Now, I'm more interested in how you are designed to kill people with your bare hands and run into a dangerous situation without any arms what so ever, drunk batman?
Again I stated no such thing. Calm down, stop the wrist flapping and read what i actually posted.

What gives you the impression that I'm not calm? You said you would run in and start killing everyone, and because you 'reasonably' believed there was danger this would be justified and you wouldn't go to jail. First I laughed at your stupidity because you don't understand what manslaughter is. And then I asked how it was possible that you can kill everyone when you have no weapons, and thus must do so with your bare hands? Unless of course you're concealing a weapon, in which case it is a danger in itself and would definitely result in your conviction. 

Either way, your little grandstanding, pretending to be Van Damme and Stallone combined, was pure nonsense. As has frequently become the case with you.

With regard to their being danger, once again, there is danger in many things. What we need to ascertain is the level of danger, and whether it justifies banning of free speech. For me it's simple, I say unintended circumstances can occur in many things and I am sick of government bodies trying to argue 'sensible society' while systematically eroding freedoms.
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 #229 - Mar 1st, 2016 at 7:28pm  
ian wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 6:23pm:
Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 12:37am:
ian wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 12:29am:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 29th, 2016 at 10:49pm:
ian wrote on Feb 29th, 2016 at 9:14pm:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 29th, 2016 at 7:42pm:
[
Have I ever been in a gun fight? No. Do I base my thinking on movies, like you? No. I don't believe I can go in against armed assailants with my bare hands and kill everyone. You seem to think you're some kind of batman. A drunk batman.

Lol, I never said i would go in against armed assailants with bare hand and kill everyone. I do have reflexes built on personal experience though, so do others. Your emotions are ruling you. Relax, take a chill pill, take time to read what people post instead of getting emotional, just because you havent personally experienced something doesnt mean others havent. Thats the basis of learning, from others.

So how would you go ahead and take out armed assailants shooting at you on the street, Ian? Prey tell us, drunk batman.
the basis of your arguement is that these people were immediately recognisable as nothing more than pranksters. Are you changing that?



Difference between one small iota of real life and just thinking about it, ian.

These declaimers will never be called upon to control a threat.  TV and video games kids.....
Yeah, you are right, i dont even know why i am engaging. i wish i was 18 years old again so i could know everything without the benefit of any life experience.


Did you finally turn 19?
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
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49486
At my desk.
Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #230 - Mar 1st, 2016 at 8:50pm  
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 29th, 2016 at 10:58pm:
freediver wrote on Feb 29th, 2016 at 8:48pm:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 29th, 2016 at 7:41pm:
freediver wrote on Feb 29th, 2016 at 7:32pm:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 29th, 2016 at 7:16pm:
freediver wrote on Feb 29th, 2016 at 1:11pm:
Are you denying that you claimed the streets were empty?

Alevines arguments so far:

* the streets were empty (except for all those people caught on film in the background)
* the people caught on film in the background couldn't possibly have noticed what was going on, but if they did, they would have known it was staged
* 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.
* doing "nothing at all" to prevent the situation escalating counts as a "good effort"
* cops never shoot people accidentally
* it is OK to get shot if it is the cop's fault and their gun gets taken away
* suicide by cop is a fundamental human right, so long as it results from stupidity and crazy ideas about freedom, rather than intent
* what are the Darwin awards?

I'm just glad that you finally gave up your ludicrous suggestion that cops would come guns blazing around the corner and fail to ascertain the situation first before blowing everyone's heads off. A shame though that you've taken to misrepresenting my views and things I said, clearly because you don't really have an argument left to hide the real reason why you would want to see these kids charged (hint: allah akbar)


Are you denying that you claimed the streets were empty?

If you bothered to read what I said, rather than try to misrepresent it, I clearly said that the streets were quiet.


I did ask if you needed me to get out the highlighter again. You should have said. Here is a previous example of you getting confused, despite the highlighting:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 8:11am:
freediver wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 8:06am:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 8:01am:
freediver wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:58am:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 7:37am:
So why proceed with a charge when they showed it was all staged?

The issue is that this isn't about trying to cause public harm. All the kids did was stage a prank. With actors. In empty streets.

But because it's about terrorism, our tax payer money was used to charge these kids.  For what?  Absolutely nothing.


Still pushing this excuse that they made an effort are you?

This is the first video on their facebook page:



In the very first scene, you see two cars drive by in the background.

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.
* Doing "nothing at all" to prevent the situation escalating counts as a "good effort".


I bet if you interviewed the two car drivers they wouldn't have even realised they were in the area at the time.

Keep going, it's fun watching you try and rationalise such a waste of tax payer money.  Good to see the police are protecting the community by locking up pranksters.  Great job.


So you were lying about the streets being empty, and about them making an effort to stop people stumbling across their pranks, but that is OK because the two or more people captured in the very first scene probably didn't realise?

Out of the many arguments you have tried to make to defend these idiots, is there a single one that hasn't turned out to be BS?


Not at all, I said quite clearly that there was a passerby in their video. But it's their best effort attempts that matter here.


Grin ok ok freediver, in the interest of keeping this discussion away from nit picking, I apologise immensely for saying the streets were empty as opposed to practically empty, because 2 cars in the distance drive by completely unaware and not involved in the prank at all.



That was just the very first video I looked at. Have you found any evidence at all that they made an effort to prevent people stumbling across their set?

How would you interpret the lack of people in the videos walking up to them during filming and telling them they are a bunch of retards who will get themselves shot? Sheer luck, or good video editing skills?
Back to top
 
People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
sir prince duke alevine
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male
Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #231 - Mar 1st, 2016 at 8:55pm  
freediver wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 8:50pm:
That was just the very first video I looked at. Have you found any evidence at all that they made an effort to prevent people stumbling across their set?

How would you interpret the lack of people in the videos walking up to them during filming and telling them they are a bunch of retards who will get themselves shot? Sheer luck, or good video editing skills?

The lack of evidence isn't evidence, freediver. 

It is clear that the kids were filming for artistic expression, with the prank being a subject of their art as opposed to filming an actual prank. The very fact they took measures to ensure it was staged, the very fact that their films appear to be during quiet times at the very least, shows that effort was put towards not actually interacting with the general public.
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
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49486
At my desk.
Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #232 - Mar 1st, 2016 at 9:02pm  
Quote:
The very fact they took measures to ensure it was staged


Are you deliberately avoiding making sense? What are these measures?

So far every example you have given turned out to be a lie.

Quote:
the very fact that their films appear to be during quiet times at the very least, shows that effort was put towards not actually interacting with the general public


How is this any different to the effort any such filmmaker would go to to get a good clean cut? Are you saying the entirety of their effort amounts to choosing a convenient time and place for filming?
Back to top
 
People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
sir prince duke alevine
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male
Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #233 - Mar 1st, 2016 at 9:06pm  
freediver wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 9:02pm:
Quote:
The very fact they took measures to ensure it was staged


Are you deliberately avoiding making sense? What are these measures?

So far every example you have given turned out to be a lie.

Quote:
the very fact that their films appear to be during quiet times at the very least, shows that effort was put towards not actually interacting with the general public


How is this any different to the effort any such filmmaker would go to to get a good clean cut? Are you saying the entirety of their effort amounts to choosing a convenient time and place for filming?


I don't really understand why you're creating a circular argument around this.  What example has been a lie? Do you deny their pranks were all staged? Do you deny that their pranks were done in quiet times and there are hardly people present? I mean, if they decided to do the prank on a busy shopping strip, or in a shopping centre, or just a street with busy foot traffic - well maybe you'd have a leg to stand on, when it comes to the idea that it somehow created a public nuisance.

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 #234 - Mar 1st, 2016 at 9:12pm  
On another note, why do we even have 'public nuisance' laws. How medieval is that? Surely we can live amongst each other as responsible human beings without such a thing as 'public nuisance' being a CRIMINAL act.  My bet would be this was introduced to stop protests, as another sign of government wanting to suppress human rights.
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
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49486
At my desk.
Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #235 - Mar 1st, 2016 at 9:21pm  
Quote:
I don't really understand why you're creating a circular argument around this.  What example has been a lie?


For starters, when you said the streets were empty. The rest are either outright lies, or BS spin:

* the streets were empty (except for all those people caught on film in the background)
* the people caught on film in the background couldn't possibly have noticed what was going on, but if they did, they would have known it was staged
* OK, the streets weren't empty, but they chose a time that was convenient for them. Does that count?
* 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.
* doing "nothing at all" to prevent the situation escalating counts as a "good effort"
* cops never shoot people accidentally
* it is OK to get shot if it is the cop's fault and their gun gets taken away
* suicide by cop is a fundamental human right, so long as it results from stupidity and crazy ideas about freedom, rather than intent
* what are the Darwin awards?

Quote:
Do you deny their pranks were all staged? Do you deny that their pranks were done in quiet times and there are hardly people present? I mean, if they decided to do the prank on a busy shopping strip, or in a shopping centre, or just a street with busy foot traffic - well maybe you'd have a leg to stand on, when it comes to the idea that it somehow created a public nuisance.


I am not criticising them for getting in the way of a busy area. You are the one claiming they made a good effort to prevent the situation escalating, not me.
Back to top
 
People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
sir prince duke alevine
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male
Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #236 - Mar 1st, 2016 at 9:22pm  
freediver wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 9:21pm:
Quote:
I don't really understand why you're creating a circular argument around this.  What example has been a lie?


For starters, when you said the streets were empty. The rest are either outright lies, or BS spin:

* the streets were empty (except for all those people caught on film in the background)
* the people caught on film in the background couldn't possibly have noticed what was going on, but if they did, they would have known it was staged
* OK, the streets weren't empty, but they chose a time that was convenient for them. Does that count?
* 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.
* doing "nothing at all" to prevent the situation escalating counts as a "good effort"
* cops never shoot people accidentally
* it is OK to get shot if it is the cop's fault and their gun gets taken away
* suicide by cop is a fundamental human right, so long as it results from stupidity and crazy ideas about freedom, rather than intent
* what are the Darwin awards?

Quote:
Do you deny their pranks were all staged? Do you deny that their pranks were done in quiet times and there are hardly people present? I mean, if they decided to do the prank on a busy shopping strip, or in a shopping centre, or just a street with busy foot traffic - well maybe you'd have a leg to stand on, when it comes to the idea that it somehow created a public nuisance.


I am not criticising them for getting in the way of a busy area. You are the one claiming they made a good effort to prevent the situation escalating, not me.


of course they did.
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
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49486
At my desk.
Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #237 - Mar 1st, 2016 at 9:46pm  
Alevine's arguments so far

* of course they did
* doing "nothing at all" to prevent the situation escalating counts as a "good effort"
* the streets were empty (except for all those people caught on film in the background)
* the people caught on film in the background couldn't possibly have noticed what was going on, but if they did, they would have known it was staged
* OK, the streets weren't empty, but they chose a time that was convenient for them. Does that count?
* 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.
* cops never shoot people accidentally
* it is OK to get shot if it is the cop's fault and their gun gets taken away
* suicide by cop is a fundamental human right, so long as it results from stupidity and crazy ideas about freedom, rather than intent
* what are the Darwin awards?
Back to top
 
People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
sir prince duke alevine
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male
Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #238 - Mar 1st, 2016 at 9:50pm  
freediver wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 9:46pm:
Alevine's arguments so far

* of course they did
* doing "nothing at all" to prevent the situation escalating counts as a "good effort"
* the streets were empty (except for all those people caught on film in the background)
* the people caught on film in the background couldn't possibly have noticed what was going on, but if they did, they would have known it was staged
* OK, the streets weren't empty, but they chose a time that was convenient for them. Does that count?
* 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.
* cops never shoot people accidentally
* it is OK to get shot if it is the cop's fault and their gun gets taken away
* suicide by cop is a fundamental human right, so long as it results from stupidity and crazy ideas about freedom, rather than intent
* what are the Darwin awards?

I see you've gone back to misrepresenting my views and taking comments out of context.  No problems. I'll take that as a sign that you agree with me, but just need to increase your comment count.
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
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49486
At my desk.
Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #239 - Mar 1st, 2016 at 10:01pm  
Alevine's arguments so far

* of course they did
* you agree with me
* doing "nothing at all" to prevent the situation escalating counts as a "good effort"
* the streets were empty (except for all those people caught on film in the background)
* the people caught on film in the background couldn't possibly have noticed what was going on, but if they did, they would have known it was staged
* OK, the streets weren't empty, but they chose a time that was convenient for them. Does that count?
* 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.
* cops never shoot people accidentally
* it is OK to get shot if it is the cop's fault and their gun gets taken away
* suicide by cop is a fundamental human right, so long as it results from stupidity and crazy ideas about freedom, rather than intent
* what are the Darwin awards?
Back to top
 
People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 19
Send Topic Print
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
 
 

  « Forum ‹ Board Top of this page

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2025. All Rights Reserved.

Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge