Australian Politics Forum - more suppression of free speech

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #240 - Mar 1^st, 2016 at 10:33pm

freediver wrote on Mar 1^st, 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?

I see you enjoy collecting things

It's cute.

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: 49483 At my desk.	Re: more suppression of free speech Reply #241 - Mar 2^nd, 2016 at 9:54pm Now you have conceded that you lied about the streets being empty, would you like to withdraw your argument about the fake beards? Or do you still think a cop should conclude that if the perps in an apparent crime are wearing a disguise, they mustn't be real criminals?
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 #242 - Mar 3^rd, 2016 at 6:30am

freediver wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2016 at 9:54pm:

Now you have conceded that you lied about the streets being empty, would you like to withdraw your argument about the fake beards? Or do you still think a cop should conclude that if the perps in an apparent crime are wearing a disguise, they mustn't be real criminals?

I'm arguing the whole picture, unlike you who is misleading by looking at every element as a separate thing. It's quite a dreadfully boring tactic that doesn't get you anywhere

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 #243 - Mar 3^rd, 2016 at 7:58am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 1^st, 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.

guess why we have LAWS.. sir??... any ideas???

wouldnt be because of the behavior of humans would it?....

just because you dont understand about certain laws...

doesnt make it against HUMAN RIGHTS.

if someone chose to practice their trombone outside your bedroom window everynight about 2am...I am almost sure you would like to be able to complain about them.... Roll Eyes

then again.. you wouldn t want to suppress someones artist streak would you?..

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 #244 - Mar 3^rd, 2016 at 8:02am

cods wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2016 at 7:58am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 1^st, 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.

guess why we have LAWS.. sir??... any ideas???

wouldnt be because of the behavior of humans would it?....

just because you dont understand about certain laws...

doesnt make it against HUMAN RIGHTS.

if someone chose to practice their trombone outside your bedroom window everynight about 2am...I am almost sure you would like to be able to complain about them.... Roll Eyes

then again.. you wouldn t want to suppress someones artist streak would you?..

I have trust in human beings not playing the trumbone at 2am.

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

... Gold Member Offline Posts: 23673 WA Gender:	Re: more suppression of free speech Reply #245 - Mar 3^rd, 2016 at 8:50am "public nuisance" laws are probably more for the protection of nitwits like this than the general public. If the law isn't going to reign in people acting like dickheads, citizens will, and they're not always going to be so measured about it.
Back to top	In the fullness of time... IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49483
At my desk.

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #246 - Mar 3^rd, 2016 at 6:56pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2016 at 6:30am:

freediver wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2016 at 9:54pm:

Now you have conceded that you lied about the streets being empty, would you like to withdraw your argument about the fake beards? Or do you still think a cop should conclude that if the perps in an apparent crime are wearing a disguise, they mustn't be real criminals?

I'm arguing the whole picture, unlike you who is misleading by looking at every element as a separate thing. It's quite a dreadfully boring tactic that doesn't get you anywhere

Your 'big picture' is nothing more than a series of petty lies.

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.

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #247 - Mar 3^rd, 2016 at 8:33pm

... wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2016 at 8:50am:

"public nuisance" laws are probably more for the protection of nitwits like this than the general public.

If the law isn't going to reign in people acting like dickheads, citizens will, and they're not always going to be so measured about it.

Yeah and that would be governed by criminal laws such as assault, so I'd still prefer 'citizens' govern as opposed to the government, in this particular case.

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 #248 - Mar 3^rd, 2016 at 8:35pm

freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2016 at 6:56pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2016 at 6:30am:

freediver wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2016 at 9:54pm:

Now you have conceded that you lied about the streets being empty, would you like to withdraw your argument about the fake beards? Or do you still think a cop should conclude that if the perps in an apparent crime are wearing a disguise, they mustn't be real criminals?

I'm arguing the whole picture, unlike you who is misleading by looking at every element as a separate thing. It's quite a dreadfully boring tactic that doesn't get you anywhere

Your 'big picture' is nothing more than a series of petty lies.

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?

Not at all. I'm saying when you look at the big picture of how this was done, it's almost ridiculous to suggest police will storm in and just start shooting point blank, without first stopping to assess the situation.

But continue your misrepresentations. It's fun.

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: 49483
At my desk.

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #249 - Mar 3^rd, 2016 at 8:36pm

When you look at the big picture, are the streets empty?

When you look at the big picture, do cops ignore crimes in progress if the perps are wearing a disguise?

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.

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #250 - Mar 3^rd, 2016 at 8:49pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2016 at 8:33pm:

... wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2016 at 8:50am:

"public nuisance" laws are probably more for the protection of nitwits like this than the general public.

If the law isn't going to reign in people acting like dickheads, citizens will, and they're not always going to be so measured about it.

Yeah and that would be governed by criminal laws such as assault, so I'd still prefer 'citizens' govern as opposed to the government, in this particular case.

So people get charged with assault because they are provoked by twits, who get off scot-free? Nah.

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: more suppression of free speech
Reply #251 - Mar 3^rd, 2016 at 9:41pm

... wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2016 at 8:49pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2016 at 8:33pm:

... wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2016 at 8:50am:

"public nuisance" laws are probably more for the protection of nitwits like this than the general public.

If the law isn't going to reign in people acting like dickheads, citizens will, and they're not always going to be so measured about it.

Yeah and that would be governed by criminal laws such as assault, so I'd still prefer 'citizens' govern as opposed to the government, in this particular case.

So people get charged with assault because they are provoked by twits, who get off scot-free? Nah.

If you can't manage your emotions then that's your problem.

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 #252 - Mar 3^rd, 2016 at 9:42pm

freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2016 at 8:36pm:

When you look at the big picture, are the streets empty?

When you look at the big picture, do cops ignore crimes in progress if the perps are wearing a disguise?

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?

When you combine all the factors, the cops don't go 'SHOOT NOW SHOOT SHOOT SHOOT SHOOT ASK QUESTIONS LATER SHOOT NOW'. No, they get intel on the situation, assess what is happening.

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

ian Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 9451	Re: more suppression of free speech Reply #253 - Mar 3^rd, 2016 at 9:47pm sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2016 at 9:42pm: [ When you combine all the factors, the cops don't go 'SHOOT NOW SHOOT SHOOT SHOOT SHOOT ASK QUESTIONS LATER SHOOT NOW'. No, they get intel on the situation, assess what is happening. and you know this how?
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 #254 - Mar 3^rd, 2016 at 10:14pm

ian wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2016 at 9:47pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2016 at 9:42pm:

[

When you combine all the factors, the cops don't go 'SHOOT NOW SHOOT SHOOT SHOOT SHOOT ASK QUESTIONS LATER SHOOT NOW'. No, they get intel on the situation, assess what is happening.

and you know this how?

Because we don't live in a dc comic. Well, not all of us.

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