freediver wrote on Jul 30
th, 2020 at 8:25pm:
It was also within the Victorian government's power to prevent the protest from happening. The whole "begging them not to" bit was their way of signalling that they did not intend to exercise that authority.
The whole "begging them not to" bit is first and foremost an emphatic demonstration of them not condoning the protest. But do continue shifting the goalposts.
freediver wrote on Jul 30
th, 2020 at 8:25pm:
Why do you think that judge in Sydney upheld the ban on the more recent protest if the Victorian government was being honest in it's claim that the previous protest did not spread the virus?
Logical fallacy. Public gatherings at this time of any sort are a bad idea full stop - regardless of whether or not a previous gathering did in fact cause a fresh outbreak. This is a no-brainer for the Sydney judge - irrespective of what the Melbourne protest did or didn't cause.
freediver wrote on Jul 30
th, 2020 at 8:25pm:
If the Victorian government was not lying through it's teeth, it would be proof that the protests are not an unreasonable risk to take.
Rubbish. Any public gatherings are an unreasonable risk to take - and citing just one particular gathering that seems to have fluked it and dodged a bullet, does not magically make them not unreasonable. You may as well say not wearing seatbelts in a reasonable risk to take - because I can show you one example where someone drove without one, and no one got hurt. Actually I could show you a thousand.