Jump to content
Amentep

Political Point and Counterpoint

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

 

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11944891

 

so folks facing a limited area plague, worthy o' special media coverage in 2017, is culling unconfirmed 200 rabbits a week as 'posed to 200 a night zor mentioned earlier in the thread, and again, they aren't gigantic bunnies which is gonna shrug off a bullet wound.

This is New Zealand, our usual news cycle is 'cat rescued from tree' level. But in any case, from the article you're citing:

 

In the middle of one day, he stood in the same spot on a Moeraki farm for two and a-half hours and shot 46 rabbits, he said.

"There's more rabbits in town than on the outskirts. The last thing I want to do is lose my firearms licence, but I reckon I could take out 1000 around town in a couple of weeks."

 

Why do you even bother posting articles when you never bother to read them.

 

FYI, Moeraki is miniscule- population of, 60.

 

*chuckle*

 

population 60 or 6 million makes no difference.  an individual farmer is claiming to need shoot 200 in a week.  what kinda firearm does the individual farmer need? lever action or bolt action rifle is more than sufficient for 200 per week. not needing for self-defense, yes? charging wall o' rabid bunnies overwhelming farmers during reload? poor reading comprehension again for zor. 

 

is pointless to observe how many rabbits a guy could kill in two weeks if we are referencing what farmers need to do to protect themselves from dangerous lepus.  however, taking guesstimates from the guy as fact (HA!) the one guy slaughtering bunnies in town over a two week span is equivalent o' doing same job as less than 3 farmers in the same area. one farmer is needing kill 400 in 2 weeks in same locale, yes?  and seeing as how the guy claims there is more bunnies in town than in outlying areas, you got a disconnect 'tween townie and farmers, no?

 

getting ridiculous.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps am less aggravated than gd concerning ignorant politicians.  regardless o' ignorance, politicians is responsive to their constituents, and the constituents is the frothing, sweaty-toothed mob. blame on the politicians is ok, but we cannot genuine expect our elected officials to be so much better than those voting. the thing is, the US system, for all its flaws, is a limit on politicians being over responsive to the mob. stoopid politicians try to ban scary firearms 'cause their constituents is afraid o' scary firearms. in spite o' drive to placate constituents, is so difficult to get any law passed.  requires committees and multiple levels o' approval as well as two separate legislative bodies willing to approve same law.  much o' the ignorance o' individuals, and a whole lotta the emotion gets wrung out o' the laundry as it goes through the legislative process.

 

 

is worth again to listen.

 

mccain were indeed in favor o' repeal and replace, but the President and many republicans were attempting to ignore the process.  

Edited by Gromnir

"Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."--Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

 

getting ridiculous.

 

 

What, a California lawyer lecturing a rural New Zealander on the situation in rural New Zealand based on experience in the fricking Dakotas 6500 miles away? That's a bit beyond getting ridiculous.

 

You know the reason why there are fewer rabbits in the surrounding areas? You can shoot them. You can't shoot them in town since, as he intimated, you'd get a quick and not so friendly visit from the local bobby and a bunch of large, bodyarmoured blokes with MP5s and no sense of humour. So, in areas where you can't shoot them he could get ~500 a week, from a ~4ha area (and that's being very generous for Moeraki). The average NZ farm is ~200 ha. No shooting like in town and you'd be able to shoot... 25,000 rabbits per week. Fortunately, if you're controlling constantly you don't need to shoot those numbers, as... they can't breed if they're dead.

 

Your logic is antivaxer "vaccines aren't necessary because no one gets measles" level. Sure, no one gets measles, when they're vaccinated.

Edited by Zoraptor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

getting ridiculous.

 

 

What, a California lawyer lecturing a rural New Zealander on the situation in rural New Zealand based on experience in the fricking Dakotas 6500 miles away? 

 

 

 

you clear don't understand logic if these are your criticisms.  more ridiculous.  even you will no doubt be able to identify logic flaws from the 'bove bit w/o any need for us to identify.  logic is not always best approach, but if you are gonna complain, should probable follow basics.  

and your antivaxxer bit as logic?  

 

*chuckle*

 

regardless, current sooper terrible bad scenario taking eyewitness numbers at face value has farmers needing shoot 200 per week.  wanna imagine bigger numbers for town?  HA be our guest. 200 bunnies per farmer.  not 200 aurumvorax, or whatever other zor wants to imagine 'em into.  farmers is not in danger o' being attacked by bunnies during reloads, which isn't the issue he imagines anyways.  lever and bolt is gonna be more than adequate. 

 

unless each bunny is a horror film threat

 

 

HA! Good Fun!


"Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."--Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know the old saying Gromnir. We get the government we deserve. And we get it good and hard! 

 

:lol:


"I care nothing for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it"

Abraham Lincoln

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the interest of keeping funny political out of funny things:

 

55481548_10156311709422894_5877806162123

 

52661126_2418094835143649_20936267166132

 

54520947_2142520999124377_31161840151874


"I care nothing for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it"

Abraham Lincoln

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never actually seen Night of the Lepus but I've been to Colossal Cave about fifty-eleven times and they love to mention all the movies that have filmed there.


Free games updated 3/6/19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know the old saying Gromnir. We get the government we deserve. And we get it good and hard! 

 

:lol:

 

yeah.  is nice to be able to point at a bad politician and blame 'em for bad laws and bad government, but am needing shoulder the blame for letting such happen, particular given how low voter turnout is in ordinary elections.

 

'course, am thinking we gotta take another look at campaign finance laws.  public service shouldn't be a get rich quick scheme. politicians is more concerned with getting reelected than they is concerned for public good, so they do what is required to keep gorging at the government trough.  sure, such selfish impulses do make 'em accountable, but am thinking it doesn't result in particular enlightened policy making.  

 

colossal cave is somewhere near mexico border, yes?  am doing the sedona thing later this year (yeah, am knowing it is touristy,) but is maybe too far away to make a side trip so far south.  however, will now need consider it.

 

HA! Good Fun!

  • Like 1

"Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."--Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it's south of Tucson and maybe a 4 hour drive from Sedona depending on traffic as you'll have to pass through or around the largest two cities in AZ. Slightly closer to Sedona I'd recommend the Petrified Forest National Park (and Painted Desert) and is about 2 hours east and Meteor Crater is on the way. Montezuma Castle National Monument is less than an hour south of Sedona and I can recommend that as well but I haven't been there in probably 2 decades.

 

If you ever do make it down to the Tucson area then I can recommend more as that's where I'm from


Free games updated 3/6/19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never actually seen Night of the Lepus but I've been to Colossal Cave about fifty-eleven times and they love to mention all the movies that have filmed there.

 

 

:D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."--Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

ISIS is defeated, and for real this time. Still a few holdouts around Baghuz- and technically, they do hold one small defunct gas field in the Syrian desert which nobody can be bothered driving a few hundred kms to take it off them- but in terms of held population centres it's all over.

 

 


 

you clear don't understand logic if these are your criticisms. 

 

I understand logic fine, and that's what I applied. You're just repeatedly ignorant of the situation, and as usual back up your lack of basic expertise with a series of citations that don't say what you think they do due to that ignorance. You need s/a rifles for pest control because you can shoot 46 rabbits in 2 hours with them, in daylight, in one field and can shoot dozens of feral goats/ thar/ deer/ pigs with them from helicopters- and that's what users, our PM, Police Minister, Police Commissioner and experts all say; and they trump your anecdotal expertise in the field since that field was in Dakota 6500 miles away. And no, logically speaking, that need is not disproved by any one farmer not having to shoot that many because said farmer uses continuous control (which includes... s/a rifles) and is also... one farmer.

 

What you're doing is the equivalent of using someone who has been immunised to prove vaccines aren't needed, what I'm doing is pointing out is that the place with no immunisation in the very same article has measles. As for the state of your logic: "population 60 or 6 million makes no difference". LOL. Please, feel free to apply as a consultant on pest control here. I have a feeling the laugh would be appreciated at the moment.

 

 

 

oh nz, what will you crazy kids do next?

 

Is incitement to murder minorities legal in the US then? Seems unlikely, but then I'm 5000 miles away so I'm not going to venture a definitive opinion.

 

Personally I'd make it compulsory reading since I tend to think showing idiots to be idiots via their writing is a great idea.

Edited by Zoraptor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

 

You need s/a rifles for pest control because you can shoot 46 rabbits in 2 hours with them, in daylight, in one field and can shoot dozens of feral goats/ thar/ deer/ pigs with them from helicopters- and that's what users, our PM, Police Minister, Police Commissioner and experts all say;

 

 

that's your logic?

 

https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Irving-M-Copi/dp/1292024828

 

am recommending.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps 'cause am knowing you will continue being stuck going in circles, nothing in your claims precludes the possibility o' being able to kill 46 bunnies, or more, in two hours, night or day, with weapons other than semi-auto, save for blatant and transparent argumentum ad verecundiam.

 

pps, you would also be wrong 'bout US incitement.  no surprise you is wrong again, eh?  

 

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/

 

silly manifesto's, as incitement to murder, is perfect legal unless they fail a two-part test:

 

1)speech may be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action"

 

and

 

(2) is "likely to incite or produce such action." 

 

no manifesto ever fails.  the test has been an auto-fail for the government.  only likely scenario where it works is the sorta political or religious speeches where a person directs a mob to attack a person in the immediate vicinity o' the speaker. immediate temporal and proximate.

 

serious 'bout imminent.  can't be hours or weeks after reading a manifesto and a person responds with violence.  gotta have a situation where "speech" is likely gonna evoke an immediate and violent response to be Unconstitutional.

 

but yes, no doubt being so removed from nz, the human nature questions is o' such a different character that different standards is required. is the geographical remoteness which is at the core o' dissimilar conclusions.  as such, we should focus 'pon distance when coming up with free speech standards and judging the bulleproofness o' bunnies.

 

and you know, as much fun as this hasn't been with zor making guesses 'bout bear hunting and bunny  extermination with semi-autos it has gone a bit past sad.  regardless, you should pick up that copy o' copi. as we said earlier, logic isn't always your best approach, but if you is gonna complain 'bout logic, you should at least know basic fallacies n' such. enjoy bunnies and bears solo from this point.

Edited by Gromnir

"Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."--Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Your examples are two anecdotes, one out of context and one personal from 6500 miles away. My examples are the people who live here and have expertise, and include people who would love to ban s/a wholesale if it were possible. Your local example is from someone who regularly controls rabbits and is the equivalent of saying that because someone is who is vaccinated hasn't caught measles vaccines aren't necessary. Ignorance and hubris are your friends, not logic.

 

As for the relevant applicability of the manifesto in the US, what's the US position on manifestos produced by foreigners who murdered 50 people in a terrorist act on their soil? Because that's the equivalent metric, not general free speech.

 

[the manifesto also would definitively fulfill the first part of that test anyway, the only question would be about the 2nd. It was certainly the view of the NZ Police and government that it would incite immediate copy cat acts and potentially revenge acts too, albeit the Police and government aren't exactly unbiased. My personal view is that for 99.95% of the population it would inspire derision rather than action, but then I don't need to worry about that .05% while the government and police do]

Edited by Zoraptor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your examples are two anecdotes, one out of context and one personal from 6500 miles away. My examples are the people who live here and have expertise, and include people who would love to ban s/a wholesale if it were possible. Your local example is from someone who regularly controls rabbits and is the equivalent of saying that because someone is who is vaccinated hasn't caught measles vaccines aren't necessary. Ignorance and hubris are your friends, not logic.

 

As for the relevant applicability of the manifesto in the US, what's the US position on manifestos produced by foreigners who murdered 50 people in a terrorist act on their soil? Because that's the equivalent metric, not general free speech.

 

you really don't know anything 'bout logic, do you?  your appeal to authority is better than Gromnir's?  HA! is not how logic works.

 

and the legal standard is as we already stated.  bad reading comprehension again for zor.

 

 

repost:

 

silly manifesto's, as incitement to murder, is perfect legal unless they fail a two-part test:

 

1)speech may be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action"

 

and

 

(2) is "likely to incite or produce such action." 

 

doesn't matter where or who penned and even the opinions presented or the evils suggested is irrelevant in the present context.  the manifesto counts as speech for purposes o' the first amendment.  is not amongst the extreme limited categories o' unprotected speech (e.g. kiddie pr0n.) therefore, the manifesto, to be subject to governmental censorship as incitement, would need fail the aforementioned test.  is it likely ordinary readers o' the manifesto immediate 'pon reading will commit violence as directed in the manifesto?

 

well, that was good for one last chuckle. avoided bunnies and bears, but honest had no idea you were complete oblivious to fundamentals o' logic. thanks. 

 

HA! Good Fun!


"Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."--Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the upcoming change of the copyright in the EU:

Fellow EU citizens, I'm sorry for being German. But I can assure you, I have never voted for the CDU, and I despise Axel Voss and his ignorance with a passion. Nobody here wanted this new law, and even the smaller artists aka creators are demonstrating against it.

Unfortunately, Axel Voss, the guy behind this new law, is Donald Trumps soulmate. He said that our democracy is in danger, because apparently American companies are spreading misinformation on the new laws, and have bought thousands of demonstrators. That's not true. And if he knew anything about the internet, he'd understand why §13 won't work without forcing youtube to use upload filters, that will endanger the freedom of speech.

 

(A law that I'd really welcome would be a regular mental health check for all active politicians, but I'm afraid that'll never happen)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(A law that I'd really welcome would be a regular mental health check for all active politicians, but I'm afraid that'll never happen)

Dear God yes.

The sky had never seemed so sky, the world had never seemed so world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the upcoming change of the copyright in the EU:

Fellow EU citizens, I'm sorry for being German. But I can assure you, I have never voted for the CDU, and I despise Axel Voss and his ignorance with a passion. Nobody here wanted this new law, and even the smaller artists aka creators are demonstrating against it.

Unfortunately, Axel Voss, the guy behind this new law, is Donald Trumps soulmate. He said that our democracy is in danger, because apparently American companies are spreading misinformation on the new laws, and have bought thousands of demonstrators. That's not true. And if he knew anything about the internet, he'd understand why §13 won't work without forcing youtube to use upload filters, that will endanger the freedom of speech.

 

(A law that I'd really welcome would be a regular mental health check for all active politicians, but I'm afraid that'll never happen)

 

have admitted paid less attention to this than we should have, but before voss functional forced articles 11 and 13 back into existence, we thought it were kinda settled that the articles were impractical if not near impossible to implement. have honest been preoccupied with other issues, but am curious to see what the fallout looks like after Tuesday.

 

HA! Good Fun!


"Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."--Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the upcoming change of the copyright in the EU:

Fellow EU citizens, I'm sorry for being German. But I can assure you, I have never voted for the CDU, and I despise Axel Voss and his ignorance with a passion. Nobody here wanted this new law, and even the smaller artists aka creators are demonstrating against it.

Unfortunately, Axel Voss, the guy behind this new law, is Donald Trumps soulmate. He said that our democracy is in danger, because apparently American companies are spreading misinformation on the new laws, and have bought thousands of demonstrators. That's not true. And if he knew anything about the internet, he'd understand why §13 won't work without forcing youtube to use upload filters, that will endanger the freedom of speech.

 

(A law that I'd really welcome would be a regular mental health check for all active politicians, but I'm afraid that'll never happen)

 

Isn't he the guy that said stuff like Youtube shouldn't exist? Every government has it's nutters politicians, so, that's understandable in and of itself.

 

Nor does Germany have a monopoly on politicians not understanding the internet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I usually find it's the people who don't have a good grasp of things trying to ban or otherwise limit those things. I've said before that you don't necessarily need to be an expert on something to have a good idea about it but it doesn't hurt and usually stops the worst and most pointless ideas early on.

Edited by ShadySands

Free games updated 3/6/19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually find it's the people who don't have a good grasp of things trying to ban or otherwise limited those things. I've said before that you don't necessarily need to be an expert on something to have a good idea about it but it doesn't hurt and usually stops the worst and most pointless ideas early on.

 

If only we could have US politicians (on both sides!) apply that to the gun control issue....

 

Republicans also need a good smack upside the head with a realitybat as far as that quote goes as far as Climate Change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Your examples are two anecdotes, one out of context and one personal from 6500 miles away. My examples are the people who live here and have expertise, and include people who would love to ban s/a wholesale if it were possible. Your local example is from someone who regularly controls rabbits and is the equivalent of saying that because someone is who is vaccinated hasn't caught measles vaccines aren't necessary. Ignorance and hubris are your friends, not logic.

 

As for the relevant applicability of the manifesto in the US, what's the US position on manifestos produced by foreigners who murdered 50 people in a terrorist act on their soil? Because that's the equivalent metric, not general free speech.

 

you really don't know anything 'bout logic, do you?  your appeal to authority is better than Gromnir's?  HA! is not how logic works.

 

You know what else uses an appeal to authority? Pro vaccine arguments! Only medical experts say it's necessary! Anti vaxxers say it isn't based on their child not getting measles. Who could be right, the experts or an anecdote?

 

The people who are actual experts need to have their expertise discredited by evidence, and an anecdotal 6500 miles away experience is not good evidence.

 

(1) (2)

 

(1) it was certainly directed to promote or incite imminent lawless action, it specifically included targets to hit in follow up attacks.

(2) the only argument is the likelihood of it happening.

 

And again, I think the censorship is stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually find it's the people who don't have a good grasp of things trying to ban or otherwise limit those things. I've said before that you don't necessarily need to be an expert on something to have a good idea about it but it doesn't hurt and usually stops the worst and most pointless ideas early on.

 

The problem is that the moron in question not only struggles with tech matters -- he doesn't understand copyright, or even the legislation he pushes.

 

It's never a bad time to remind folks that a MEP makes ~6.5k €/mo (after tax).


- When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I usually find it's the people who don't have a good grasp of things trying to ban or otherwise limit those things. I've said before that you don't necessarily need to be an expert on something to have a good idea about it but it doesn't hurt and usually stops the worst and most pointless ideas early on.

 

The problem is that the moron in question not only struggles with tech matters -- he doesn't understand copyright, or even the legislation he pushes.

 

It's never a bad time to remind folks that a MEP makes ~6.5k €/mo (after tax).

 

 

count on the expertise 'o elected officials, and their direct appointees, is gonna be a suspect proposition.  as we noted earlier, nowadays many politicians is hardly qualifying to be described as public servants.  such folks tend to have an agenda and they will then cherry pick other seeming genuine experts to support the outcome they already wished to achieve before getting input from folks who actual have knowledge.  sure, not all elected officials is selfish and shameless, but far too many is.  best to be suspicious and let unique individuals earn trust... and even then, still be suspicious is best course o' action.

 

HA! Good Fun!


"Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."--Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...