Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
given this forum is largely inhabited by leftists, would I be correct in assuming you think this bill is a good thing?
discuss...
actually... dumb question... of course you do...
let me rephrase.. can you explain and justify to me why you think its a good thing?
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
1. There is an Aus Politics thread already 2. What an adult way to start a conversation
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x1. There is an Aus Politics thread already 2. What an adult way to start a conversation you talking about 'adult ways to start a conversation' after reading what you post here is rich when I post in existing threads, you say start your own thread, when I start a new thread you say find an existing thread to post in.... can't win
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x1. There is an Aus Politics thread already 2. What an adult way to start a conversation you talking about 'adult ways to start a conversation' after reading what you post here is rich when I post in existing threads, you say start your own thread, when I start a new thread you say find an existing thread to post in.... can't win Life is tough
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+xgiven this forum is largely inhabited by leftists, would I be correct in assuming you think this bill is a good thing? discuss... actually... dumb question... of course you do... let me rephrase.. can you explain and justify to me why you think its a good thing? Ill have a go: Fundamental human rights dictate that EVERYONE (humans only, sorry to all the animal lib nutters) has the right to an opinion and the right to express that in any way that isn't derogatory, inflammatory or violates anyone else's rights.... But thats just an OPINION... The problem with social media and the new way of disseminating information in our age is that OPINION can be easily disguised as NEWS when there is no legality or journalistic ethics behind what is and isnt reported... Previously newspapers, magazines, radio and TV broadcasters were (and are still) obliged to fact check their reporting, have credible sources for what information they are presenting as news and comply with industry codes.... Editorial content from right wing or left wing dildos is just that EDITORIAL opinion.... people have the chance to agree or disagree with whoever they see fit.... but this new communication method twitter/tiktok,instagram and all the other shit i neither know or care about doesn't have that regulated "feature". Our kids (and dumb gullible adults) are led around by the shiniest pair of boobs or slickest pink Lamborghini and anything this trash says is "news"... Legislation HAS the onligation to keep up. This Bill, if passed, will make electronic platforms accountable for self regulating themselves from wack jobs spreading lies and masquerading it as truth-bombs.... and if they dont, then they rightly dont deserve to have access to our "airwaves" Im interested though to hear why you (presumably) don't think its a good idea? I hope your answer isn't just a lazy "freedom of speech " diatribe, we live in Australia where no such protection exists in OUR Constitution.... NOR can you hide behind the "freedom of the press" as this is clearly understood to apply to accredited journalistic intent and NOT any Joe Blow nutter ranting on the internet, regardless of how many "followers" they have. The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensable part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals.
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xgiven this forum is largely inhabited by leftists, would I be correct in assuming you think this bill is a good thing? discuss... actually... dumb question... of course you do... let me rephrase.. can you explain and justify to me why you think its a good thing? Ill have a go: Fundamental human rights dictate that EVERYONE (humans only, sorry to all the animal lib nutters) has the right to an opinion and the right to express that in any way that isn't derogatory, inflammatory or violates anyone else's rights.... But thats just an OPINION... The problem with social media and the new way of disseminating information in our age is that OPINION can be easily disguised as NEWS when there is no legality or journalistic ethics behind what is and isnt reported... Previously newspapers, magazines, radio and TV broadcasters were (and are still) obliged to fact check their reporting, have credible sources for what information they are presenting as news and comply with industry codes.... Editorial content from right wing or left wing dildos is just that EDITORIAL opinion.... people have the chance to agree or disagree with whoever they see fit.... but this new communication method twitter/tiktok,instagram and all the other shit i neither know or care about doesn't have that regulated "feature". Our kids (and dumb gullible adults) are led around by the shiniest pair of boobs or slickest pink Lamborghini and anything this trash says is "news"... Legislation HAS the onligation to keep up. This Bill, if passed, will make electronic platforms accountable for self regulating themselves from wack jobs spreading lies and masquerading it as truth-bombs.... and if they dont, then they rightly dont deserve to have access to our "airwaves" Im interested though to hear why you (presumably) don't think its a good idea? I hope your answer isn't just a lazy "freedom of speech " diatribe, we live in Australia where no such protection exists in OUR Constitution.... NOR can you hide behind the "freedom of the press" as this is clearly understood to apply to accredited journalistic intent and NOT any Joe Blow nutter ranting on the internet, regardless of how many "followers" they have. The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensable part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals. so who is the arbiter of truth then? Zuckerberg recently admitted he was pressured by the US administration to censor inconvenient content. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wY9iwFZ7lM
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xgiven this forum is largely inhabited by leftists, would I be correct in assuming you think this bill is a good thing? discuss... actually... dumb question... of course you do... let me rephrase.. can you explain and justify to me why you think its a good thing? Ill have a go: Fundamental human rights dictate that EVERYONE (humans only, sorry to all the animal lib nutters) has the right to an opinion and the right to express that in any way that isn't derogatory, inflammatory or violates anyone else's rights.... But thats just an OPINION... The problem with social media and the new way of disseminating information in our age is that OPINION can be easily disguised as NEWS when there is no legality or journalistic ethics behind what is and isnt reported... Previously newspapers, magazines, radio and TV broadcasters were (and are still) obliged to fact check their reporting, have credible sources for what information they are presenting as news and comply with industry codes.... Editorial content from right wing or left wing dildos is just that EDITORIAL opinion.... people have the chance to agree or disagree with whoever they see fit.... but this new communication method twitter/tiktok,instagram and all the other shit i neither know or care about doesn't have that regulated "feature". Our kids (and dumb gullible adults) are led around by the shiniest pair of boobs or slickest pink Lamborghini and anything this trash says is "news"... Legislation HAS the onligation to keep up. This Bill, if passed, will make electronic platforms accountable for self regulating themselves from wack jobs spreading lies and masquerading it as truth-bombs.... and if they dont, then they rightly dont deserve to have access to our "airwaves" Im interested though to hear why you (presumably) don't think its a good idea? I hope your answer isn't just a lazy "freedom of speech " diatribe, we live in Australia where no such protection exists in OUR Constitution.... NOR can you hide behind the "freedom of the press" as this is clearly understood to apply to accredited journalistic intent and NOT any Joe Blow nutter ranting on the internet, regardless of how many "followers" they have. The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensable part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals. so who is the arbiter of truth then? Zuckerberg recently admitted he was pressured by the US administration to censor inconvenient content. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wY9iwFZ7lM I couldn't give a shite about the US mate, they can grind themselves into the ground... The arbiter of truth is "the truth" If you want to state something that goes against undeniable scientific or legal proof as the news then you should either be forced to reveal your "proof" or be clear on the fact you are presenting an OPINION...... The Journalist Code of Ethics ( https://www.meaa.org/meaa-media/code-of-ethics/) states that journalists should “scrutinise power” and commit themselves to “honesty, fairness, independence”, they must not “give distorting emphasis” and must have a “respect for truth”.
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xgiven this forum is largely inhabited by leftists, would I be correct in assuming you think this bill is a good thing? discuss... actually... dumb question... of course you do... let me rephrase.. can you explain and justify to me why you think its a good thing? Ill have a go: Fundamental human rights dictate that EVERYONE (humans only, sorry to all the animal lib nutters) has the right to an opinion and the right to express that in any way that isn't derogatory, inflammatory or violates anyone else's rights.... But thats just an OPINION... The problem with social media and the new way of disseminating information in our age is that OPINION can be easily disguised as NEWS when there is no legality or journalistic ethics behind what is and isnt reported... Previously newspapers, magazines, radio and TV broadcasters were (and are still) obliged to fact check their reporting, have credible sources for what information they are presenting as news and comply with industry codes.... Editorial content from right wing or left wing dildos is just that EDITORIAL opinion.... people have the chance to agree or disagree with whoever they see fit.... but this new communication method twitter/tiktok,instagram and all the other shit i neither know or care about doesn't have that regulated "feature". Our kids (and dumb gullible adults) are led around by the shiniest pair of boobs or slickest pink Lamborghini and anything this trash says is "news"... Legislation HAS the onligation to keep up. This Bill, if passed, will make electronic platforms accountable for self regulating themselves from wack jobs spreading lies and masquerading it as truth-bombs.... and if they dont, then they rightly dont deserve to have access to our "airwaves" Im interested though to hear why you (presumably) don't think its a good idea? I hope your answer isn't just a lazy "freedom of speech " diatribe, we live in Australia where no such protection exists in OUR Constitution.... NOR can you hide behind the "freedom of the press" as this is clearly understood to apply to accredited journalistic intent and NOT any Joe Blow nutter ranting on the internet, regardless of how many "followers" they have. The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensable part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals. so who is the arbiter of truth then? Zuckerberg recently admitted he was pressured by the US administration to censor inconvenient content. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wY9iwFZ7lM I couldn't give a shite about the US mate, they can grind themselves into the ground... The arbiter of truth is "the truth" If you want to state something that goes against undeniable scientific or legal proof as the news then you should either be forced to reveal your "proof" or be clear on the fact you are presenting an OPINION...... The Journalist Code of Ethics ( https://www.meaa.org/meaa-media/code-of-ethics/) states that journalists should “scrutinise power” and commit themselves to “honesty, fairness, independence”, they must not “give distorting emphasis” and must have a “respect for truth”. so "the news" is always the truth? misinformation is only dangerous if it comes from a position of authority... no one has more authority than the mainstream media and the government... and yet they are constant purveyors of misinformation, whether it be via traditional media channels or online... much of which has literally harmed millions of people misinformation in the mainstream media likely incited the person to shoot the US presidential candidate
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xgiven this forum is largely inhabited by leftists, would I be correct in assuming you think this bill is a good thing? discuss... actually... dumb question... of course you do... let me rephrase.. can you explain and justify to me why you think its a good thing? Ill have a go: Fundamental human rights dictate that EVERYONE (humans only, sorry to all the animal lib nutters) has the right to an opinion and the right to express that in any way that isn't derogatory, inflammatory or violates anyone else's rights.... But thats just an OPINION... The problem with social media and the new way of disseminating information in our age is that OPINION can be easily disguised as NEWS when there is no legality or journalistic ethics behind what is and isnt reported... Previously newspapers, magazines, radio and TV broadcasters were (and are still) obliged to fact check their reporting, have credible sources for what information they are presenting as news and comply with industry codes.... Editorial content from right wing or left wing dildos is just that EDITORIAL opinion.... people have the chance to agree or disagree with whoever they see fit.... but this new communication method twitter/tiktok,instagram and all the other shit i neither know or care about doesn't have that regulated "feature". Our kids (and dumb gullible adults) are led around by the shiniest pair of boobs or slickest pink Lamborghini and anything this trash says is "news"... Legislation HAS the onligation to keep up. This Bill, if passed, will make electronic platforms accountable for self regulating themselves from wack jobs spreading lies and masquerading it as truth-bombs.... and if they dont, then they rightly dont deserve to have access to our "airwaves" Im interested though to hear why you (presumably) don't think its a good idea? I hope your answer isn't just a lazy "freedom of speech " diatribe, we live in Australia where no such protection exists in OUR Constitution.... NOR can you hide behind the "freedom of the press" as this is clearly understood to apply to accredited journalistic intent and NOT any Joe Blow nutter ranting on the internet, regardless of how many "followers" they have. The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensable part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals. so who is the arbiter of truth then? Zuckerberg recently admitted he was pressured by the US administration to censor inconvenient content. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wY9iwFZ7lM I couldn't give a shite about the US mate, they can grind themselves into the ground... The arbiter of truth is "the truth" If you want to state something that goes against undeniable scientific or legal proof as the news then you should either be forced to reveal your "proof" or be clear on the fact you are presenting an OPINION...... The Journalist Code of Ethics ( https://www.meaa.org/meaa-media/code-of-ethics/) states that journalists should “scrutinise power” and commit themselves to “honesty, fairness, independence”, they must not “give distorting emphasis” and must have a “respect for truth”. so "the news" is always the truth? misinformation is only dangerous if it comes from a position of authority... no one has more authority than the mainstream media and the government... and yet they are constant purveyors of misinformation, whether it be via traditional media channels or online... much of which has literally harmed millions of people misinformation in the mainstream media likely incited the person to shoot the US presidential candidate So the governemnt and "mainstream media" are lying to you... who is telling the truth? Just asking for a friend?
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xgiven this forum is largely inhabited by leftists, would I be correct in assuming you think this bill is a good thing? discuss... actually... dumb question... of course you do... let me rephrase.. can you explain and justify to me why you think its a good thing? Ill have a go: Fundamental human rights dictate that EVERYONE (humans only, sorry to all the animal lib nutters) has the right to an opinion and the right to express that in any way that isn't derogatory, inflammatory or violates anyone else's rights.... But thats just an OPINION... The problem with social media and the new way of disseminating information in our age is that OPINION can be easily disguised as NEWS when there is no legality or journalistic ethics behind what is and isnt reported... Previously newspapers, magazines, radio and TV broadcasters were (and are still) obliged to fact check their reporting, have credible sources for what information they are presenting as news and comply with industry codes.... Editorial content from right wing or left wing dildos is just that EDITORIAL opinion.... people have the chance to agree or disagree with whoever they see fit.... but this new communication method twitter/tiktok,instagram and all the other shit i neither know or care about doesn't have that regulated "feature". Our kids (and dumb gullible adults) are led around by the shiniest pair of boobs or slickest pink Lamborghini and anything this trash says is "news"... Legislation HAS the onligation to keep up. This Bill, if passed, will make electronic platforms accountable for self regulating themselves from wack jobs spreading lies and masquerading it as truth-bombs.... and if they dont, then they rightly dont deserve to have access to our "airwaves" Im interested though to hear why you (presumably) don't think its a good idea? I hope your answer isn't just a lazy "freedom of speech " diatribe, we live in Australia where no such protection exists in OUR Constitution.... NOR can you hide behind the "freedom of the press" as this is clearly understood to apply to accredited journalistic intent and NOT any Joe Blow nutter ranting on the internet, regardless of how many "followers" they have. The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensable part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals. so who is the arbiter of truth then? Zuckerberg recently admitted he was pressured by the US administration to censor inconvenient content. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wY9iwFZ7lM I couldn't give a shite about the US mate, they can grind themselves into the ground... The arbiter of truth is "the truth" If you want to state something that goes against undeniable scientific or legal proof as the news then you should either be forced to reveal your "proof" or be clear on the fact you are presenting an OPINION...... The Journalist Code of Ethics ( https://www.meaa.org/meaa-media/code-of-ethics/) states that journalists should “scrutinise power” and commit themselves to “honesty, fairness, independence”, they must not “give distorting emphasis” and must have a “respect for truth”. so "the news" is always the truth? misinformation is only dangerous if it comes from a position of authority... no one has more authority than the mainstream media and the government... and yet they are constant purveyors of misinformation, whether it be via traditional media channels or online... much of which has literally harmed millions of people misinformation in the mainstream media likely incited the person to shoot the US presidential candidate So the governemnt and "mainstream media" are lying to you... who is telling the truth? Just asking for a friend? I asked you first. Are they always telling the truth or not? Yes or no?
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xgiven this forum is largely inhabited by leftists, would I be correct in assuming you think this bill is a good thing? discuss... actually... dumb question... of course you do... let me rephrase.. can you explain and justify to me why you think its a good thing? Ill have a go: Fundamental human rights dictate that EVERYONE (humans only, sorry to all the animal lib nutters) has the right to an opinion and the right to express that in any way that isn't derogatory, inflammatory or violates anyone else's rights.... But thats just an OPINION... The problem with social media and the new way of disseminating information in our age is that OPINION can be easily disguised as NEWS when there is no legality or journalistic ethics behind what is and isnt reported... Previously newspapers, magazines, radio and TV broadcasters were (and are still) obliged to fact check their reporting, have credible sources for what information they are presenting as news and comply with industry codes.... Editorial content from right wing or left wing dildos is just that EDITORIAL opinion.... people have the chance to agree or disagree with whoever they see fit.... but this new communication method twitter/tiktok,instagram and all the other shit i neither know or care about doesn't have that regulated "feature". Our kids (and dumb gullible adults) are led around by the shiniest pair of boobs or slickest pink Lamborghini and anything this trash says is "news"... Legislation HAS the onligation to keep up. This Bill, if passed, will make electronic platforms accountable for self regulating themselves from wack jobs spreading lies and masquerading it as truth-bombs.... and if they dont, then they rightly dont deserve to have access to our "airwaves" Im interested though to hear why you (presumably) don't think its a good idea? I hope your answer isn't just a lazy "freedom of speech " diatribe, we live in Australia where no such protection exists in OUR Constitution.... NOR can you hide behind the "freedom of the press" as this is clearly understood to apply to accredited journalistic intent and NOT any Joe Blow nutter ranting on the internet, regardless of how many "followers" they have. The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensable part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals. so who is the arbiter of truth then? Zuckerberg recently admitted he was pressured by the US administration to censor inconvenient content. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wY9iwFZ7lM I couldn't give a shite about the US mate, they can grind themselves into the ground... The arbiter of truth is "the truth" If you want to state something that goes against undeniable scientific or legal proof as the news then you should either be forced to reveal your "proof" or be clear on the fact you are presenting an OPINION...... The Journalist Code of Ethics ( https://www.meaa.org/meaa-media/code-of-ethics/) states that journalists should “scrutinise power” and commit themselves to “honesty, fairness, independence”, they must not “give distorting emphasis” and must have a “respect for truth”. so "the news" is always the truth? misinformation is only dangerous if it comes from a position of authority... no one has more authority than the mainstream media and the government... and yet they are constant purveyors of misinformation, whether it be via traditional media channels or online... much of which has literally harmed millions of people misinformation in the mainstream media likely incited the person to shoot the US presidential candidate So the governemnt and "mainstream media" are lying to you... who is telling the truth? Just asking for a friend? I asked you first. Are they always telling the truth or not? Yes or no? No they are NOT always telling the truth (Not exactly sure who "they" is but the answer remains)... OK your turn...... what exactly do you disagree with about this proposed bill?
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xgiven this forum is largely inhabited by leftists, would I be correct in assuming you think this bill is a good thing? discuss... actually... dumb question... of course you do... let me rephrase.. can you explain and justify to me why you think its a good thing? Ill have a go: Fundamental human rights dictate that EVERYONE (humans only, sorry to all the animal lib nutters) has the right to an opinion and the right to express that in any way that isn't derogatory, inflammatory or violates anyone else's rights.... But thats just an OPINION... The problem with social media and the new way of disseminating information in our age is that OPINION can be easily disguised as NEWS when there is no legality or journalistic ethics behind what is and isnt reported... Previously newspapers, magazines, radio and TV broadcasters were (and are still) obliged to fact check their reporting, have credible sources for what information they are presenting as news and comply with industry codes.... Editorial content from right wing or left wing dildos is just that EDITORIAL opinion.... people have the chance to agree or disagree with whoever they see fit.... but this new communication method twitter/tiktok,instagram and all the other shit i neither know or care about doesn't have that regulated "feature". Our kids (and dumb gullible adults) are led around by the shiniest pair of boobs or slickest pink Lamborghini and anything this trash says is "news"... Legislation HAS the onligation to keep up. This Bill, if passed, will make electronic platforms accountable for self regulating themselves from wack jobs spreading lies and masquerading it as truth-bombs.... and if they dont, then they rightly dont deserve to have access to our "airwaves" Im interested though to hear why you (presumably) don't think its a good idea? I hope your answer isn't just a lazy "freedom of speech " diatribe, we live in Australia where no such protection exists in OUR Constitution.... NOR can you hide behind the "freedom of the press" as this is clearly understood to apply to accredited journalistic intent and NOT any Joe Blow nutter ranting on the internet, regardless of how many "followers" they have. The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensable part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals. so who is the arbiter of truth then? Zuckerberg recently admitted he was pressured by the US administration to censor inconvenient content. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wY9iwFZ7lM I couldn't give a shite about the US mate, they can grind themselves into the ground... The arbiter of truth is "the truth" If you want to state something that goes against undeniable scientific or legal proof as the news then you should either be forced to reveal your "proof" or be clear on the fact you are presenting an OPINION...... The Journalist Code of Ethics ( https://www.meaa.org/meaa-media/code-of-ethics/) states that journalists should “scrutinise power” and commit themselves to “honesty, fairness, independence”, they must not “give distorting emphasis” and must have a “respect for truth”. so "the news" is always the truth? misinformation is only dangerous if it comes from a position of authority... no one has more authority than the mainstream media and the government... and yet they are constant purveyors of misinformation, whether it be via traditional media channels or online... much of which has literally harmed millions of people misinformation in the mainstream media likely incited the person to shoot the US presidential candidate So the governemnt and "mainstream media" are lying to you... who is telling the truth? Just asking for a friend? I asked you first. Are they always telling the truth or not? Yes or no? No they are NOT always telling the truth (Not exactly sure who "they" is but the answer remains)... OK your turn...... what exactly do you disagree with about this proposed bill? Well if for example I thought censorship 'keeps people safe' then my issue might be that it censors independent voices but it doesn't punish establishment media for making false claims, of which they make many and given they are bestowed a position of authority have many magnitudes greater effect on vulnerable minds.
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xgiven this forum is largely inhabited by leftists, would I be correct in assuming you think this bill is a good thing? discuss... actually... dumb question... of course you do... let me rephrase.. can you explain and justify to me why you think its a good thing? Ill have a go: Fundamental human rights dictate that EVERYONE (humans only, sorry to all the animal lib nutters) has the right to an opinion and the right to express that in any way that isn't derogatory, inflammatory or violates anyone else's rights.... But thats just an OPINION... The problem with social media and the new way of disseminating information in our age is that OPINION can be easily disguised as NEWS when there is no legality or journalistic ethics behind what is and isnt reported... Previously newspapers, magazines, radio and TV broadcasters were (and are still) obliged to fact check their reporting, have credible sources for what information they are presenting as news and comply with industry codes.... Editorial content from right wing or left wing dildos is just that EDITORIAL opinion.... people have the chance to agree or disagree with whoever they see fit.... but this new communication method twitter/tiktok,instagram and all the other shit i neither know or care about doesn't have that regulated "feature". Our kids (and dumb gullible adults) are led around by the shiniest pair of boobs or slickest pink Lamborghini and anything this trash says is "news"... Legislation HAS the onligation to keep up. This Bill, if passed, will make electronic platforms accountable for self regulating themselves from wack jobs spreading lies and masquerading it as truth-bombs.... and if they dont, then they rightly dont deserve to have access to our "airwaves" Im interested though to hear why you (presumably) don't think its a good idea? I hope your answer isn't just a lazy "freedom of speech " diatribe, we live in Australia where no such protection exists in OUR Constitution.... NOR can you hide behind the "freedom of the press" as this is clearly understood to apply to accredited journalistic intent and NOT any Joe Blow nutter ranting on the internet, regardless of how many "followers" they have. The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensable part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals. so who is the arbiter of truth then? Zuckerberg recently admitted he was pressured by the US administration to censor inconvenient content. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wY9iwFZ7lM I couldn't give a shite about the US mate, they can grind themselves into the ground... The arbiter of truth is "the truth" If you want to state something that goes against undeniable scientific or legal proof as the news then you should either be forced to reveal your "proof" or be clear on the fact you are presenting an OPINION...... The Journalist Code of Ethics ( https://www.meaa.org/meaa-media/code-of-ethics/) states that journalists should “scrutinise power” and commit themselves to “honesty, fairness, independence”, they must not “give distorting emphasis” and must have a “respect for truth”. so "the news" is always the truth? misinformation is only dangerous if it comes from a position of authority... no one has more authority than the mainstream media and the government... and yet they are constant purveyors of misinformation, whether it be via traditional media channels or online... much of which has literally harmed millions of people misinformation in the mainstream media likely incited the person to shoot the US presidential candidate So the governemnt and "mainstream media" are lying to you... who is telling the truth? Just asking for a friend? I asked you first. Are they always telling the truth or not? Yes or no? No they are NOT always telling the truth (Not exactly sure who "they" is but the answer remains)... OK your turn...... what exactly do you disagree with about this proposed bill? Well if for example I thought censorship 'keeps people safe' then my issue might be that i t censors independent voices but it doesn't punish establishment media for making false claims, of which they make many and given they are bestowed a position of authority have many magnitudes greater effect on vulnerable minds. That would be a valid concern if the bill isnt intended to be broadly applied across ALL electronic media published.... AND in essence is a broadening of currently existing broadcasting legislation anyway.... The only "established" media that seems to be getting all uptight about it is the extremist nutjob type that make a living peddling shit they don't even really believe themselves to feeble minded dimwits...
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xgiven this forum is largely inhabited by leftists, would I be correct in assuming you think this bill is a good thing? discuss... actually... dumb question... of course you do... let me rephrase.. can you explain and justify to me why you think its a good thing? Ill have a go: Fundamental human rights dictate that EVERYONE (humans only, sorry to all the animal lib nutters) has the right to an opinion and the right to express that in any way that isn't derogatory, inflammatory or violates anyone else's rights.... But thats just an OPINION... The problem with social media and the new way of disseminating information in our age is that OPINION can be easily disguised as NEWS when there is no legality or journalistic ethics behind what is and isnt reported... Previously newspapers, magazines, radio and TV broadcasters were (and are still) obliged to fact check their reporting, have credible sources for what information they are presenting as news and comply with industry codes.... Editorial content from right wing or left wing dildos is just that EDITORIAL opinion.... people have the chance to agree or disagree with whoever they see fit.... but this new communication method twitter/tiktok,instagram and all the other shit i neither know or care about doesn't have that regulated "feature". Our kids (and dumb gullible adults) are led around by the shiniest pair of boobs or slickest pink Lamborghini and anything this trash says is "news"... Legislation HAS the onligation to keep up. This Bill, if passed, will make electronic platforms accountable for self regulating themselves from wack jobs spreading lies and masquerading it as truth-bombs.... and if they dont, then they rightly dont deserve to have access to our "airwaves" Im interested though to hear why you (presumably) don't think its a good idea? I hope your answer isn't just a lazy "freedom of speech " diatribe, we live in Australia where no such protection exists in OUR Constitution.... NOR can you hide behind the "freedom of the press" as this is clearly understood to apply to accredited journalistic intent and NOT any Joe Blow nutter ranting on the internet, regardless of how many "followers" they have. The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensable part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals. so who is the arbiter of truth then? Zuckerberg recently admitted he was pressured by the US administration to censor inconvenient content. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wY9iwFZ7lM I couldn't give a shite about the US mate, they can grind themselves into the ground... The arbiter of truth is "the truth" If you want to state something that goes against undeniable scientific or legal proof as the news then you should either be forced to reveal your "proof" or be clear on the fact you are presenting an OPINION...... The Journalist Code of Ethics ( https://www.meaa.org/meaa-media/code-of-ethics/) states that journalists should “scrutinise power” and commit themselves to “honesty, fairness, independence”, they must not “give distorting emphasis” and must have a “respect for truth”. so "the news" is always the truth? misinformation is only dangerous if it comes from a position of authority... no one has more authority than the mainstream media and the government... and yet they are constant purveyors of misinformation, whether it be via traditional media channels or online... much of which has literally harmed millions of people misinformation in the mainstream media likely incited the person to shoot the US presidential candidate So the governemnt and "mainstream media" are lying to you... who is telling the truth? Just asking for a friend? I asked you first. Are they always telling the truth or not? Yes or no? No they are NOT always telling the truth (Not exactly sure who "they" is but the answer remains)... OK your turn...... what exactly do you disagree with about this proposed bill? Well if for example I thought censorship 'keeps people safe' then my issue might be that i t censors independent voices but it doesn't punish establishment media for making false claims, of which they make many and given they are bestowed a position of authority have many magnitudes greater effect on vulnerable minds. That would be a valid concern if the bill isnt intended to be broadly applied across ALL electronic media published.... AND in essence is a broadening of currently existing broadcasting legislation anyway.... The only "established" media that seems to be getting all uptight about it is the extremist nutjob type that make a living peddling shit they don't even really believe themselves to feeble minded dimwits... You literally made my point for me. Once again your poor comprehension abilities betray you.
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xgiven this forum is largely inhabited by leftists, would I be correct in assuming you think this bill is a good thing? discuss... actually... dumb question... of course you do... let me rephrase.. can you explain and justify to me why you think its a good thing? Ill have a go: Fundamental human rights dictate that EVERYONE (humans only, sorry to all the animal lib nutters) has the right to an opinion and the right to express that in any way that isn't derogatory, inflammatory or violates anyone else's rights.... But thats just an OPINION... The problem with social media and the new way of disseminating information in our age is that OPINION can be easily disguised as NEWS when there is no legality or journalistic ethics behind what is and isnt reported... Previously newspapers, magazines, radio and TV broadcasters were (and are still) obliged to fact check their reporting, have credible sources for what information they are presenting as news and comply with industry codes.... Editorial content from right wing or left wing dildos is just that EDITORIAL opinion.... people have the chance to agree or disagree with whoever they see fit.... but this new communication method twitter/tiktok,instagram and all the other shit i neither know or care about doesn't have that regulated "feature". Our kids (and dumb gullible adults) are led around by the shiniest pair of boobs or slickest pink Lamborghini and anything this trash says is "news"... Legislation HAS the onligation to keep up. This Bill, if passed, will make electronic platforms accountable for self regulating themselves from wack jobs spreading lies and masquerading it as truth-bombs.... and if they dont, then they rightly dont deserve to have access to our "airwaves" Im interested though to hear why you (presumably) don't think its a good idea? I hope your answer isn't just a lazy "freedom of speech " diatribe, we live in Australia where no such protection exists in OUR Constitution.... NOR can you hide behind the "freedom of the press" as this is clearly understood to apply to accredited journalistic intent and NOT any Joe Blow nutter ranting on the internet, regardless of how many "followers" they have. The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensable part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals. so who is the arbiter of truth then? Zuckerberg recently admitted he was pressured by the US administration to censor inconvenient content. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wY9iwFZ7lM I couldn't give a shite about the US mate, they can grind themselves into the ground... The arbiter of truth is "the truth" If you want to state something that goes against undeniable scientific or legal proof as the news then you should either be forced to reveal your "proof" or be clear on the fact you are presenting an OPINION...... The Journalist Code of Ethics ( https://www.meaa.org/meaa-media/code-of-ethics/) states that journalists should “scrutinise power” and commit themselves to “honesty, fairness, independence”, they must not “give distorting emphasis” and must have a “respect for truth”. so "the news" is always the truth? misinformation is only dangerous if it comes from a position of authority... no one has more authority than the mainstream media and the government... and yet they are constant purveyors of misinformation, whether it be via traditional media channels or online... much of which has literally harmed millions of people misinformation in the mainstream media likely incited the person to shoot the US presidential candidate So the governemnt and "mainstream media" are lying to you... who is telling the truth? Just asking for a friend? I asked you first. Are they always telling the truth or not? Yes or no? No they are NOT always telling the truth (Not exactly sure who "they" is but the answer remains)... OK your turn...... what exactly do you disagree with about this proposed bill? Well if for example I thought censorship 'keeps people safe' then my issue might be that i t censors independent voices but it doesn't punish establishment media for making false claims, of which they make many and given they are bestowed a position of authority have many magnitudes greater effect on vulnerable minds. That would be a valid concern if the bill isnt intended to be broadly applied across ALL electronic media published.... AND in essence is a broadening of currently existing broadcasting legislation anyway.... The only "established" media that seems to be getting all uptight about it is the extremist nutjob type that make a living peddling shit they don't even really believe themselves to feeble minded dimwits... You literally made my point for me. Once again your poor comprehension abilities betray you. You're far too mentally agile for me .... It must be hard to attempt to reasonably debate an issue when everyone else is so far beneath you? Condolences.
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xgiven this forum is largely inhabited by leftists, would I be correct in assuming you think this bill is a good thing? discuss... actually... dumb question... of course you do... let me rephrase.. can you explain and justify to me why you think its a good thing? Ill have a go: Fundamental human rights dictate that EVERYONE (humans only, sorry to all the animal lib nutters) has the right to an opinion and the right to express that in any way that isn't derogatory, inflammatory or violates anyone else's rights.... But thats just an OPINION... The problem with social media and the new way of disseminating information in our age is that OPINION can be easily disguised as NEWS when there is no legality or journalistic ethics behind what is and isnt reported... Previously newspapers, magazines, radio and TV broadcasters were (and are still) obliged to fact check their reporting, have credible sources for what information they are presenting as news and comply with industry codes.... Editorial content from right wing or left wing dildos is just that EDITORIAL opinion.... people have the chance to agree or disagree with whoever they see fit.... but this new communication method twitter/tiktok,instagram and all the other shit i neither know or care about doesn't have that regulated "feature". Our kids (and dumb gullible adults) are led around by the shiniest pair of boobs or slickest pink Lamborghini and anything this trash says is "news"... Legislation HAS the onligation to keep up. This Bill, if passed, will make electronic platforms accountable for self regulating themselves from wack jobs spreading lies and masquerading it as truth-bombs.... and if they dont, then they rightly dont deserve to have access to our "airwaves" Im interested though to hear why you (presumably) don't think its a good idea? I hope your answer isn't just a lazy "freedom of speech " diatribe, we live in Australia where no such protection exists in OUR Constitution.... NOR can you hide behind the "freedom of the press" as this is clearly understood to apply to accredited journalistic intent and NOT any Joe Blow nutter ranting on the internet, regardless of how many "followers" they have. The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensable part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals. so who is the arbiter of truth then? Zuckerberg recently admitted he was pressured by the US administration to censor inconvenient content. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wY9iwFZ7lM I couldn't give a shite about the US mate, they can grind themselves into the ground... The arbiter of truth is "the truth" If you want to state something that goes against undeniable scientific or legal proof as the news then you should either be forced to reveal your "proof" or be clear on the fact you are presenting an OPINION...... The Journalist Code of Ethics ( https://www.meaa.org/meaa-media/code-of-ethics/) states that journalists should “scrutinise power” and commit themselves to “honesty, fairness, independence”, they must not “give distorting emphasis” and must have a “respect for truth”. so "the news" is always the truth? misinformation is only dangerous if it comes from a position of authority... no one has more authority than the mainstream media and the government... and yet they are constant purveyors of misinformation, whether it be via traditional media channels or online... much of which has literally harmed millions of people misinformation in the mainstream media likely incited the person to shoot the US presidential candidate So the governemnt and "mainstream media" are lying to you... who is telling the truth? Just asking for a friend? I asked you first. Are they always telling the truth or not? Yes or no? No they are NOT always telling the truth (Not exactly sure who "they" is but the answer remains)... OK your turn...... what exactly do you disagree with about this proposed bill? Well if for example I thought censorship 'keeps people safe' then my issue might be that i t censors independent voices but it doesn't punish establishment media for making false claims, of which they make many and given they are bestowed a position of authority have many magnitudes greater effect on vulnerable minds. That would be a valid concern if the bill isnt intended to be broadly applied across ALL electronic media published.... AND in essence is a broadening of currently existing broadcasting legislation anyway.... The only "established" media that seems to be getting all uptight about it is the extremist nutjob type that make a living peddling shit they don't even really believe themselves to feeble minded dimwits... You literally made my point for me. Once again your poor comprehension abilities betray you. You're far too mentally agile for me .... It must be hard to attempt to reasonably debate an issue when everyone else is so far beneath you? Condolences. pop another Vyvanse mate
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xgiven this forum is largely inhabited by leftists, would I be correct in assuming you think this bill is a good thing? discuss... actually... dumb question... of course you do... let me rephrase.. can you explain and justify to me why you think its a good thing? Ill have a go: Fundamental human rights dictate that EVERYONE (humans only, sorry to all the animal lib nutters) has the right to an opinion and the right to express that in any way that isn't derogatory, inflammatory or violates anyone else's rights.... But thats just an OPINION... The problem with social media and the new way of disseminating information in our age is that OPINION can be easily disguised as NEWS when there is no legality or journalistic ethics behind what is and isnt reported... Previously newspapers, magazines, radio and TV broadcasters were (and are still) obliged to fact check their reporting, have credible sources for what information they are presenting as news and comply with industry codes.... Editorial content from right wing or left wing dildos is just that EDITORIAL opinion.... people have the chance to agree or disagree with whoever they see fit.... but this new communication method twitter/tiktok,instagram and all the other shit i neither know or care about doesn't have that regulated "feature". Our kids (and dumb gullible adults) are led around by the shiniest pair of boobs or slickest pink Lamborghini and anything this trash says is "news"... Legislation HAS the onligation to keep up. This Bill, if passed, will make electronic platforms accountable for self regulating themselves from wack jobs spreading lies and masquerading it as truth-bombs.... and if they dont, then they rightly dont deserve to have access to our "airwaves" Im interested though to hear why you (presumably) don't think its a good idea? I hope your answer isn't just a lazy "freedom of speech " diatribe, we live in Australia where no such protection exists in OUR Constitution.... NOR can you hide behind the "freedom of the press" as this is clearly understood to apply to accredited journalistic intent and NOT any Joe Blow nutter ranting on the internet, regardless of how many "followers" they have. The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensable part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals. so who is the arbiter of truth then? Zuckerberg recently admitted he was pressured by the US administration to censor inconvenient content. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wY9iwFZ7lM I couldn't give a shite about the US mate, they can grind themselves into the ground... The arbiter of truth is "the truth" If you want to state something that goes against undeniable scientific or legal proof as the news then you should either be forced to reveal your "proof" or be clear on the fact you are presenting an OPINION...... The Journalist Code of Ethics ( https://www.meaa.org/meaa-media/code-of-ethics/) states that journalists should “scrutinise power” and commit themselves to “honesty, fairness, independence”, they must not “give distorting emphasis” and must have a “respect for truth”. so "the news" is always the truth? misinformation is only dangerous if it comes from a position of authority... no one has more authority than the mainstream media and the government... and yet they are constant purveyors of misinformation, whether it be via traditional media channels or online... much of which has literally harmed millions of people misinformation in the mainstream media likely incited the person to shoot the US presidential candidate So the governemnt and "mainstream media" are lying to you... who is telling the truth? Just asking for a friend? I asked you first. Are they always telling the truth or not? Yes or no? No they are NOT always telling the truth (Not exactly sure who "they" is but the answer remains)... OK your turn...... what exactly do you disagree with about this proposed bill? Well if for example I thought censorship 'keeps people safe' then my issue might be that i t censors independent voices but it doesn't punish establishment media for making false claims, of which they make many and given they are bestowed a position of authority have many magnitudes greater effect on vulnerable minds. That would be a valid concern if the bill isnt intended to be broadly applied across ALL electronic media published.... AND in essence is a broadening of currently existing broadcasting legislation anyway.... The only "established" media that seems to be getting all uptight about it is the extremist nutjob type that make a living peddling shit they don't even really believe themselves to feeble minded dimwits... You literally made my point for me. Once again your poor comprehension abilities betray you. You're far too mentally agile for me .... It must be hard to attempt to reasonably debate an issue when everyone else is so far beneath you? Condolences. pop another Vyvanse mate Mate, telling you now - the legacy media has infected him with the woke mind virus.
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xgiven this forum is largely inhabited by leftists, would I be correct in assuming you think this bill is a good thing? discuss... actually... dumb question... of course you do... let me rephrase.. can you explain and justify to me why you think its a good thing? Ill have a go: Fundamental human rights dictate that EVERYONE (humans only, sorry to all the animal lib nutters) has the right to an opinion and the right to express that in any way that isn't derogatory, inflammatory or violates anyone else's rights.... But thats just an OPINION... The problem with social media and the new way of disseminating information in our age is that OPINION can be easily disguised as NEWS when there is no legality or journalistic ethics behind what is and isnt reported... Previously newspapers, magazines, radio and TV broadcasters were (and are still) obliged to fact check their reporting, have credible sources for what information they are presenting as news and comply with industry codes.... Editorial content from right wing or left wing dildos is just that EDITORIAL opinion.... people have the chance to agree or disagree with whoever they see fit.... but this new communication method twitter/tiktok,instagram and all the other shit i neither know or care about doesn't have that regulated "feature". Our kids (and dumb gullible adults) are led around by the shiniest pair of boobs or slickest pink Lamborghini and anything this trash says is "news"... Legislation HAS the onligation to keep up. This Bill, if passed, will make electronic platforms accountable for self regulating themselves from wack jobs spreading lies and masquerading it as truth-bombs.... and if they dont, then they rightly dont deserve to have access to our "airwaves" Im interested though to hear why you (presumably) don't think its a good idea? I hope your answer isn't just a lazy "freedom of speech " diatribe, we live in Australia where no such protection exists in OUR Constitution.... NOR can you hide behind the "freedom of the press" as this is clearly understood to apply to accredited journalistic intent and NOT any Joe Blow nutter ranting on the internet, regardless of how many "followers" they have. The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensable part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals. so who is the arbiter of truth then? Zuckerberg recently admitted he was pressured by the US administration to censor inconvenient content. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wY9iwFZ7lM I couldn't give a shite about the US mate, they can grind themselves into the ground... The arbiter of truth is "the truth" If you want to state something that goes against undeniable scientific or legal proof as the news then you should either be forced to reveal your "proof" or be clear on the fact you are presenting an OPINION...... The Journalist Code of Ethics ( https://www.meaa.org/meaa-media/code-of-ethics/) states that journalists should “scrutinise power” and commit themselves to “honesty, fairness, independence”, they must not “give distorting emphasis” and must have a “respect for truth”. so "the news" is always the truth? misinformation is only dangerous if it comes from a position of authority... no one has more authority than the mainstream media and the government... and yet they are constant purveyors of misinformation, whether it be via traditional media channels or online... much of which has literally harmed millions of people misinformation in the mainstream media likely incited the person to shoot the US presidential candidate So the governemnt and "mainstream media" are lying to you... who is telling the truth? Just asking for a friend? I asked you first. Are they always telling the truth or not? Yes or no? No they are NOT always telling the truth (Not exactly sure who "they" is but the answer remains)... OK your turn...... what exactly do you disagree with about this proposed bill? Well if for example I thought censorship 'keeps people safe' then my issue might be that i t censors independent voices but it doesn't punish establishment media for making false claims, of which they make many and given they are bestowed a position of authority have many magnitudes greater effect on vulnerable minds. That would be a valid concern if the bill isnt intended to be broadly applied across ALL electronic media published.... AND in essence is a broadening of currently existing broadcasting legislation anyway.... The only "established" media that seems to be getting all uptight about it is the extremist nutjob type that make a living peddling shit they don't even really believe themselves to feeble minded dimwits... You literally made my point for me. Once again your poor comprehension abilities betray you. You're far too mentally agile for me .... It must be hard to attempt to reasonably debate an issue when everyone else is so far beneath you? Condolences. pop another Vyvanse mate Mate, telling you now - the legacy media has infected him with the woke mind virus. Go argue it with Rita. I'm not interested in 'culture wars'.
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xgiven this forum is largely inhabited by leftists, would I be correct in assuming you think this bill is a good thing? discuss... actually... dumb question... of course you do... let me rephrase.. can you explain and justify to me why you think its a good thing? Ill have a go: Fundamental human rights dictate that EVERYONE (humans only, sorry to all the animal lib nutters) has the right to an opinion and the right to express that in any way that isn't derogatory, inflammatory or violates anyone else's rights.... But thats just an OPINION... The problem with social media and the new way of disseminating information in our age is that OPINION can be easily disguised as NEWS when there is no legality or journalistic ethics behind what is and isnt reported... Previously newspapers, magazines, radio and TV broadcasters were (and are still) obliged to fact check their reporting, have credible sources for what information they are presenting as news and comply with industry codes.... Editorial content from right wing or left wing dildos is just that EDITORIAL opinion.... people have the chance to agree or disagree with whoever they see fit.... but this new communication method twitter/tiktok,instagram and all the other shit i neither know or care about doesn't have that regulated "feature". Our kids (and dumb gullible adults) are led around by the shiniest pair of boobs or slickest pink Lamborghini and anything this trash says is "news"... Legislation HAS the onligation to keep up. This Bill, if passed, will make electronic platforms accountable for self regulating themselves from wack jobs spreading lies and masquerading it as truth-bombs.... and if they dont, then they rightly dont deserve to have access to our "airwaves" Im interested though to hear why you (presumably) don't think its a good idea? I hope your answer isn't just a lazy "freedom of speech " diatribe, we live in Australia where no such protection exists in OUR Constitution.... NOR can you hide behind the "freedom of the press" as this is clearly understood to apply to accredited journalistic intent and NOT any Joe Blow nutter ranting on the internet, regardless of how many "followers" they have. The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensable part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals. so who is the arbiter of truth then? Zuckerberg recently admitted he was pressured by the US administration to censor inconvenient content. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wY9iwFZ7lM I couldn't give a shite about the US mate, they can grind themselves into the ground... The arbiter of truth is "the truth" If you want to state something that goes against undeniable scientific or legal proof as the news then you should either be forced to reveal your "proof" or be clear on the fact you are presenting an OPINION...... The Journalist Code of Ethics ( https://www.meaa.org/meaa-media/code-of-ethics/) states that journalists should “scrutinise power” and commit themselves to “honesty, fairness, independence”, they must not “give distorting emphasis” and must have a “respect for truth”. so "the news" is always the truth? misinformation is only dangerous if it comes from a position of authority... no one has more authority than the mainstream media and the government... and yet they are constant purveyors of misinformation, whether it be via traditional media channels or online... much of which has literally harmed millions of people misinformation in the mainstream media likely incited the person to shoot the US presidential candidate So the governemnt and "mainstream media" are lying to you... who is telling the truth? Just asking for a friend? I asked you first. Are they always telling the truth or not? Yes or no? No they are NOT always telling the truth (Not exactly sure who "they" is but the answer remains)... OK your turn...... what exactly do you disagree with about this proposed bill? Well if for example I thought censorship 'keeps people safe' then my issue might be that i t censors independent voices but it doesn't punish establishment media for making false claims, of which they make many and given they are bestowed a position of authority have many magnitudes greater effect on vulnerable minds. That would be a valid concern if the bill isnt intended to be broadly applied across ALL electronic media published.... AND in essence is a broadening of currently existing broadcasting legislation anyway.... The only "established" media that seems to be getting all uptight about it is the extremist nutjob type that make a living peddling shit they don't even really believe themselves to feeble minded dimwits... You literally made my point for me. Once again your poor comprehension abilities betray you. You're far too mentally agile for me .... It must be hard to attempt to reasonably debate an issue when everyone else is so far beneath you? Condolences. pop another Vyvanse mate Mate, telling you now - the legacy media has infected him with the woke mind virus. Go argue it with Rita. I'm not interested in 'culture wars'. Trump 2024 baby!
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xgiven this forum is largely inhabited by leftists, would I be correct in assuming you think this bill is a good thing? discuss... actually... dumb question... of course you do... let me rephrase.. can you explain and justify to me why you think its a good thing? Ill have a go: Fundamental human rights dictate that EVERYONE (humans only, sorry to all the animal lib nutters) has the right to an opinion and the right to express that in any way that isn't derogatory, inflammatory or violates anyone else's rights.... But thats just an OPINION... The problem with social media and the new way of disseminating information in our age is that OPINION can be easily disguised as NEWS when there is no legality or journalistic ethics behind what is and isnt reported... Previously newspapers, magazines, radio and TV broadcasters were (and are still) obliged to fact check their reporting, have credible sources for what information they are presenting as news and comply with industry codes.... Editorial content from right wing or left wing dildos is just that EDITORIAL opinion.... people have the chance to agree or disagree with whoever they see fit.... but this new communication method twitter/tiktok,instagram and all the other shit i neither know or care about doesn't have that regulated "feature". Our kids (and dumb gullible adults) are led around by the shiniest pair of boobs or slickest pink Lamborghini and anything this trash says is "news"... Legislation HAS the onligation to keep up. This Bill, if passed, will make electronic platforms accountable for self regulating themselves from wack jobs spreading lies and masquerading it as truth-bombs.... and if they dont, then they rightly dont deserve to have access to our "airwaves" Im interested though to hear why you (presumably) don't think its a good idea? I hope your answer isn't just a lazy "freedom of speech " diatribe, we live in Australia where no such protection exists in OUR Constitution.... NOR can you hide behind the "freedom of the press" as this is clearly understood to apply to accredited journalistic intent and NOT any Joe Blow nutter ranting on the internet, regardless of how many "followers" they have. The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensable part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals. so who is the arbiter of truth then? Zuckerberg recently admitted he was pressured by the US administration to censor inconvenient content. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wY9iwFZ7lM I couldn't give a shite about the US mate, they can grind themselves into the ground... The arbiter of truth is "the truth" If you want to state something that goes against undeniable scientific or legal proof as the news then you should either be forced to reveal your "proof" or be clear on the fact you are presenting an OPINION...... The Journalist Code of Ethics ( https://www.meaa.org/meaa-media/code-of-ethics/) states that journalists should “scrutinise power” and commit themselves to “honesty, fairness, independence”, they must not “give distorting emphasis” and must have a “respect for truth”. so "the news" is always the truth? misinformation is only dangerous if it comes from a position of authority... no one has more authority than the mainstream media and the government... and yet they are constant purveyors of misinformation, whether it be via traditional media channels or online... much of which has literally harmed millions of people misinformation in the mainstream media likely incited the person to shoot the US presidential candidate So the governemnt and "mainstream media" are lying to you... who is telling the truth? Just asking for a friend? I asked you first. Are they always telling the truth or not? Yes or no? No they are NOT always telling the truth (Not exactly sure who "they" is but the answer remains)... OK your turn...... what exactly do you disagree with about this proposed bill? Well if for example I thought censorship 'keeps people safe' then my issue might be that i t censors independent voices but it doesn't punish establishment media for making false claims, of which they make many and given they are bestowed a position of authority have many magnitudes greater effect on vulnerable minds. That would be a valid concern if the bill isnt intended to be broadly applied across ALL electronic media published.... AND in essence is a broadening of currently existing broadcasting legislation anyway.... The only "established" media that seems to be getting all uptight about it is the extremist nutjob type that make a living peddling shit they don't even really believe themselves to feeble minded dimwits... You literally made my point for me. Once again your poor comprehension abilities betray you. You're far too mentally agile for me .... It must be hard to attempt to reasonably debate an issue when everyone else is so far beneath you? Condolences. pop another Vyvanse mate Mate, telling you now - the legacy media has infected him with the woke mind virus. Go argue it with Rita. I'm not interested in 'culture wars'. Trump 2024 baby! If you want to get in the ring with Trump supporters there are plenty of forums available. I suspect you lack the courage to take them on though. As I've said before, my position on Trump is lesser of two evils, but I have problems with some of this foreign policies, and warp speed, so I'm not the person to debate.
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xgiven this forum is largely inhabited by leftists, would I be correct in assuming you think this bill is a good thing? discuss... actually... dumb question... of course you do... let me rephrase.. can you explain and justify to me why you think its a good thing? Ill have a go: Fundamental human rights dictate that EVERYONE (humans only, sorry to all the animal lib nutters) has the right to an opinion and the right to express that in any way that isn't derogatory, inflammatory or violates anyone else's rights.... But thats just an OPINION... The problem with social media and the new way of disseminating information in our age is that OPINION can be easily disguised as NEWS when there is no legality or journalistic ethics behind what is and isnt reported... Previously newspapers, magazines, radio and TV broadcasters were (and are still) obliged to fact check their reporting, have credible sources for what information they are presenting as news and comply with industry codes.... Editorial content from right wing or left wing dildos is just that EDITORIAL opinion.... people have the chance to agree or disagree with whoever they see fit.... but this new communication method twitter/tiktok,instagram and all the other shit i neither know or care about doesn't have that regulated "feature". Our kids (and dumb gullible adults) are led around by the shiniest pair of boobs or slickest pink Lamborghini and anything this trash says is "news"... Legislation HAS the onligation to keep up. This Bill, if passed, will make electronic platforms accountable for self regulating themselves from wack jobs spreading lies and masquerading it as truth-bombs.... and if they dont, then they rightly dont deserve to have access to our "airwaves" Im interested though to hear why you (presumably) don't think its a good idea? I hope your answer isn't just a lazy "freedom of speech " diatribe, we live in Australia where no such protection exists in OUR Constitution.... NOR can you hide behind the "freedom of the press" as this is clearly understood to apply to accredited journalistic intent and NOT any Joe Blow nutter ranting on the internet, regardless of how many "followers" they have. The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensable part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals. so who is the arbiter of truth then? Zuckerberg recently admitted he was pressured by the US administration to censor inconvenient content. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wY9iwFZ7lM I couldn't give a shite about the US mate, they can grind themselves into the ground... The arbiter of truth is "the truth" If you want to state something that goes against undeniable scientific or legal proof as the news then you should either be forced to reveal your "proof" or be clear on the fact you are presenting an OPINION...... The Journalist Code of Ethics ( https://www.meaa.org/meaa-media/code-of-ethics/) states that journalists should “scrutinise power” and commit themselves to “honesty, fairness, independence”, they must not “give distorting emphasis” and must have a “respect for truth”. so "the news" is always the truth? misinformation is only dangerous if it comes from a position of authority... no one has more authority than the mainstream media and the government... and yet they are constant purveyors of misinformation, whether it be via traditional media channels or online... much of which has literally harmed millions of people misinformation in the mainstream media likely incited the person to shoot the US presidential candidate So the governemnt and "mainstream media" are lying to you... who is telling the truth? Just asking for a friend? I asked you first. Are they always telling the truth or not? Yes or no? No they are NOT always telling the truth (Not exactly sure who "they" is but the answer remains)... OK your turn...... what exactly do you disagree with about this proposed bill? Well if for example I thought censorship 'keeps people safe' then my issue might be that i t censors independent voices but it doesn't punish establishment media for making false claims, of which they make many and given they are bestowed a position of authority have many magnitudes greater effect on vulnerable minds. That would be a valid concern if the bill isnt intended to be broadly applied across ALL electronic media published.... AND in essence is a broadening of currently existing broadcasting legislation anyway.... The only "established" media that seems to be getting all uptight about it is the extremist nutjob type that make a living peddling shit they don't even really believe themselves to feeble minded dimwits... You literally made my point for me. Once again your poor comprehension abilities betray you. You're far too mentally agile for me .... It must be hard to attempt to reasonably debate an issue when everyone else is so far beneath you? Condolences. pop another Vyvanse mate Mate, telling you now - the legacy media has infected him with the woke mind virus. Go argue it with Rita. I'm not interested in 'culture wars'. Trump 2024 baby! If you want to get in the ring with Trump supporters there are plenty of forums available. I suspect you lack the courage to take them on though. As I've said before, my position on Trump is lesser of two evils, but I have problems with some of this foreign policies, and warp speed, so I'm not the person to debate. No chance I'd take on a trump supporter! They'd destroy anyone with their intellect and lack of woke mind virus - they don't listen to the legacy media and never got warped by getting an education. besides I am with you and them - it was a coup!
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xgiven this forum is largely inhabited by leftists, would I be correct in assuming you think this bill is a good thing? discuss... actually... dumb question... of course you do... let me rephrase.. can you explain and justify to me why you think its a good thing? Ill have a go: Fundamental human rights dictate that EVERYONE (humans only, sorry to all the animal lib nutters) has the right to an opinion and the right to express that in any way that isn't derogatory, inflammatory or violates anyone else's rights.... But thats just an OPINION... The problem with social media and the new way of disseminating information in our age is that OPINION can be easily disguised as NEWS when there is no legality or journalistic ethics behind what is and isnt reported... Previously newspapers, magazines, radio and TV broadcasters were (and are still) obliged to fact check their reporting, have credible sources for what information they are presenting as news and comply with industry codes.... Editorial content from right wing or left wing dildos is just that EDITORIAL opinion.... people have the chance to agree or disagree with whoever they see fit.... but this new communication method twitter/tiktok,instagram and all the other shit i neither know or care about doesn't have that regulated "feature". Our kids (and dumb gullible adults) are led around by the shiniest pair of boobs or slickest pink Lamborghini and anything this trash says is "news"... Legislation HAS the onligation to keep up. This Bill, if passed, will make electronic platforms accountable for self regulating themselves from wack jobs spreading lies and masquerading it as truth-bombs.... and if they dont, then they rightly dont deserve to have access to our "airwaves" Im interested though to hear why you (presumably) don't think its a good idea? I hope your answer isn't just a lazy "freedom of speech " diatribe, we live in Australia where no such protection exists in OUR Constitution.... NOR can you hide behind the "freedom of the press" as this is clearly understood to apply to accredited journalistic intent and NOT any Joe Blow nutter ranting on the internet, regardless of how many "followers" they have. The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensable part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals. so who is the arbiter of truth then? Zuckerberg recently admitted he was pressured by the US administration to censor inconvenient content. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wY9iwFZ7lM I couldn't give a shite about the US mate, they can grind themselves into the ground... The arbiter of truth is "the truth" If you want to state something that goes against undeniable scientific or legal proof as the news then you should either be forced to reveal your "proof" or be clear on the fact you are presenting an OPINION...... The Journalist Code of Ethics ( https://www.meaa.org/meaa-media/code-of-ethics/) states that journalists should “scrutinise power” and commit themselves to “honesty, fairness, independence”, they must not “give distorting emphasis” and must have a “respect for truth”. so "the news" is always the truth? misinformation is only dangerous if it comes from a position of authority... no one has more authority than the mainstream media and the government... and yet they are constant purveyors of misinformation, whether it be via traditional media channels or online... much of which has literally harmed millions of people misinformation in the mainstream media likely incited the person to shoot the US presidential candidate So the governemnt and "mainstream media" are lying to you... who is telling the truth? Just asking for a friend? I asked you first. Are they always telling the truth or not? Yes or no? No they are NOT always telling the truth (Not exactly sure who "they" is but the answer remains)... OK your turn...... what exactly do you disagree with about this proposed bill? Well if for example I thought censorship 'keeps people safe' then my issue might be that i t censors independent voices but it doesn't punish establishment media for making false claims, of which they make many and given they are bestowed a position of authority have many magnitudes greater effect on vulnerable minds. That would be a valid concern if the bill isnt intended to be broadly applied across ALL electronic media published.... AND in essence is a broadening of currently existing broadcasting legislation anyway.... The only "established" media that seems to be getting all uptight about it is the extremist nutjob type that make a living peddling shit they don't even really believe themselves to feeble minded dimwits... You literally made my point for me. Once again your poor comprehension abilities betray you. You're far too mentally agile for me .... It must be hard to attempt to reasonably debate an issue when everyone else is so far beneath you? Condolences. pop another Vyvanse mate Mate, telling you now - the legacy media has infected him with the woke mind virus. Go argue it with Rita. I'm not interested in 'culture wars'. Trump 2024 baby! If you want to get in the ring with Trump supporters there are plenty of forums available. I suspect you lack the courage to take them on though. As I've said before, my position on Trump is lesser of two evils, but I have problems with some of this foreign policies, and warp speed, so I'm not the person to debate. No chance I'd take on a trump supporter! They'd destroy anyone with their intellect and lack of woke mind virus - they don't listen to the legacy media and never got warped by getting an education. besides I am with you and them - it was a coup! when I read your posts I observe your lack of self awareness keep fighting the good fight
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xgiven this forum is largely inhabited by leftists, would I be correct in assuming you think this bill is a good thing? discuss... actually... dumb question... of course you do... let me rephrase.. can you explain and justify to me why you think its a good thing? Ill have a go: Fundamental human rights dictate that EVERYONE (humans only, sorry to all the animal lib nutters) has the right to an opinion and the right to express that in any way that isn't derogatory, inflammatory or violates anyone else's rights.... But thats just an OPINION... The problem with social media and the new way of disseminating information in our age is that OPINION can be easily disguised as NEWS when there is no legality or journalistic ethics behind what is and isnt reported... Previously newspapers, magazines, radio and TV broadcasters were (and are still) obliged to fact check their reporting, have credible sources for what information they are presenting as news and comply with industry codes.... Editorial content from right wing or left wing dildos is just that EDITORIAL opinion.... people have the chance to agree or disagree with whoever they see fit.... but this new communication method twitter/tiktok,instagram and all the other shit i neither know or care about doesn't have that regulated "feature". Our kids (and dumb gullible adults) are led around by the shiniest pair of boobs or slickest pink Lamborghini and anything this trash says is "news"... Legislation HAS the onligation to keep up. This Bill, if passed, will make electronic platforms accountable for self regulating themselves from wack jobs spreading lies and masquerading it as truth-bombs.... and if they dont, then they rightly dont deserve to have access to our "airwaves" Im interested though to hear why you (presumably) don't think its a good idea? I hope your answer isn't just a lazy "freedom of speech " diatribe, we live in Australia where no such protection exists in OUR Constitution.... NOR can you hide behind the "freedom of the press" as this is clearly understood to apply to accredited journalistic intent and NOT any Joe Blow nutter ranting on the internet, regardless of how many "followers" they have. The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensable part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals. so who is the arbiter of truth then? Zuckerberg recently admitted he was pressured by the US administration to censor inconvenient content. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wY9iwFZ7lM I couldn't give a shite about the US mate, they can grind themselves into the ground... The arbiter of truth is "the truth" If you want to state something that goes against undeniable scientific or legal proof as the news then you should either be forced to reveal your "proof" or be clear on the fact you are presenting an OPINION...... The Journalist Code of Ethics ( https://www.meaa.org/meaa-media/code-of-ethics/) states that journalists should “scrutinise power” and commit themselves to “honesty, fairness, independence”, they must not “give distorting emphasis” and must have a “respect for truth”. so "the news" is always the truth? misinformation is only dangerous if it comes from a position of authority... no one has more authority than the mainstream media and the government... and yet they are constant purveyors of misinformation, whether it be via traditional media channels or online... much of which has literally harmed millions of people misinformation in the mainstream media likely incited the person to shoot the US presidential candidate So the governemnt and "mainstream media" are lying to you... who is telling the truth? Just asking for a friend? I asked you first. Are they always telling the truth or not? Yes or no? No they are NOT always telling the truth (Not exactly sure who "they" is but the answer remains)... OK your turn...... what exactly do you disagree with about this proposed bill? Well if for example I thought censorship 'keeps people safe' then my issue might be that i t censors independent voices but it doesn't punish establishment media for making false claims, of which they make many and given they are bestowed a position of authority have many magnitudes greater effect on vulnerable minds. That would be a valid concern if the bill isnt intended to be broadly applied across ALL electronic media published.... AND in essence is a broadening of currently existing broadcasting legislation anyway.... The only "established" media that seems to be getting all uptight about it is the extremist nutjob type that make a living peddling shit they don't even really believe themselves to feeble minded dimwits... You literally made my point for me. Once again your poor comprehension abilities betray you. You're far too mentally agile for me .... It must be hard to attempt to reasonably debate an issue when everyone else is so far beneath you? Condolences. pop another Vyvanse mate Mate, telling you now - the legacy media has infected him with the woke mind virus. Go argue it with Rita. I'm not interested in 'culture wars'. Trump 2024 baby! If you want to get in the ring with Trump supporters there are plenty of forums available. I suspect you lack the courage to take them on though. As I've said before, my position on Trump is lesser of two evils, but I have problems with some of this foreign policies, and warp speed, so I'm not the person to debate. No chance I'd take on a trump supporter! They'd destroy anyone with their intellect and lack of woke mind virus - they don't listen to the legacy media and never got warped by getting an education. besides I am with you and them - it was a coup! when I read your posts I observe your lack of self awareness keep fighting the good fight Some people may criticise you for starting a thread on something you haven't even read, or understand but I think you've made some really articulate points, maga baby!
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xgiven this forum is largely inhabited by leftists, would I be correct in assuming you think this bill is a good thing? discuss... actually... dumb question... of course you do... let me rephrase.. can you explain and justify to me why you think its a good thing? Ill have a go: Fundamental human rights dictate that EVERYONE (humans only, sorry to all the animal lib nutters) has the right to an opinion and the right to express that in any way that isn't derogatory, inflammatory or violates anyone else's rights.... But thats just an OPINION... The problem with social media and the new way of disseminating information in our age is that OPINION can be easily disguised as NEWS when there is no legality or journalistic ethics behind what is and isnt reported... Previously newspapers, magazines, radio and TV broadcasters were (and are still) obliged to fact check their reporting, have credible sources for what information they are presenting as news and comply with industry codes.... Editorial content from right wing or left wing dildos is just that EDITORIAL opinion.... people have the chance to agree or disagree with whoever they see fit.... but this new communication method twitter/tiktok,instagram and all the other shit i neither know or care about doesn't have that regulated "feature". Our kids (and dumb gullible adults) are led around by the shiniest pair of boobs or slickest pink Lamborghini and anything this trash says is "news"... Legislation HAS the onligation to keep up. This Bill, if passed, will make electronic platforms accountable for self regulating themselves from wack jobs spreading lies and masquerading it as truth-bombs.... and if they dont, then they rightly dont deserve to have access to our "airwaves" Im interested though to hear why you (presumably) don't think its a good idea? I hope your answer isn't just a lazy "freedom of speech " diatribe, we live in Australia where no such protection exists in OUR Constitution.... NOR can you hide behind the "freedom of the press" as this is clearly understood to apply to accredited journalistic intent and NOT any Joe Blow nutter ranting on the internet, regardless of how many "followers" they have. The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensable part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals. so who is the arbiter of truth then? Zuckerberg recently admitted he was pressured by the US administration to censor inconvenient content. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wY9iwFZ7lM I couldn't give a shite about the US mate, they can grind themselves into the ground... The arbiter of truth is "the truth" If you want to state something that goes against undeniable scientific or legal proof as the news then you should either be forced to reveal your "proof" or be clear on the fact you are presenting an OPINION...... The Journalist Code of Ethics ( https://www.meaa.org/meaa-media/code-of-ethics/) states that journalists should “scrutinise power” and commit themselves to “honesty, fairness, independence”, they must not “give distorting emphasis” and must have a “respect for truth”. so "the news" is always the truth? misinformation is only dangerous if it comes from a position of authority... no one has more authority than the mainstream media and the government... and yet they are constant purveyors of misinformation, whether it be via traditional media channels or online... much of which has literally harmed millions of people misinformation in the mainstream media likely incited the person to shoot the US presidential candidate So the governemnt and "mainstream media" are lying to you... who is telling the truth? Just asking for a friend? I asked you first. Are they always telling the truth or not? Yes or no? No they are NOT always telling the truth (Not exactly sure who "they" is but the answer remains)... OK your turn...... what exactly do you disagree with about this proposed bill? Well if for example I thought censorship 'keeps people safe' then my issue might be that i t censors independent voices but it doesn't punish establishment media for making false claims, of which they make many and given they are bestowed a position of authority have many magnitudes greater effect on vulnerable minds. That would be a valid concern if the bill isnt intended to be broadly applied across ALL electronic media published.... AND in essence is a broadening of currently existing broadcasting legislation anyway.... The only "established" media that seems to be getting all uptight about it is the extremist nutjob type that make a living peddling shit they don't even really believe themselves to feeble minded dimwits... You literally made my point for me. Once again your poor comprehension abilities betray you. You're far too mentally agile for me .... It must be hard to attempt to reasonably debate an issue when everyone else is so far beneath you? Condolences. pop another Vyvanse mate Mate, telling you now - the legacy media has infected him with the woke mind virus. Go argue it with Rita. I'm not interested in 'culture wars'. Trump 2024 baby! If you want to get in the ring with Trump supporters there are plenty of forums available. I suspect you lack the courage to take them on though. As I've said before, my position on Trump is lesser of two evils, but I have problems with some of this foreign policies, and warp speed, so I'm not the person to debate. No chance I'd take on a trump supporter! They'd destroy anyone with their intellect and lack of woke mind virus - they don't listen to the legacy media and never got warped by getting an education. besides I am with you and them - it was a coup! when I read your posts I observe your lack of self awareness keep fighting the good fight Some people may criticise you for starting a thread on something you haven't even read, or understand but I think you've made some really articulate points, maga baby! Almost feel sorry for someone who has clearly only posted in echo chambers to come here and then be hit, smack in the face, with actual nuanced arguments. Nightmare stuff for the young fella. RUOK?
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]given this forum is largely inhabited by leftists, would I be correct in assuming you think this bill is a good thing? discuss... actually... dumb question... of course you do... let me rephrase.. can you explain and justify to me why you think its a good thing? Ill have a go: Fundamental human rights dictate that EVERYONE (humans only, sorry to all the animal lib nutters) has the right to an opinion and the right to express that in any way that isn't derogatory, inflammatory or violates anyone else's rights.... But thats just an OPINION... The problem with social media and the new way of disseminating information in our age is that OPINION can be easily disguised as NEWS when there is no legality or journalistic ethics behind what is and isnt reported... Previously newspapers, magazines, radio and TV broadcasters were (and are still) obliged to fact check their reporting, have credible sources for what information they are presenting as news and comply with industry codes.... Editorial content from right wing or left wing dildos is just that EDITORIAL opinion.... people have the chance to agree or disagree with whoever they see fit.... but this new communication method twitter/tiktok,instagram and all the other shit i neither know or care about doesn't have that regulated "feature". Our kids (and dumb gullible adults) are led around by the shiniest pair of boobs or slickest pink Lamborghini and anything this trash says is "news"... Legislation HAS the onligation to keep up. This Bill, if passed, will make electronic platforms accountable for self regulating themselves from wack jobs spreading lies and masquerading it as truth-bombs.... and if they dont, then they rightly dont deserve to have access to our "airwaves" Im interested though to hear why you (presumably) don't think its a good idea? I hope your answer isn't just a lazy "freedom of speech " diatribe, we live in Australia where no such protection exists in OUR Constitution.... NOR can you hide behind the "freedom of the press" as this is clearly understood to apply to accredited journalistic intent and NOT any Joe Blow nutter ranting on the internet, regardless of how many "followers" they have. The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensable part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals. so who is the arbiter of truth then? Zuckerberg recently admitted he was pressured by the US administration to censor inconvenient content. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wY9iwFZ7lM I couldn't give a shite about the US mate, they can grind themselves into the ground... The arbiter of truth is "the truth" If you want to state something that goes against undeniable scientific or legal proof as the news then you should either be forced to reveal your "proof" or be clear on the fact you are presenting an OPINION...... The Journalist Code of Ethics ( https://www.meaa.org/meaa-media/code-of-ethics/) states that journalists should “scrutinise power” and commit themselves to “honesty, fairness, independence”, they must not “give distorting emphasis” and must have a “respect for truth”. so "the news" is always the truth? misinformation is only dangerous if it comes from a position of authority... no one has more authority than the mainstream media and the government... and yet they are constant purveyors of misinformation, whether it be via traditional media channels or online... much of which has literally harmed millions of people misinformation in the mainstream media likely incited the person to shoot the US presidential candidate So the governemnt and "mainstream media" are lying to you... who is telling the truth? Just asking for a friend? I asked you first. Are they always telling the truth or not? Yes or no? No they are NOT always telling the truth (Not exactly sure who "they" is but the answer remains)... OK your turn...... what exactly do you disagree with about this proposed bill? Well if for example I thought censorship 'keeps people safe' then my issue might be that i t censors independent voices but it doesn't punish establishment media for making false claims, of which they make many and given they are bestowed a position of authority have many magnitudes greater effect on vulnerable minds. That would be a valid concern if the bill isnt intended to be broadly applied across ALL electronic media published.... AND in essence is a broadening of currently existing broadcasting legislation anyway.... The only "established" media that seems to be getting all uptight about it is the extremist nutjob type that make a living peddling shit they don't even really believe themselves to feeble minded dimwits... You literally made my point for me. Once again your poor comprehension abilities betray you. You're far too mentally agile for me .... It must be hard to attempt to reasonably debate an issue when everyone else is so far beneath you? Condolences. pop another Vyvanse mate Mate, telling you now - the legacy media has infected him with the woke mind virus. Go argue it with Rita. I'm not interested in 'culture wars'. Trump 2024 baby! If you want to get in the ring with Trump supporters there are plenty of forums available. I suspect you lack the courage to take them on though. As I've said before, my position on Trump is lesser of two evils, but I have problems with some of this foreign policies, and warp speed, so I'm not the person to debate. No chance I'd take on a trump supporter! They'd destroy anyone with their intellect and lack of woke mind virus - they don't listen to the legacy media and never got warped by getting an education. besides I am with you and them - it was a coup! when I read your posts I observe your lack of self awareness keep fighting the good fight Some people may criticise you for starting a thread on something you haven't even read, or understand but I think you've made some really articulate points, maga baby! Almost feel sorry for someone who has clearly only posted in echo chambers to come here and then be hit, smack in the face, with actual nuanced arguments. Nightmare stuff for the young fella. RUOK? [/quote] you're projecting yourself there champ
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xgiven this forum is largely inhabited by leftists, would I be correct in assuming you think this bill is a good thing? discuss... actually... dumb question... of course you do... let me rephrase.. can you explain and justify to me why you think its a good thing? Ill have a go: Fundamental human rights dictate that EVERYONE (humans only, sorry to all the animal lib nutters) has the right to an opinion and the right to express that in any way that isn't derogatory, inflammatory or violates anyone else's rights.... But thats just an OPINION... The problem with social media and the new way of disseminating information in our age is that OPINION can be easily disguised as NEWS when there is no legality or journalistic ethics behind what is and isnt reported... Previously newspapers, magazines, radio and TV broadcasters were (and are still) obliged to fact check their reporting, have credible sources for what information they are presenting as news and comply with industry codes.... Editorial content from right wing or left wing dildos is just that EDITORIAL opinion.... people have the chance to agree or disagree with whoever they see fit.... but this new communication method twitter/tiktok,instagram and all the other shit i neither know or care about doesn't have that regulated "feature". Our kids (and dumb gullible adults) are led around by the shiniest pair of boobs or slickest pink Lamborghini and anything this trash says is "news"... Legislation HAS the onligation to keep up. This Bill, if passed, will make electronic platforms accountable for self regulating themselves from wack jobs spreading lies and masquerading it as truth-bombs.... and if they dont, then they rightly dont deserve to have access to our "airwaves" Im interested though to hear why you (presumably) don't think its a good idea? I hope your answer isn't just a lazy "freedom of speech " diatribe, we live in Australia where no such protection exists in OUR Constitution.... NOR can you hide behind the "freedom of the press" as this is clearly understood to apply to accredited journalistic intent and NOT any Joe Blow nutter ranting on the internet, regardless of how many "followers" they have. The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensable part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals. so who is the arbiter of truth then? Zuckerberg recently admitted he was pressured by the US administration to censor inconvenient content. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wY9iwFZ7lM I couldn't give a shite about the US mate, they can grind themselves into the ground... The arbiter of truth is "the truth" If you want to state something that goes against undeniable scientific or legal proof as the news then you should either be forced to reveal your "proof" or be clear on the fact you are presenting an OPINION...... The Journalist Code of Ethics ( https://www.meaa.org/meaa-media/code-of-ethics/) states that journalists should “scrutinise power” and commit themselves to “honesty, fairness, independence”, they must not “give distorting emphasis” and must have a “respect for truth”. You do realise Facebook is used by Australians don't you? So any censorship and/or curation of content on that platform affects what Australians see? Even an 80 year old understands this.
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xgiven this forum is largely inhabited by leftists, would I be correct in assuming you think this bill is a good thing? discuss... actually... dumb question... of course you do... let me rephrase.. can you explain and justify to me why you think its a good thing? Ill have a go: Fundamental human rights dictate that EVERYONE (humans only, sorry to all the animal lib nutters) has the right to an opinion and the right to express that in any way that isn't derogatory, inflammatory or violates anyone else's rights.... But thats just an OPINION... The problem with social media and the new way of disseminating information in our age is that OPINION can be easily disguised as NEWS when there is no legality or journalistic ethics behind what is and isnt reported... Previously newspapers, magazines, radio and TV broadcasters were (and are still) obliged to fact check their reporting, have credible sources for what information they are presenting as news and comply with industry codes.... Editorial content from right wing or left wing dildos is just that EDITORIAL opinion.... people have the chance to agree or disagree with whoever they see fit.... but this new communication method twitter/tiktok,instagram and all the other shit i neither know or care about doesn't have that regulated "feature". Our kids (and dumb gullible adults) are led around by the shiniest pair of boobs or slickest pink Lamborghini and anything this trash says is "news"... Legislation HAS the onligation to keep up. This Bill, if passed, will make electronic platforms accountable for self regulating themselves from wack jobs spreading lies and masquerading it as truth-bombs.... and if they dont, then they rightly dont deserve to have access to our "airwaves" Im interested though to hear why you (presumably) don't think its a good idea? I hope your answer isn't just a lazy "freedom of speech " diatribe, we live in Australia where no such protection exists in OUR Constitution.... NOR can you hide behind the "freedom of the press" as this is clearly understood to apply to accredited journalistic intent and NOT any Joe Blow nutter ranting on the internet, regardless of how many "followers" they have. The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensable part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals. so who is the arbiter of truth then? Zuckerberg recently admitted he was pressured by the US administration to censor inconvenient content. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wY9iwFZ7lM I couldn't give a shite about the US mate, they can grind themselves into the ground... The arbiter of truth is "the truth" If you want to state something that goes against undeniable scientific or legal proof as the news then you should either be forced to reveal your "proof" or be clear on the fact you are presenting an OPINION...... The Journalist Code of Ethics ( https://www.meaa.org/meaa-media/code-of-ethics/) states that journalists should “scrutinise power” and commit themselves to “honesty, fairness, independence”, they must not “give distorting emphasis” and must have a “respect for truth”. You do realise Facebook is used by Australians don't you? So any censorship and/or curation of content on that platform affects what Australians see? Even an 80 year old understands this. Im Australian and dont use facebook... In fact I would guess most 80 year olds would be intelligent enough to realise that facebook isnt a source of information at all, just a platform for vain people to pretend to be happy with their lives... You still havent done me the courtesy of explaining what your stance on this bill is? You asked a question, I think I gave a polite answer... now its your turn........
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xgiven this forum is largely inhabited by leftists, would I be correct in assuming you think this bill is a good thing? discuss... actually... dumb question... of course you do... let me rephrase.. can you explain and justify to me why you think its a good thing? Ill have a go: Fundamental human rights dictate that EVERYONE (humans only, sorry to all the animal lib nutters) has the right to an opinion and the right to express that in any way that isn't derogatory, inflammatory or violates anyone else's rights.... But thats just an OPINION... The problem with social media and the new way of disseminating information in our age is that OPINION can be easily disguised as NEWS when there is no legality or journalistic ethics behind what is and isnt reported... Previously newspapers, magazines, radio and TV broadcasters were (and are still) obliged to fact check their reporting, have credible sources for what information they are presenting as news and comply with industry codes.... Editorial content from right wing or left wing dildos is just that EDITORIAL opinion.... people have the chance to agree or disagree with whoever they see fit.... but this new communication method twitter/tiktok,instagram and all the other shit i neither know or care about doesn't have that regulated "feature". Our kids (and dumb gullible adults) are led around by the shiniest pair of boobs or slickest pink Lamborghini and anything this trash says is "news"... Legislation HAS the onligation to keep up. This Bill, if passed, will make electronic platforms accountable for self regulating themselves from wack jobs spreading lies and masquerading it as truth-bombs.... and if they dont, then they rightly dont deserve to have access to our "airwaves" Im interested though to hear why you (presumably) don't think its a good idea? I hope your answer isn't just a lazy "freedom of speech " diatribe, we live in Australia where no such protection exists in OUR Constitution.... NOR can you hide behind the "freedom of the press" as this is clearly understood to apply to accredited journalistic intent and NOT any Joe Blow nutter ranting on the internet, regardless of how many "followers" they have. The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensable part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals. so who is the arbiter of truth then? Zuckerberg recently admitted he was pressured by the US administration to censor inconvenient content. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wY9iwFZ7lM I couldn't give a shite about the US mate, they can grind themselves into the ground... The arbiter of truth is "the truth" If you want to state something that goes against undeniable scientific or legal proof as the news then you should either be forced to reveal your "proof" or be clear on the fact you are presenting an OPINION...... The Journalist Code of Ethics ( https://www.meaa.org/meaa-media/code-of-ethics/) states that journalists should “scrutinise power” and commit themselves to “honesty, fairness, independence”, they must not “give distorting emphasis” and must have a “respect for truth”. I follow a couple of medical science debunkers on Instagram. They have a hundred thousand followers or whatever but they're debunking people who have millions. It makes you sick to think, like you said, gullible adults are endangering their kids lives because some doula from Nimbin is saying don't give your kids a vitamin K shot. ( As an example. )
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xgiven this forum is largely inhabited by leftists, would I be correct in assuming you think this bill is a good thing? discuss... actually... dumb question... of course you do... let me rephrase.. can you explain and justify to me why you think its a good thing? Ill have a go: Fundamental human rights dictate that EVERYONE (humans only, sorry to all the animal lib nutters) has the right to an opinion and the right to express that in any way that isn't derogatory, inflammatory or violates anyone else's rights.... But thats just an OPINION... The problem with social media and the new way of disseminating information in our age is that OPINION can be easily disguised as NEWS when there is no legality or journalistic ethics behind what is and isnt reported... Previously newspapers, magazines, radio and TV broadcasters were (and are still) obliged to fact check their reporting, have credible sources for what information they are presenting as news and comply with industry codes.... Editorial content from right wing or left wing dildos is just that EDITORIAL opinion.... people have the chance to agree or disagree with whoever they see fit.... but this new communication method twitter/tiktok,instagram and all the other shit i neither know or care about doesn't have that regulated "feature". Our kids (and dumb gullible adults) are led around by the shiniest pair of boobs or slickest pink Lamborghini and anything this trash says is "news"... Legislation HAS the onligation to keep up. This Bill, if passed, will make electronic platforms accountable for self regulating themselves from wack jobs spreading lies and masquerading it as truth-bombs.... and if they dont, then they rightly dont deserve to have access to our "airwaves" Im interested though to hear why you (presumably) don't think its a good idea? I hope your answer isn't just a lazy "freedom of speech " diatribe, we live in Australia where no such protection exists in OUR Constitution.... NOR can you hide behind the "freedom of the press" as this is clearly understood to apply to accredited journalistic intent and NOT any Joe Blow nutter ranting on the internet, regardless of how many "followers" they have. The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensable part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals. so who is the arbiter of truth then? Zuckerberg recently admitted he was pressured by the US administration to censor inconvenient content. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wY9iwFZ7lM I couldn't give a shite about the US mate, they can grind themselves into the ground... The arbiter of truth is "the truth" If you want to state something that goes against undeniable scientific or legal proof as the news then you should either be forced to reveal your "proof" or be clear on the fact you are presenting an OPINION...... The Journalist Code of Ethics ( https://www.meaa.org/meaa-media/code-of-ethics/) states that journalists should “scrutinise power” and commit themselves to “honesty, fairness, independence”, they must not “give distorting emphasis” and must have a “respect for truth”. I follow a couple of medical science debunkers on Instagram. They have a hundred thousand followers or whatever but they're debunking people who have millions. It makes you sick to think, like you said, gullible adults are endangering their kids lives because some doula from Nimbin is saying don't give your kids a vitamin K shot. ( As an example. ) Who are these 'medical science debunkers' you follow?
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xgiven this forum is largely inhabited by leftists, would I be correct in assuming you think this bill is a good thing? discuss... actually... dumb question... of course you do... let me rephrase.. can you explain and justify to me why you think its a good thing? Im interested though to hear why you (presumably) don't think its a good idea? Probably won't answer this because it will require some kind of thinking.
|
|
|
petszk
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xgiven this forum is largely inhabited by leftists, would I be correct in assuming you think this bill is a good thing? discuss... actually... dumb question... of course you do... let me rephrase.. can you explain and justify to me why you think its a good thing? Ill have a go: Fundamental human rights dictate that EVERYONE (humans only, sorry to all the animal lib nutters) has the right to an opinion and the right to express that in any way that isn't derogatory, inflammatory or violates anyone else's rights.... But thats just an OPINION... The problem with social media and the new way of disseminating information in our age is that OPINION can be easily disguised as NEWS when there is no legality or journalistic ethics behind what is and isnt reported... Previously newspapers, magazines, radio and TV broadcasters were (and are still) obliged to fact check their reporting, have credible sources for what information they are presenting as news and comply with industry codes.... Editorial content from right wing or left wing dildos is just that EDITORIAL opinion.... people have the chance to agree or disagree with whoever they see fit.... but this new communication method twitter/tiktok,instagram and all the other shit i neither know or care about doesn't have that regulated "feature". Our kids (and dumb gullible adults) are led around by the shiniest pair of boobs or slickest pink Lamborghini and anything this trash says is "news"... Legislation HAS the onligation to keep up. This Bill, if passed, will make electronic platforms accountable for self regulating themselves from wack jobs spreading lies and masquerading it as truth-bombs.... and if they dont, then they rightly dont deserve to have access to our "airwaves" Im interested though to hear why you (presumably) don't think its a good idea? I hope your answer isn't just a lazy "freedom of speech " diatribe, we live in Australia where no such protection exists in OUR Constitution.... NOR can you hide behind the "freedom of the press" as this is clearly understood to apply to accredited journalistic intent and NOT any Joe Blow nutter ranting on the internet, regardless of how many "followers" they have. The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensable part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals. Fantastic answer. The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. As an aside I get a cringey chuckle when you see the posts (or receive the emails at times) where people have taken an American right-wing post and substituted Australia in it, along the lines of; " The Australian Constitution guarantees us freedom of speech. Our founding fathers fought for it. God Bless Australia, we are one nation under God!". At that point, I genuinely wonder if they believe what they're (re)posting, or they're just trolling. Surely no Aussies are that thick. Surely?
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xgiven this forum is largely inhabited by leftists, would I be correct in assuming you think this bill is a good thing? discuss... actually... dumb question... of course you do... let me rephrase.. can you explain and justify to me why you think its a good thing? Ill have a go: Fundamental human rights dictate that EVERYONE (humans only, sorry to all the animal lib nutters) has the right to an opinion and the right to express that in any way that isn't derogatory, inflammatory or violates anyone else's rights.... But thats just an OPINION... The problem with social media and the new way of disseminating information in our age is that OPINION can be easily disguised as NEWS when there is no legality or journalistic ethics behind what is and isnt reported... Previously newspapers, magazines, radio and TV broadcasters were (and are still) obliged to fact check their reporting, have credible sources for what information they are presenting as news and comply with industry codes.... Editorial content from right wing or left wing dildos is just that EDITORIAL opinion.... people have the chance to agree or disagree with whoever they see fit.... but this new communication method twitter/tiktok,instagram and all the other shit i neither know or care about doesn't have that regulated "feature". Our kids (and dumb gullible adults) are led around by the shiniest pair of boobs or slickest pink Lamborghini and anything this trash says is "news"... Legislation HAS the onligation to keep up. This Bill, if passed, will make electronic platforms accountable for self regulating themselves from wack jobs spreading lies and masquerading it as truth-bombs.... and if they dont, then they rightly dont deserve to have access to our "airwaves" Im interested though to hear why you (presumably) don't think its a good idea? I hope your answer isn't just a lazy "freedom of speech " diatribe, we live in Australia where no such protection exists in OUR Constitution.... NOR can you hide behind the "freedom of the press" as this is clearly understood to apply to accredited journalistic intent and NOT any Joe Blow nutter ranting on the internet, regardless of how many "followers" they have. The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensable part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals. Fantastic answer. The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. As an aside I get a cringey chuckle when you see the posts (or receive the emails at times) where people have taken an American right-wing post and substituted Australia in it, along the lines of; " The Australian Constitution guarantees us freedom of speech. Our founding fathers fought for it. God Bless Australia, we are one nation under God!". At that point, I genuinely wonder if they believe what they're (re)posting, or they're just trolling. Surely no Aussies are that thick. Surely? What relevance does this have to anything? I'm well aware free speech doesn't exist in Australia, my question was about the Misinformation Disinformation Bill before parliament. Try to stay on topic.
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
The irony here is that much of the opinions on this forum by regulars are informed by misinformation.
The issue is a lack of the ability of people of lower IQ to disseminate fact from fiction...propaganda from truth. Having a central arbiter of truth solves nothing in this regard as everyone has their biases, motivations and... donors.
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThe irony here is that much of the opinions on this forum by regulars are informed by misinformation. The issue is a lack of the ability of people of lower IQ to disseminate fact from fiction...propaganda from truth. Having a central arbiter of truth solves nothing in this regard as everyone has their biases, motivations and... donors. The real irony is that a "central arbiter of truth" would have absoluely NO issue with anything posted on here... this is a forum, a site where (often uninformed and quite frequently seriously delusional) anonymouse posters offer their opinions on hwta is happeing in the world... NONE OF IT can in anyway be considered news..... If Albanese came out and tweeted that "aboriginals are eating cats and dogs in Alice springs ... its true I saw it on the news" THAT is problematic. Can you not tell the difference?
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThe irony here is that much of the opinions on this forum by regulars are informed by misinformation. The issue is a lack of the ability of people of lower IQ to disseminate fact from fiction...propaganda from truth. Having a central arbiter of truth solves nothing in this regard as everyone has their biases, motivations and... donors. You go you! Don't let anyone stop you from believing in your truth!
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
OMFG I just realised why jonsmith stopped posting. hAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH I'm a fool.... Sorry Lupi carry on.
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xOMFG I just realised why jonsmith stopped posting. hAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH I'm a fool.... Sorry Lupi carry on. hahahahahaAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA jonsmith was at least (usually) attempting to be a polite about things (if not condescending)
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xOMFG I just realised why jonsmith stopped posting. hAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH I'm a fool.... Sorry Lupi carry on. OMFG I just realised why jonsmith stopped posting. hAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH I'm a fool.... Sorry Lupi carry on. hahahahahaAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA jonsmith was at least (usually) attempting to be a polite about things (if not condescending) It's nice to be missed. Warm fuzzy feelings ... even though they misspell the name johnsmith lower case. Regarding this misinformation Bill, look at all the evidence that has poured out about the dangers of the MRNA technology. Governments, during the pandemic, classed this as misinformation solely because it would deter people from getting vaccinated. Remember: there's tons of people who now have regretted taking the MRNA vaccines, but there are no people who regret not getting vaxed. In a science-driven society, false information is challenged by facts and evidence. Whereas, in a totalitarian society, information that goes against the ruling party is branded as "misinformation" and censored. To the extent you cannot see that, will influence you to vote for the political party that has your worldview. For me, I only distinguish between true information AND false information. All this nonsense of mis-, dis- information, it's all Pravda Soviet CCCP language.
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xOMFG I just realised why jonsmith stopped posting. hAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH I'm a fool.... Sorry Lupi carry on. OMFG I just realised why jonsmith stopped posting. hAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH I'm a fool.... Sorry Lupi carry on. hahahahahaAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA jonsmith was at least (usually) attempting to be a polite about things (if not condescending) but there are no people who regret not getting vaxed. Hard to have regret when you're 6 feet under. There were 1,219,487 covid deaths in the USA alone. 2021-22, 10 times more unvaccinated people died. I reckon there would be a few regrets there if they could
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xOMFG I just realised why jonsmith stopped posting. hAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH I'm a fool.... Sorry Lupi carry on. OMFG I just realised why jonsmith stopped posting. hAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH I'm a fool.... Sorry Lupi carry on. hahahahahaAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA jonsmith was at least (usually) attempting to be a polite about things (if not condescending) but there are no people who regret not getting vaxed. Hard to have regret when you're 6 feet under. There were 1,219,487 covid deaths in the USA alone. 2021-22, 10 times more unvaccinated people died. I reckon there would be a few regrets there if they could The following information is what would be censored by this Bill. "This is a victory of SCIENCE over CENSORSHIP!! Incredible perseverence by first author Nicolas Hulscher who didn't give up after LANCET pulled our paper within 24 hours after 100,000s of downloads for no legitimate reason. Dr. William Makis MD We found that 73.9% of deaths were directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination." https://x.com/MakisMD/status/1804209104879042772https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073824001968
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xOMFG I just realised why jonsmith stopped posting. hAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH I'm a fool.... Sorry Lupi carry on. OMFG I just realised why jonsmith stopped posting. hAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH I'm a fool.... Sorry Lupi carry on. hahahahahaAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA jonsmith was at least (usually) attempting to be a polite about things (if not condescending) but there are no people who regret not getting vaxed. Hard to have regret when you're 6 feet under. There were 1,219,487 covid deaths in the USA alone. 2021-22, 10 times more unvaccinated people died. I reckon there would be a few regrets there if they could did all the unvaxxed die?
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xOMFG I just realised why jonsmith stopped posting. hAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH I'm a fool.... Sorry Lupi carry on. OMFG I just realised why jonsmith stopped posting. hAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH I'm a fool.... Sorry Lupi carry on. hahahahahaAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA jonsmith was at least (usually) attempting to be a polite about things (if not condescending) but there are no people who regret not getting vaxed. Hard to have regret when you're 6 feet under. There were 1,219,487 covid deaths in the USA alone. 2021-22, 10 times more unvaccinated people died. I reckon there would be a few regrets there if they could did all the unvaxxed die? Nah. Just ten times as much.
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xOMFG I just realised why jonsmith stopped posting. hAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH I'm a fool.... Sorry Lupi carry on. OMFG I just realised why jonsmith stopped posting. hAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH I'm a fool.... Sorry Lupi carry on. hahahahahaAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA jonsmith was at least (usually) attempting to be a polite about things (if not condescending) but there are no people who regret not getting vaxed. Hard to have regret when you're 6 feet under. There were 1,219,487 covid deaths in the USA alone. 2021-22, 10 times more unvaccinated people died. I reckon there would be a few regrets there if they could did all the unvaxxed die? Nah. Just ten times as much.
worldwide?
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xOMFG I just realised why jonsmith stopped posting. hAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH I'm a fool.... Sorry Lupi carry on. OMFG I just realised why jonsmith stopped posting. hAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH I'm a fool.... Sorry Lupi carry on. hahahahahaAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA jonsmith was at least (usually) attempting to be a polite about things (if not condescending) but there are no people who regret not getting vaxed. Hard to have regret when you're 6 feet under. There were 1,219,487 covid deaths in the USA alone. 2021-22, 10 times more unvaccinated people died. I reckon there would be a few regrets there if they could did all the unvaxxed die? Nah. Just ten times as much.
worldwide? TBH I could not care less if you are an anti vaxxer or what you think of them. Take it or don't, nobody gives AF anymore
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xOMFG I just realised why jonsmith stopped posting. hAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH I'm a fool.... Sorry Lupi carry on. OMFG I just realised why jonsmith stopped posting. hAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH I'm a fool.... Sorry Lupi carry on. hahahahahaAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA jonsmith was at least (usually) attempting to be a polite about things (if not condescending) but there are no people who regret not getting vaxed. Hard to have regret when you're 6 feet under. There were 1,219,487 covid deaths in the USA alone. 2021-22, 10 times more unvaccinated people died. I reckon there would be a few regrets there if they could did all the unvaxxed die? Nah. Just ten times as much.
worldwide? TBH I could not care less if you are an anti vaxxer or what you think of them. Take it or don't, nobody gives AF anymore I believe the point here is about misinformation coming from 'trusted sources' not what you think of vaccines.
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xOMFG I just realised why jonsmith stopped posting. hAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH I'm a fool.... Sorry Lupi carry on. OMFG I just realised why jonsmith stopped posting. hAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH I'm a fool.... Sorry Lupi carry on. hahahahahaAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA jonsmith was at least (usually) attempting to be a polite about things (if not condescending) but there are no people who regret not getting vaxed. Hard to have regret when you're 6 feet under. There were 1,219,487 covid deaths in the USA alone. 2021-22, 10 times more unvaccinated people died. I reckon there would be a few regrets there if they could did all the unvaxxed die? Nah. Just ten times as much.
worldwide? TBH I could not care less if you are an anti vaxxer or what you think of them. Take it or don't, nobody gives AF anymore I believe the point here is about misinformation coming from 'trusted sources' not what you think of vaccines. Like the old trustworthy Dr. William Makis MD
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xOMFG I just realised why jonsmith stopped posting. hAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH I'm a fool.... Sorry Lupi carry on. OMFG I just realised why jonsmith stopped posting. hAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH I'm a fool.... Sorry Lupi carry on. hahahahahaAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA jonsmith was at least (usually) attempting to be a polite about things (if not condescending) but there are no people who regret not getting vaxed. Hard to have regret when you're 6 feet under. There were 1,219,487 covid deaths in the USA alone. 2021-22, 10 times more unvaccinated people died. I reckon there would be a few regrets there if they could did all the unvaxxed die? Nah. Just ten times as much.
worldwide? TBH I could not care less if you are an anti vaxxer or what you think of them. Take it or don't, nobody gives AF anymore I believe the point here is about misinformation coming from 'trusted sources' not what you think of vaccines. Like the old trustworthy Dr. William Makis MD who?
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xOMFG I just realised why jonsmith stopped posting. hAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH I'm a fool.... Sorry Lupi carry on. OMFG I just realised why jonsmith stopped posting. hAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH I'm a fool.... Sorry Lupi carry on. hahahahahaAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA jonsmith was at least (usually) attempting to be a polite about things (if not condescending) but there are no people who regret not getting vaxed. Hard to have regret when you're 6 feet under. There were 1,219,487 covid deaths in the USA alone. 2021-22, 10 times more unvaccinated people died. I reckon there would be a few regrets there if they could did all the unvaxxed die? Nah. Just ten times as much.
worldwide? TBH I could not care less if you are an anti vaxxer or what you think of them. Take it or don't, nobody gives AF anymore I believe the point here is about misinformation coming from 'trusted sources' not what you think of vaccines. Like the old trustworthy Dr. William Makis MD who? Exactly
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
You haven't articulated your issue with it? or what parts of the bill you are opposed to
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+xYou haven't articulated your issue with it? or what parts of the bill you are opposed to go up 3 posts, you'll find I have on the flipside, nobody has been able to answer my OP question yet
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xYou haven't articulated your issue with it? or what parts of the bill you are opposed to go up 3 posts, you'll find I have on the flipside, nobody has been able to answer my OP question yet There is absolutely no clear reference to the bill, its contents or specific points in relation to it. Just vague statements
nobody needs to answer your question because nobody here had probably even read it to make an informed comment on it, like you obviously have.., I assume.
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xYou haven't articulated your issue with it? or what parts of the bill you are opposed to go up 3 posts, you'll find I have on the flipside, nobody has been able to answer my OP question yet There is absolutely no clear reference to the bill, its contents or specific points in relation to it. Just vague statements
nobody needs to answer your question because nobody here had probably even read it to make an informed comment on it, like you obviously have.., I assume. interesting how you assume you speak for everybody else
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xYou haven't articulated your issue with it? or what parts of the bill you are opposed to go up 3 posts, you'll find I have on the flipside, nobody has been able to answer my OP question yet There is absolutely no clear reference to the bill, its contents or specific points in relation to it. Just vague statements
nobody needs to answer your question because nobody here had probably even read it to make an informed comment on it, like you obviously have.., I assume. interesting how you assume you speak for everybody else Isnt that what you've done with this entire thread ffs lol
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xYou haven't articulated your issue with it? or what parts of the bill you are opposed to go up 3 posts, you'll find I have on the flipside, nobody has been able to answer my OP question yet There is absolutely no clear reference to the bill, its contents or specific points in relation to it. Just vague statements
nobody needs to answer your question because nobody here had probably even read it to make an informed comment on it, like you obviously have.., I assume. interesting how you assume you speak for everybody else Isnt that what you've done with this entire thread ffs lol
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
I wish I could post a link to the bill however this is what the government are currently providing us with
Our services aren't available right nowWe're working to restore all services as soon as possible. Please check back soon.20240913T093647Z-r19db56f64bj5m2v69ppygu89800000001w00000000073ph
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
Ok so you still have not clearly articulated your problem with parts of the bill or the bill itself.
The onus is not on us to comment. You brought it up. You give us an overview of what it is and what you disagree with.
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+xOk so you still have not clearly articulated your problem with parts of the bill or the bill itself.
The onus is not on us to comment. You brought it up. You give us an overview of what it is and what you disagree with. so I take it you were completely unaware of this bill? You really have your finger on the pulse don't you...
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xOk so you still have not clearly articulated your problem with parts of the bill or the bill itself.
The onus is not on us to comment. You brought it up. You give us an overview of what it is and what you disagree with. so I take it you were completely unaware of this bill? You really have your finger on the pulse don't you... Goi it, you haven't read it or know the intricacies of it. You need others to do the thinking for you so you can come up with a counter
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xOk so you still have not clearly articulated your problem with parts of the bill or the bill itself.
The onus is not on us to comment. You brought it up. You give us an overview of what it is and what you disagree with. so I take it you were completely unaware of this bill? You really have your finger on the pulse don't you... Goi it, you haven't read it or know the intricacies of it. You need others to do the thinking for you so you can come up with a counter No, I'm not here to sell you anything. That would be an exercise in futility. I'm more interested in the justification the collective here have for this bill. Given you weren't even aware of its existence your participation in this thread is nothing more than noise.
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xOk so you still have not clearly articulated your problem with parts of the bill or the bill itself.
The onus is not on us to comment. You brought it up. You give us an overview of what it is and what you disagree with. so I take it you were completely unaware of this bill? You really have your finger on the pulse don't you... Goi it, you haven't read it or know the intricacies of it. You need others to do the thinking for you so you can come up with a counter No, I'm not here to sell you anything. That would be an exercise in futility. I'm more interested in the justification the collective here have for this bill. Given you weren't even aware of its existence your participation in this thread is nothing more than noise. Well, again.. the onus on what's wrong with it lies with you.
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xOk so you still have not clearly articulated your problem with parts of the bill or the bill itself.
The onus is not on us to comment. You brought it up. You give us an overview of what it is and what you disagree with. so I take it you were completely unaware of this bill? You really have your finger on the pulse don't you... Goi it, you haven't read it or know the intricacies of it. You need others to do the thinking for you so you can come up with a counter No, I'm not here to sell you anything. That would be an exercise in futility. I'm more interested in the justification the collective here have for this bill. Given you weren't even aware of its existence your participation in this thread is nothing more than noise. Well, again.. the onus on what's wrong with it lies with you. I didn't say anything was wrong with it. Its tabled before parliament this week, therefore its news. Its a significant bill.
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xOk so you still have not clearly articulated your problem with parts of the bill or the bill itself.
The onus is not on us to comment. You brought it up. You give us an overview of what it is and what you disagree with. so I take it you were completely unaware of this bill? You really have your finger on the pulse don't you... Goi it, you haven't read it or know the intricacies of it. You need others to do the thinking for you so you can come up with a counter No, I'm not here to sell you anything. That would be an exercise in futility. I'm more interested in the justification the collective here have for this bill. Given you weren't even aware of its existence your participation in this thread is nothing more than noise. Well, again.. the onus on what's wrong with it lies with you. I didn't say anything was wrong with it. Its tabled before parliament this week, therefore its news. Its a significant bill. However you have no opinion on it, or can't explain/understand anything about it? Ok - we have got it.
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
Currently enroute to Sardinia but delayed in Doha. This thread looks fun.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xgiven this forum is largely inhabited by leftists, would I be correct in assuming you think this bill is a good thing? discuss... actually... dumb question... of course you do... let me rephrase.. can you explain and justify to me why you think its a good thing? Let me rephrase then, since you brought it up: Can you explain and justify to me why you think it's a bad thing? As you brought it up, you clearly are implying it's not a good thing. Did you bring these issues up with your MPs when you heard about the bill being tabled?
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xgiven this forum is largely inhabited by leftists, would I be correct in assuming you think this bill is a good thing? discuss... actually... dumb question... of course you do... let me rephrase.. can you explain and justify to me why you think its a good thing? Let me rephrase then, since you brought it up: Can you explain and justify to me why you think it's a bad thing? As you brought it up, you clearly are implying it's not a good thing. Did you bring these issues up with your MPs when you heard about the bill being tabled? I brought it up because I'd like the forum to explain to me why its needed and why its a good thing, given it has been tabled by the ALP. I'm not here to answer your questions.
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xgiven this forum is largely inhabited by leftists, would I be correct in assuming you think this bill is a good thing? discuss... actually... dumb question... of course you do... let me rephrase.. can you explain and justify to me why you think its a good thing? Let me rephrase then, since you brought it up: Can you explain and justify to me why you think it's a bad thing? As you brought it up, you clearly are implying it's not a good thing. Did you bring these issues up with your MPs when you heard about the bill being tabled? I brought it up because I'd like the forum to explain to me why its needed and why its a good thing, given it has been tabled by the ALP. I'm not here to answer your questions. Ok. Here's my stance. I don't care. What's yours?
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xgiven this forum is largely inhabited by leftists, would I be correct in assuming you think this bill is a good thing? discuss... actually... dumb question... of course you do... let me rephrase.. can you explain and justify to me why you think its a good thing? Let me rephrase then, since you brought it up: Can you explain and justify to me why you think it's a bad thing? As you brought it up, you clearly are implying it's not a good thing. Did you bring these issues up with your MPs when you heard about the bill being tabled? I brought it up because I'd like the forum to explain to me why its needed and why its a good thing, given it has been tabled by the ALP. I'm not here to answer your questions. Ok. Here's my stance. I don't care. What's yours? Can I join you on the fence? Haven't read it, nor know anything about it yet still.
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xgiven this forum is largely inhabited by leftists, would I be correct in assuming you think this bill is a good thing? discuss... actually... dumb question... of course you do... let me rephrase.. can you explain and justify to me why you think its a good thing? Let me rephrase then, since you brought it up: Can you explain and justify to me why you think it's a bad thing? As you brought it up, you clearly are implying it's not a good thing. Did you bring these issues up with your MPs when you heard about the bill being tabled? I brought it up because I'd like the forum to explain to me why its needed and why its a good thing, given it has been tabled by the ALP. I'm not here to answer your questions. Has bipartisan support. Try again.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xgiven this forum is largely inhabited by leftists, would I be correct in assuming you think this bill is a good thing? discuss... actually... dumb question... of course you do... let me rephrase.. can you explain and justify to me why you think its a good thing? Let me rephrase then, since you brought it up: Can you explain and justify to me why you think it's a bad thing? As you brought it up, you clearly are implying it's not a good thing. Did you bring these issues up with your MPs when you heard about the bill being tabled? I brought it up because I'd like the forum to explain to me why its needed and why its a good thing, given it has been tabled by the ALP. I'm not here to answer your questions. Has bipartisan support. Try again. it was tabled by the ALP whether it has 'bipartisan' support from ALP-lite (aka the Liberal Party) is irrelevant
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xgiven this forum is largely inhabited by leftists, would I be correct in assuming you think this bill is a good thing? discuss... actually... dumb question... of course you do... let me rephrase.. can you explain and justify to me why you think its a good thing? Let me rephrase then, since you brought it up: Can you explain and justify to me why you think it's a bad thing? As you brought it up, you clearly are implying it's not a good thing. Did you bring these issues up with your MPs when you heard about the bill being tabled? I brought it up because I'd like the forum to explain to me why its needed and why its a good thing, given it has been tabled by the ALP. I'm not here to answer your questions. Has bipartisan support. Try again. it was tabled by the ALP whether it has 'bipartisan' support from ALP-lite (aka the Liberal Party) is irrelevant So is your problem solely that it comes from the "other side"? Did your mother not teach you to use your words when you were younger?
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xgiven this forum is largely inhabited by leftists, would I be correct in assuming you think this bill is a good thing? discuss... actually... dumb question... of course you do... let me rephrase.. can you explain and justify to me why you think its a good thing? Let me rephrase then, since you brought it up: Can you explain and justify to me why you think it's a bad thing? As you brought it up, you clearly are implying it's not a good thing. Did you bring these issues up with your MPs when you heard about the bill being tabled? I brought it up because I'd like the forum to explain to me why its needed and why its a good thing, given it has been tabled by the ALP. I'm not here to answer your questions. Has bipartisan support. Try again. it was tabled by the ALP whether it has 'bipartisan' support from ALP-lite (aka the Liberal Party) is irrelevant So is your problem solely that it comes from the "other side"? Did your mother not teach you to use your words when you were younger? Yours clearly didn't teach you.
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xgiven this forum is largely inhabited by leftists, would I be correct in assuming you think this bill is a good thing? discuss... actually... dumb question... of course you do... let me rephrase.. can you explain and justify to me why you think its a good thing? Let me rephrase then, since you brought it up: Can you explain and justify to me why you think it's a bad thing? As you brought it up, you clearly are implying it's not a good thing. Did you bring these issues up with your MPs when you heard about the bill being tabled? I brought it up because I'd like the forum to explain to me why its needed and why its a good thing, given it has been tabled by the ALP. I'm not here to answer your questions. Has bipartisan support. Try again. it was tabled by the ALP whether it has 'bipartisan' support from ALP-lite (aka the Liberal Party) is irrelevant So is your problem solely that it comes from the "other side"? Did your mother not teach you to use your words when you were younger? Yours clearly didn't teach you. Evidently more so than yours, so... again leads me to why you ask questions with a viewpoint on this specific issue.
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xgiven this forum is largely inhabited by leftists, would I be correct in assuming you think this bill is a good thing? discuss... actually... dumb question... of course you do... let me rephrase.. can you explain and justify to me why you think its a good thing? Let me rephrase then, since you brought it up: Can you explain and justify to me why you think it's a bad thing? As you brought it up, you clearly are implying it's not a good thing. Did you bring these issues up with your MPs when you heard about the bill being tabled? I brought it up because I'd like the forum to explain to me why its needed and why its a good thing, given it has been tabled by the ALP. I'm not here to answer your questions. Has bipartisan support. Try again. it was tabled by the ALP whether it has 'bipartisan' support from ALP-lite (aka the Liberal Party) is irrelevant So is your problem solely that it comes from the "other side"? Did your mother not teach you to use your words when you were younger? This
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
He's trying really hard to troll, but appears to lack any opinion other than being disgruntled
It's hard to troll when most of the other posters here are pretty reasonable and don't see things in black and white.
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
Still has not articulated what is wrong with this Bill and what section he disagrees with. Just vague general statements
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
trusted sources lol
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xtrusted sources lol  You're missing quite a lot of the bill there, that clearly states this is for online platforms (social media/Facebook/X/Truth, etc). But, what would define "Professional news content"? Good question actually. But this bill isn't to stop the news itself, it's regarding the sharing of information on websites/apps. Best would probably be something linked to the Australian Press Council, which includes: public members”, who have no affiliation with a media organisation Nominees of media organisations, including major publishers of newspapers and magazines; a nominee for small publishers, as well as a nominee for the principal union for employees in the media industry Independent journalist members, who are not employed by a media organisation. And this is basically to stop bullshitters parroting bullshit online with no sources. If you have a source (even if it's dodgy, but is at least comparable to what I'm about to go in below), then go for it. That's the whole point of discussion, is it not? As much as johnsmith used to be on the wrong side of everyone's arguments, at least he would try to incorporate sources that somewhat resembled valid publications. Even better, the pages you decided to skip over actually define this:   Also. it looks like you're using an out of date Bill. Please do update it. I think you'll find there are no longer any references to "Content authorised by governments" in the manner that you highlighted.
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
^^^ LoL.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xtrusted sources lol  You're missing quite a lot of the bill there, that clearly states this is for online platforms (social media/Facebook/X/Truth, etc). But, what would define "Professional news content"? Good question actually. But this bill isn't to stop the news itself, it's regarding the sharing of information on websites/apps. Best would probably be something linked to the Australian Press Council, which includes: public members”, who have no affiliation with a media organisation Nominees of media organisations, including major publishers of newspapers and magazines; a nominee for small publishers, as well as a nominee for the principal union for employees in the media industry Independent journalist members, who are not employed by a media organisation. And this is basically to stop bullshitters parroting bullshit online with no sources. If you have a source (even if it's dodgy, but is at least comparable to what I'm about to go in below), then go for it. That's the whole point of discussion, is it not? As much as johnsmith used to be on the wrong side of everyone's arguments, at least he would try to incorporate sources that somewhat resembled valid publications. Even better, the pages you decided to skip over actually define this:   Also. it looks like you're using an out of date Bill. Please do update it. I think you'll find there are no longer any references to "Content authorised by governments" in the manner that you highlighted. Who said it was to stop 'the news'? Your above post is the most retarded thing I've read on this forum and that's saying something. ...according to sources familiar with the matter. Establishment media publishes misinformation constantly and independent journalists keep them accountable. The only difference between one and the other is the former are backed by corporate sponsorship. It doesn't make them any more credible than anyone you meet down at the local pub. ...according to sources familiar with the matter. Once again, you're making my point for me with your imbecilic take which you think is some kind of a win. ...according to sources familiar with the matter.
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xtrusted sources lol  You're missing quite a lot of the bill there, that clearly states this is for online platforms (social media/Facebook/X/Truth, etc). But, what would define "Professional news content"? Good question actually. But this bill isn't to stop the news itself, it's regarding the sharing of information on websites/apps. Best would probably be something linked to the Australian Press Council, which includes: public members”, who have no affiliation with a media organisation Nominees of media organisations, including major publishers of newspapers and magazines; a nominee for small publishers, as well as a nominee for the principal union for employees in the media industry Independent journalist members, who are not employed by a media organisation. And this is basically to stop bullshitters parroting bullshit online with no sources. If you have a source (even if it's dodgy, but is at least comparable to what I'm about to go in below), then go for it. That's the whole point of discussion, is it not? As much as johnsmith used to be on the wrong side of everyone's arguments, at least he would try to incorporate sources that somewhat resembled valid publications. Even better, the pages you decided to skip over actually define this:   Also. it looks like you're using an out of date Bill. Please do update it. I think you'll find there are no longer any references to "Content authorised by governments" in the manner that you highlighted. Who said it was to stop 'the news'?Your above post is the most retarded thing I've read on this forum and that's saying something. ...according to sources familiar with the matter. Establishment media publishes misinformation constantly and independent journalists keep them accountable. The only difference between one and the other is the former are backed by corporate sponsorship. It doesn't make them any more credible than anyone you meet down at the local pub. ...according to sources familiar with the matter. Once again, you're making my point for me with your imbecilic take which you think is some kind of a win. ...according to sources familiar with the matter. trusted sources lol EDIT: But.. one good point you've raised, which I've bolded above. You still haven't outlined what you think is wrong with this bill. You. Yourself. Not your sources. You.
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x[quote]trusted sources lol  You're missing quite a lot of the bill there, that clearly states this is for online platforms (social media/Facebook/X/Truth, etc). But, what would define "Professional news content"? Good question actually. But this bill isn't to stop the news itself, it's regarding the sharing of information on websites/apps. Best would probably be something linked to the Australian Press Council, which includes: public members”, who have no affiliation with a media organisation Nominees of media organisations, including major publishers of newspapers and magazines; a nominee for small publishers, as well as a nominee for the principal union for employees in the media industry Independent journalist members, who are not employed by a media organisation. And this is basically to stop bullshitters parroting bullshit online with no sources. If you have a source (even if it's dodgy, but is at least comparable to what I'm about to go in below), then go for it. That's the whole point of discussion, is it not? As much as johnsmith used to be on the wrong side of everyone's arguments, at least he would try to incorporate sources that somewhat resembled valid publications. Even better, the pages you decided to skip over actually define this:   Also. it looks like you're using an out of date Bill. Please do update it. I think you'll find there are no longer any references to "Content authorised by governments" in the manner that you highlighted. Not your sources. You. He's waiting for someone in the MAGA circle to issue a one-liner so he can then mimic the language as per normal.
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x[quote]trusted sources lol  You're missing quite a lot of the bill there, that clearly states this is for online platforms (social media/Facebook/X/Truth, etc). But, what would define "Professional news content"? Good question actually. But this bill isn't to stop the news itself, it's regarding the sharing of information on websites/apps. Best would probably be something linked to the Australian Press Council, which includes: public members”, who have no affiliation with a media organisation Nominees of media organisations, including major publishers of newspapers and magazines; a nominee for small publishers, as well as a nominee for the principal union for employees in the media industry Independent journalist members, who are not employed by a media organisation. And this is basically to stop bullshitters parroting bullshit online with no sources. If you have a source (even if it's dodgy, but is at least comparable to what I'm about to go in below), then go for it. That's the whole point of discussion, is it not? As much as johnsmith used to be on the wrong side of everyone's arguments, at least he would try to incorporate sources that somewhat resembled valid publications. Even better, the pages you decided to skip over actually define this:   Also. it looks like you're using an out of date Bill. Please do update it. I think you'll find there are no longer any references to "Content authorised by governments" in the manner that you highlighted. Not your sources. You. He's waiting for someone in the MAGA circle to issue a one-liner so he can then mimic the language as per normal. Exactly right. He's read (or seen it on Sky news) that it's 'bad' but doesn't exactly know why yet. Wait a couple of days Loopy and Rita will tell you.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]trusted sources lol  You're missing quite a lot of the bill there, that clearly states this is for online platforms (social media/Facebook/X/Truth, etc). But, what would define "Professional news content"? Good question actually. But this bill isn't to stop the news itself, it's regarding the sharing of information on websites/apps. Best would probably be something linked to the Australian Press Council, which includes: public members”, who have no affiliation with a media organisation Nominees of media organisations, including major publishers of newspapers and magazines; a nominee for small publishers, as well as a nominee for the principal union for employees in the media industry Independent journalist members, who are not employed by a media organisation. And this is basically to stop bullshitters parroting bullshit online with no sources. If you have a source (even if it's dodgy, but is at least comparable to what I'm about to go in below), then go for it. That's the whole point of discussion, is it not? As much as johnsmith used to be on the wrong side of everyone's arguments, at least he would try to incorporate sources that somewhat resembled valid publications. Even better, the pages you decided to skip over actually define this:   Also. it looks like you're using an out of date Bill. Please do update it. I think you'll find there are no longer any references to "Content authorised by governments" in the manner that you highlighted. Not your sources. You. He's waiting for someone in the MAGA circle to issue a one-liner so he can then mimic the language as per normal. Exactly right. He's read (or seen it on Sky news) that it's 'bad' but doesn't exactly know why yet. Wait a couple of days Loopy and Rita will tell you. I hate Sky News FYI they exist for people like you to get worked up so you can play culture wars back and forth with gullible Liberal voters while the big issues are largely ignored or slanted you're both as bad as one another
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]trusted sources lol  You're missing quite a lot of the bill there, that clearly states this is for online platforms (social media/Facebook/X/Truth, etc). But, what would define "Professional news content"? Good question actually. But this bill isn't to stop the news itself, it's regarding the sharing of information on websites/apps. Best would probably be something linked to the Australian Press Council, which includes: public members”, who have no affiliation with a media organisation Nominees of media organisations, including major publishers of newspapers and magazines; a nominee for small publishers, as well as a nominee for the principal union for employees in the media industry Independent journalist members, who are not employed by a media organisation. And this is basically to stop bullshitters parroting bullshit online with no sources. If you have a source (even if it's dodgy, but is at least comparable to what I'm about to go in below), then go for it. That's the whole point of discussion, is it not? As much as johnsmith used to be on the wrong side of everyone's arguments, at least he would try to incorporate sources that somewhat resembled valid publications. Even better, the pages you decided to skip over actually define this:   Also. it looks like you're using an out of date Bill. Please do update it. I think you'll find there are no longer any references to "Content authorised by governments" in the manner that you highlighted. Not your sources. You. He's waiting for someone in the MAGA circle to issue a one-liner so he can then mimic the language as per normal. Exactly right. He's read (or seen it on Sky news) that it's 'bad' but doesn't exactly know why yet. Wait a couple of days Loopy and Rita will tell you. I hate Sky News FYI they exist for people like you to get worked up so you can play culture wars back and forth with gullible Liberal voters while the big issues are largely ignored or slanted you're both as bad as one another You’re more of a free thinking ‘do your own research guy’
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]trusted sources lol  You're missing quite a lot of the bill there, that clearly states this is for online platforms (social media/Facebook/X/Truth, etc). But, what would define "Professional news content"? Good question actually. But this bill isn't to stop the news itself, it's regarding the sharing of information on websites/apps. Best would probably be something linked to the Australian Press Council, which includes: public members”, who have no affiliation with a media organisation Nominees of media organisations, including major publishers of newspapers and magazines; a nominee for small publishers, as well as a nominee for the principal union for employees in the media industry Independent journalist members, who are not employed by a media organisation. And this is basically to stop bullshitters parroting bullshit online with no sources. If you have a source (even if it's dodgy, but is at least comparable to what I'm about to go in below), then go for it. That's the whole point of discussion, is it not? As much as johnsmith used to be on the wrong side of everyone's arguments, at least he would try to incorporate sources that somewhat resembled valid publications. Even better, the pages you decided to skip over actually define this:   Also. it looks like you're using an out of date Bill. Please do update it. I think you'll find there are no longer any references to "Content authorised by governments" in the manner that you highlighted. Not your sources. You. He's waiting for someone in the MAGA circle to issue a one-liner so he can then mimic the language as per normal. Exactly right. He's read (or seen it on Sky news) that it's 'bad' but doesn't exactly know why yet. Wait a couple of days Loopy and Rita will tell you. I hate Sky News FYI they exist for people like you to get worked up so you can play culture wars back and forth with gullible Liberal voters while the big issues are largely ignored or slanted you're both as bad as one another You’re more of a free thinking ‘do your own research guy’ neurolinguistic programming has captured your mind you don't want to be like those grubby free thinkers who horror of horrors actually research topics from...(whispering) "the internet" no you want to be like the cool kids who are informed by such trusted sources as Q&A, The Feed, Triple J, Karl Kruszelnicki :laugh: ...he wears loud shirts coz so you know he's cool right
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]trusted sources lol  You're missing quite a lot of the bill there, that clearly states this is for online platforms (social media/Facebook/X/Truth, etc). But, what would define "Professional news content"? Good question actually. But this bill isn't to stop the news itself, it's regarding the sharing of information on websites/apps. Best would probably be something linked to the Australian Press Council, which includes: public members”, who have no affiliation with a media organisation Nominees of media organisations, including major publishers of newspapers and magazines; a nominee for small publishers, as well as a nominee for the principal union for employees in the media industry Independent journalist members, who are not employed by a media organisation. And this is basically to stop bullshitters parroting bullshit online with no sources. If you have a source (even if it's dodgy, but is at least comparable to what I'm about to go in below), then go for it. That's the whole point of discussion, is it not? As much as johnsmith used to be on the wrong side of everyone's arguments, at least he would try to incorporate sources that somewhat resembled valid publications. Even better, the pages you decided to skip over actually define this:   Also. it looks like you're using an out of date Bill. Please do update it. I think you'll find there are no longer any references to "Content authorised by governments" in the manner that you highlighted. Not your sources. You. He's waiting for someone in the MAGA circle to issue a one-liner so he can then mimic the language as per normal. Exactly right. He's read (or seen it on Sky news) that it's 'bad' but doesn't exactly know why yet. Wait a couple of days Loopy and Rita will tell you. I hate Sky News FYI they exist for people like you to get worked up so you can play culture wars back and forth with gullible Liberal voters while the big issues are largely ignored or slanted you're both as bad as one another You’re more of a free thinking ‘do your own research guy’ neurolinguistic programming has captured your mind Like trump has captured yours? I suppose it's just a giant coincidence that you parrot his language and takes on whatever issue he is trying to pump it. Also weird, did you see albanese with Biden? Weird, didn't you say there was a coup with biden? What is he doing as the president as the US still? I can't keep up.
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]trusted sources lol  You're missing quite a lot of the bill there, that clearly states this is for online platforms (social media/Facebook/X/Truth, etc). But, what would define "Professional news content"? Good question actually. But this bill isn't to stop the news itself, it's regarding the sharing of information on websites/apps. Best would probably be something linked to the Australian Press Council, which includes: public members”, who have no affiliation with a media organisation Nominees of media organisations, including major publishers of newspapers and magazines; a nominee for small publishers, as well as a nominee for the principal union for employees in the media industry Independent journalist members, who are not employed by a media organisation. And this is basically to stop bullshitters parroting bullshit online with no sources. If you have a source (even if it's dodgy, but is at least comparable to what I'm about to go in below), then go for it. That's the whole point of discussion, is it not? As much as johnsmith used to be on the wrong side of everyone's arguments, at least he would try to incorporate sources that somewhat resembled valid publications. Even better, the pages you decided to skip over actually define this:   Also. it looks like you're using an out of date Bill. Please do update it. I think you'll find there are no longer any references to "Content authorised by governments" in the manner that you highlighted. Not your sources. You. He's waiting for someone in the MAGA circle to issue a one-liner so he can then mimic the language as per normal. Exactly right. He's read (or seen it on Sky news) that it's 'bad' but doesn't exactly know why yet. Wait a couple of days Loopy and Rita will tell you. I hate Sky News FYI they exist for people like you to get worked up so you can play culture wars back and forth with gullible Liberal voters while the big issues are largely ignored or slanted you're both as bad as one another You’re more of a free thinking ‘do your own research guy’ neurolinguistic programming has captured your mind Like trump has captured yours? I suppose it's just a giant coincidence that you parrot his language and takes on whatever issue he is trying to pump it. Also weird, did you see albanese with Biden? Weird, didn't you say there was a coup with biden? What is he doing as the president as the US still? I can't keep up. He's a lame duck. If he's meeting Albo you know its nothing important. Your accusation that I'm 'pumping' any issue Trump takes on is a complete lie. You're stuck in a binary world arguing inconsequential issues with people who aren't even present on this forum.
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]trusted sources lol  You're missing quite a lot of the bill there, that clearly states this is for online platforms (social media/Facebook/X/Truth, etc). But, what would define "Professional news content"? Good question actually. But this bill isn't to stop the news itself, it's regarding the sharing of information on websites/apps. Best would probably be something linked to the Australian Press Council, which includes: public members”, who have no affiliation with a media organisation Nominees of media organisations, including major publishers of newspapers and magazines; a nominee for small publishers, as well as a nominee for the principal union for employees in the media industry Independent journalist members, who are not employed by a media organisation. And this is basically to stop bullshitters parroting bullshit online with no sources. If you have a source (even if it's dodgy, but is at least comparable to what I'm about to go in below), then go for it. That's the whole point of discussion, is it not? As much as johnsmith used to be on the wrong side of everyone's arguments, at least he would try to incorporate sources that somewhat resembled valid publications. Even better, the pages you decided to skip over actually define this:   Also. it looks like you're using an out of date Bill. Please do update it. I think you'll find there are no longer any references to "Content authorised by governments" in the manner that you highlighted. Not your sources. You. He's waiting for someone in the MAGA circle to issue a one-liner so he can then mimic the language as per normal. Exactly right. He's read (or seen it on Sky news) that it's 'bad' but doesn't exactly know why yet. Wait a couple of days Loopy and Rita will tell you. I hate Sky News FYI they exist for people like you to get worked up so you can play culture wars back and forth with gullible Liberal voters while the big issues are largely ignored or slanted you're both as bad as one another You’re more of a free thinking ‘do your own research guy’ neurolinguistic programming has captured your mind Like trump has captured yours? I suppose it's just a giant coincidence that you parrot his language and takes on whatever issue he is trying to pump it. Also weird, did you see albanese with Biden? Weird, didn't you say there was a coup with biden? What is he doing as the president as the US still? I can't keep up. You're stuck in a binary world As are you it seems
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]trusted sources lol  You're missing quite a lot of the bill there, that clearly states this is for online platforms (social media/Facebook/X/Truth, etc). But, what would define "Professional news content"? Good question actually. But this bill isn't to stop the news itself, it's regarding the sharing of information on websites/apps. Best would probably be something linked to the Australian Press Council, which includes: public members”, who have no affiliation with a media organisation Nominees of media organisations, including major publishers of newspapers and magazines; a nominee for small publishers, as well as a nominee for the principal union for employees in the media industry Independent journalist members, who are not employed by a media organisation. And this is basically to stop bullshitters parroting bullshit online with no sources. If you have a source (even if it's dodgy, but is at least comparable to what I'm about to go in below), then go for it. That's the whole point of discussion, is it not? As much as johnsmith used to be on the wrong side of everyone's arguments, at least he would try to incorporate sources that somewhat resembled valid publications. Even better, the pages you decided to skip over actually define this:   Also. it looks like you're using an out of date Bill. Please do update it. I think you'll find there are no longer any references to "Content authorised by governments" in the manner that you highlighted. Not your sources. You. He's waiting for someone in the MAGA circle to issue a one-liner so he can then mimic the language as per normal. Exactly right. He's read (or seen it on Sky news) that it's 'bad' but doesn't exactly know why yet. Wait a couple of days Loopy and Rita will tell you. I hate Sky News FYI they exist for people like you to get worked up so you can play culture wars back and forth with gullible Liberal voters while the big issues are largely ignored or slanted you're both as bad as one another You’re more of a free thinking ‘do your own research guy’ neurolinguistic programming has captured your mind Like trump has captured yours? I suppose it's just a giant coincidence that you parrot his language and takes on whatever issue he is trying to pump it. Also weird, did you see albanese with Biden? Weird, didn't you say there was a coup with biden? What is he doing as the president as the US still? I can't keep up. He's a lame duck. If he's meeting Albo you know its nothing important. Your accusation that I'm 'pumping' any issue Trump takes on is a complete lie. You're stuck in a binary world arguing inconsequential issues with people who aren't even present on this forum. Again, where was the coup?
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]trusted sources lol  You're missing quite a lot of the bill there, that clearly states this is for online platforms (social media/Facebook/X/Truth, etc). But, what would define "Professional news content"? Good question actually. But this bill isn't to stop the news itself, it's regarding the sharing of information on websites/apps. Best would probably be something linked to the Australian Press Council, which includes: public members”, who have no affiliation with a media organisation Nominees of media organisations, including major publishers of newspapers and magazines; a nominee for small publishers, as well as a nominee for the principal union for employees in the media industry Independent journalist members, who are not employed by a media organisation. And this is basically to stop bullshitters parroting bullshit online with no sources. If you have a source (even if it's dodgy, but is at least comparable to what I'm about to go in below), then go for it. That's the whole point of discussion, is it not? As much as johnsmith used to be on the wrong side of everyone's arguments, at least he would try to incorporate sources that somewhat resembled valid publications. Even better, the pages you decided to skip over actually define this:   Also. it looks like you're using an out of date Bill. Please do update it. I think you'll find there are no longer any references to "Content authorised by governments" in the manner that you highlighted. Not your sources. You. He's waiting for someone in the MAGA circle to issue a one-liner so he can then mimic the language as per normal. Exactly right. He's read (or seen it on Sky news) that it's 'bad' but doesn't exactly know why yet. Wait a couple of days Loopy and Rita will tell you. I hate Sky News FYI they exist for people like you to get worked up so you can play culture wars back and forth with gullible Liberal voters while the big issues are largely ignored or slanted you're both as bad as one another You’re more of a free thinking ‘do your own research guy’ neurolinguistic programming has captured your mind Like trump has captured yours? I suppose it's just a giant coincidence that you parrot his language and takes on whatever issue he is trying to pump it. Also weird, did you see albanese with Biden? Weird, didn't you say there was a coup with biden? What is he doing as the president as the US still? I can't keep up. He's a lame duck. If he's meeting Albo you know its nothing important. Your accusation that I'm 'pumping' any issue Trump takes on is a complete lie. You're stuck in a binary world arguing inconsequential issues with people who aren't even present on this forum. Again, where was the coup?
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]trusted sources lol  You're missing quite a lot of the bill there, that clearly states this is for online platforms (social media/Facebook/X/Truth, etc). But, what would define "Professional news content"? Good question actually. But this bill isn't to stop the news itself, it's regarding the sharing of information on websites/apps. Best would probably be something linked to the Australian Press Council, which includes: public members”, who have no affiliation with a media organisation Nominees of media organisations, including major publishers of newspapers and magazines; a nominee for small publishers, as well as a nominee for the principal union for employees in the media industry Independent journalist members, who are not employed by a media organisation. And this is basically to stop bullshitters parroting bullshit online with no sources. If you have a source (even if it's dodgy, but is at least comparable to what I'm about to go in below), then go for it. That's the whole point of discussion, is it not? As much as johnsmith used to be on the wrong side of everyone's arguments, at least he would try to incorporate sources that somewhat resembled valid publications. Even better, the pages you decided to skip over actually define this:   Also. it looks like you're using an out of date Bill. Please do update it. I think you'll find there are no longer any references to "Content authorised by governments" in the manner that you highlighted. Not your sources. You. He's waiting for someone in the MAGA circle to issue a one-liner so he can then mimic the language as per normal. Exactly right. He's read (or seen it on Sky news) that it's 'bad' but doesn't exactly know why yet. Wait a couple of days Loopy and Rita will tell you. I hate Sky News FYI they exist for people like you to get worked up so you can play culture wars back and forth with gullible Liberal voters while the big issues are largely ignored or slanted you're both as bad as one another You’re more of a free thinking ‘do your own research guy’ neurolinguistic programming has captured your mind Like trump has captured yours? I suppose it's just a giant coincidence that you parrot his language and takes on whatever issue he is trying to pump it. Also weird, did you see albanese with Biden? Weird, didn't you say there was a coup with biden? What is he doing as the president as the US still? I can't keep up. He's a lame duck. If he's meeting Albo you know its nothing important. Your accusation that I'm 'pumping' any issue Trump takes on is a complete lie. You're stuck in a binary world arguing inconsequential issues with people who aren't even present on this forum. Again, where was the coup?
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]trusted sources lol  You're missing quite a lot of the bill there, that clearly states this is for online platforms (social media/Facebook/X/Truth, etc). But, what would define "Professional news content"? Good question actually. But this bill isn't to stop the news itself, it's regarding the sharing of information on websites/apps. Best would probably be something linked to the Australian Press Council, which includes: public members”, who have no affiliation with a media organisation Nominees of media organisations, including major publishers of newspapers and magazines; a nominee for small publishers, as well as a nominee for the principal union for employees in the media industry Independent journalist members, who are not employed by a media organisation. And this is basically to stop bullshitters parroting bullshit online with no sources. If you have a source (even if it's dodgy, but is at least comparable to what I'm about to go in below), then go for it. That's the whole point of discussion, is it not? As much as johnsmith used to be on the wrong side of everyone's arguments, at least he would try to incorporate sources that somewhat resembled valid publications. Even better, the pages you decided to skip over actually define this:   Also. it looks like you're using an out of date Bill. Please do update it. I think you'll find there are no longer any references to "Content authorised by governments" in the manner that you highlighted. Not your sources. You. He's waiting for someone in the MAGA circle to issue a one-liner so he can then mimic the language as per normal. Exactly right. He's read (or seen it on Sky news) that it's 'bad' but doesn't exactly know why yet. Wait a couple of days Loopy and Rita will tell you. I hate Sky News FYI they exist for people like you to get worked up so you can play culture wars back and forth with gullible Liberal voters while the big issues are largely ignored or slanted you're both as bad as one another You’re more of a free thinking ‘do your own research guy’ neurolinguistic programming has captured your mind Like trump has captured yours? I suppose it's just a giant coincidence that you parrot his language and takes on whatever issue he is trying to pump it. Also weird, did you see albanese with Biden? Weird, didn't you say there was a coup with biden? What is he doing as the president as the US still? I can't keep up. He's a lame duck. If he's meeting Albo you know its nothing important. Your accusation that I'm 'pumping' any issue Trump takes on is a complete lie. You're stuck in a binary world arguing inconsequential issues with people who aren't even present on this forum. Again, where was the coup?
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]trusted sources lol  You're missing quite a lot of the bill there, that clearly states this is for online platforms (social media/Facebook/X/Truth, etc). But, what would define "Professional news content"? Good question actually. But this bill isn't to stop the news itself, it's regarding the sharing of information on websites/apps. Best would probably be something linked to the Australian Press Council, which includes: public members”, who have no affiliation with a media organisation Nominees of media organisations, including major publishers of newspapers and magazines; a nominee for small publishers, as well as a nominee for the principal union for employees in the media industry Independent journalist members, who are not employed by a media organisation. And this is basically to stop bullshitters parroting bullshit online with no sources. If you have a source (even if it's dodgy, but is at least comparable to what I'm about to go in below), then go for it. That's the whole point of discussion, is it not? As much as johnsmith used to be on the wrong side of everyone's arguments, at least he would try to incorporate sources that somewhat resembled valid publications. Even better, the pages you decided to skip over actually define this:   Also. it looks like you're using an out of date Bill. Please do update it. I think you'll find there are no longer any references to "Content authorised by governments" in the manner that you highlighted. Not your sources. You. He's waiting for someone in the MAGA circle to issue a one-liner so he can then mimic the language as per normal. Exactly right. He's read (or seen it on Sky news) that it's 'bad' but doesn't exactly know why yet. Wait a couple of days Loopy and Rita will tell you. I hate Sky News FYI they exist for people like you to get worked up so you can play culture wars back and forth with gullible Liberal voters while the big issues are largely ignored or slanted you're both as bad as one another You’re more of a free thinking ‘do your own research guy’ neurolinguistic programming has captured your mind Like trump has captured yours? I suppose it's just a giant coincidence that you parrot his language and takes on whatever issue he is trying to pump it. Also weird, did you see albanese with Biden? Weird, didn't you say there was a coup with biden? What is he doing as the president as the US still? I can't keep up. Since you're following him closely, is Trump talking about Australia's misinformation bill? I find this highly unlikely.
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
Not sure why that posted 4 times - maybe it was the deep state malfunction
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+xNot sure why that posted 4 times - maybe it was the deep state malfunction maybe it was you hammering your peripherals
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xNot sure why that posted 4 times - maybe it was the deep state malfunction maybe it was you hammering your peripherals Pardon me if I missed it, I'm currently in Sardinia, are we any closer to finding out the primary objection of the proposed bill? Has Sky News provided an update?
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xNot sure why that posted 4 times - maybe it was the deep state malfunction maybe it was you hammering your peripherals Pardon me if I missed it, I'm currently in Sardinia, are we any closer to finding out the primary objection of the proposed bill? Has Sky News provided an update? I suggest perhaps you should attend some remedial primary school learning classes for adults where they teach comprehension skills. Given I've already stated my doubts, the onus is actually on people of your ilk to convince me why any new legislation is needed, not the other way around.
|
|
|
ErogenousZone
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x[quote]Not sure why that posted 4 times - maybe it was the deep state malfunction maybe it was you hammering your peripherals Pardon me if I missed it, I'm currently in Sardinia, are we any closer to finding out the primary objection of the proposed bill? Nice place. On the far side of the island Russian billionaires quietly have houses there.
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
The trusted sources and experts told me the virus would hunt down the unvaccinated. ...even if they're living in the middle of the outback
did that happen?
|
|
|
Les Gock
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 681,
Visits: 0
|
I could easily write 10,000 words about this bill, but in the interests of myself and the dozen or so people (and their multis) who frequent this forum, I'll keep it short. In a nutshell, the main problems I have with this bill are the following: 1) What exactly is the definition of "misinformation"? 2) Who gets to decide if information is "truth" or "misinformation"? I’m still yet to find an adequate definition of the word "mis(dis)information" from the political classes and media. It seems to be more about protecting narratives than protecting the public. The lack of clear definitions for “misinformation” and “disinformation” creates the potential for misuse. This ambiguity could allow for the suppression of dissenting opinions under the guise of combating false information. Who determines what constitutes “misinformation” or “disinformation”? This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. The democratic process is already compromised enough by lobby groups to be brutally honest, but this bill would only make things worse. If people perceive that information is being controlled or censored, it could lead to greater distrust in both the media and the government (already low as it is), exacerbating the very problem this bill allegedly seeks to address. The fact that they 'allowed' such a short timeframe for public input is also extremely suspicious, particularly during grand final week. Hmmm. It's about time the establishment stopped treating us like children.
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI could easily write 10,000 words about this bill, but in the interests of myself and the dozen or so people (and their multis) who frequent this forum, I'll keep it short. In a nutshell, the main problems I have with this bill are the following: 1) What exactly is the definition of "misinformation"? 2) Who gets to decide if information is "truth" or "misinformation"? I’m still yet to find an adequate definition of the word "mis(dis)information" from the political classes and media. It seems to be more about protecting narratives than protecting the public. The lack of clear definitions for “misinformation” and “disinformation” creates the potential for misuse. This ambiguity could allow for the suppression of dissenting opinions under the guise of combating false information. Who determines what constitutes “misinformation” or “disinformation”? This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. The democratic process is already compromised enough by lobby groups to be brutally honest, but this bill would only make things worse. If people perceive that information is being controlled or censored, it could lead to greater distrust in both the media and the government (already low as it is), exacerbating the very problem this bill allegedly seeks to address. The fact that they 'allowed' such a short timeframe for public input is also extremely suspicious, particularly during grand final week. Hmmm. It's about time the establishment stopped treating us like children. I mean.. I don't particularly agree nor disagree with this - all valid points (except for the grand final week thing - no one realistically gives a shit outside Melbourne, and that's with two non-Melbourne teams competing) In terms of this bill though, I would say it's been intentionally left vague as a catch-all if needed. "(a) the content contains information that is reasonably verifiable as false, misleading or deceptive" Could theoretically say, Twitter/X notes is a good example of how this would work. Generally with things like this, if you get "too" specific, people who are actively up to the wrong thing, will find a way around it.
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI could easily write 10,000 words about this bill, but in the interests of myself and the dozen or so people (and their multis) who frequent this forum, I'll keep it short. In a nutshell, the main problems I have with this bill are the following: 1) What exactly is the definition of "misinformation"? 2) Who gets to decide if information is "truth" or "misinformation"? I’m still yet to find an adequate definition of the word "mis(dis)information" from the political classes and media. It seems to be more about protecting narratives than protecting the public. The lack of clear definitions for “misinformation” and “disinformation” creates the potential for misuse. This ambiguity could allow for the suppression of dissenting opinions under the guise of combating false information. Who determines what constitutes “misinformation” or “disinformation”? This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. The democratic process is already compromised enough by lobby groups to be brutally honest, but this bill would only make things worse. If people perceive that information is being controlled or censored, it could lead to greater distrust in both the media and the government (already low as it is), exacerbating the very problem this bill allegedly seeks to address. The fact that they 'allowed' such a short timeframe for public input is also extremely suspicious, particularly during grand final week. Hmmm. It's about time the establishment stopped treating us like children. Nice points Agree about how they define misinformation There is a big problem at the moment though with twitter for example being used to influence the democratic process for one person's personal gain (Musk trying to influence the over throw of the elected Brazilian government so he can mine for minerals that his products need) Oh wait, hang on a second so it's just like what the mainstream/murdoch media is already doing here.....
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI could easily write 10,000 words about this bill, but in the interests of myself and the dozen or so people (and their multis) who frequent this forum, I'll keep it short. In a nutshell, the main problems I have with this bill are the following: 1) What exactly is the definition of "misinformation"? 2) Who gets to decide if information is "truth" or "misinformation"? I’m still yet to find an adequate definition of the word "mis(dis)information" from the political classes and media. It seems to be more about protecting narratives than protecting the public. The lack of clear definitions for “misinformation” and “disinformation” creates the potential for misuse. This ambiguity could allow for the suppression of dissenting opinions under the guise of combating false information. Who determines what constitutes “misinformation” or “disinformation”? This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. The democratic process is already compromised enough by lobby groups to be brutally honest, but this bill would only make things worse. If people perceive that information is being controlled or censored, it could lead to greater distrust in both the media and the government (already low as it is), exacerbating the very problem this bill allegedly seeks to address. The fact that they 'allowed' such a short timeframe for public input is also extremely suspicious, particularly during grand final week. Hmmm. It's about time the establishment stopped treating us like children. Extremely balanced response . I agree with you that freedom of the press should be paramount... there ARE governmental guidelines though as to what is verifiable "news" and what is unverifiable "opinion" ... https://www.nla.gov.au/faq/what-is-fake-news-misinformation-and-disinformation#:~:text=Misinformation%3A%20%E2%80%9Cfalse%20information%20that%20is,narrative%20or%20facts%3B%20propaganda.%E2%80%9D
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xI could easily write 10,000 words about this bill, but in the interests of myself and the dozen or so people (and their multis) who frequent this forum, I'll keep it short. In a nutshell, the main problems I have with this bill are the following: 1) What exactly is the definition of "misinformation"? 2) Who gets to decide if information is "truth" or "misinformation"? I’m still yet to find an adequate definition of the word "mis(dis)information" from the political classes and media. It seems to be more about protecting narratives than protecting the public. The lack of clear definitions for “misinformation” and “disinformation” creates the potential for misuse. This ambiguity could allow for the suppression of dissenting opinions under the guise of combating false information. Who determines what constitutes “misinformation” or “disinformation”? This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. The democratic process is already compromised enough by lobby groups to be brutally honest, but this bill would only make things worse. If people perceive that information is being controlled or censored, it could lead to greater distrust in both the media and the government (already low as it is), exacerbating the very problem this bill allegedly seeks to address. The fact that they 'allowed' such a short timeframe for public input is also extremely suspicious, particularly during grand final week. Hmmm. It's about time the establishment stopped treating us like children. Extremely balanced response . I agree with you that freedom of the press should be paramount... there ARE governmental guidelines though as to what is verifiable "news" and what is unverifiable "opinion" ... https://www.nla.gov.au/faq/what-is-fake-news-misinformation-and-disinformation#:~:text=Misinformation%3A%20%E2%80%9Cfalse%20information%20that%20is,narrative%20or%20facts%3B%20propaganda.%E2%80%9D big lol you're one of those 'govern me harder daddy' types aren't you
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xI could easily write 10,000 words about this bill, but in the interests of myself and the dozen or so people (and their multis) who frequent this forum, I'll keep it short. In a nutshell, the main problems I have with this bill are the following: 1) What exactly is the definition of "misinformation"? 2) Who gets to decide if information is "truth" or "misinformation"? I’m still yet to find an adequate definition of the word "mis(dis)information" from the political classes and media. It seems to be more about protecting narratives than protecting the public. The lack of clear definitions for “misinformation” and “disinformation” creates the potential for misuse. This ambiguity could allow for the suppression of dissenting opinions under the guise of combating false information. Who determines what constitutes “misinformation” or “disinformation”? This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. The democratic process is already compromised enough by lobby groups to be brutally honest, but this bill would only make things worse. If people perceive that information is being controlled or censored, it could lead to greater distrust in both the media and the government (already low as it is), exacerbating the very problem this bill allegedly seeks to address. The fact that they 'allowed' such a short timeframe for public input is also extremely suspicious, particularly during grand final week. Hmmm. It's about time the establishment stopped treating us like children. Extremely balanced response . I agree with you that freedom of the press should be paramount... there ARE governmental guidelines though as to what is verifiable "news" and what is unverifiable "opinion" ... https://www.nla.gov.au/faq/what-is-fake-news-misinformation-and-disinformation#:~:text=Misinformation%3A%20%E2%80%9Cfalse%20information%20that%20is,narrative%20or%20facts%3B%20propaganda.%E2%80%9D big lol you're one of those 'govern me harder daddy' types aren't you Why is it that the least intelligent and the least to offer in dialogue are the smugest?
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xI could easily write 10,000 words about this bill, but in the interests of myself and the dozen or so people (and their multis) who frequent this forum, I'll keep it short. In a nutshell, the main problems I have with this bill are the following: 1) What exactly is the definition of "misinformation"? 2) Who gets to decide if information is "truth" or "misinformation"? I’m still yet to find an adequate definition of the word "mis(dis)information" from the political classes and media. It seems to be more about protecting narratives than protecting the public. The lack of clear definitions for “misinformation” and “disinformation” creates the potential for misuse. This ambiguity could allow for the suppression of dissenting opinions under the guise of combating false information. Who determines what constitutes “misinformation” or “disinformation”? This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. The democratic process is already compromised enough by lobby groups to be brutally honest, but this bill would only make things worse. If people perceive that information is being controlled or censored, it could lead to greater distrust in both the media and the government (already low as it is), exacerbating the very problem this bill allegedly seeks to address. The fact that they 'allowed' such a short timeframe for public input is also extremely suspicious, particularly during grand final week. Hmmm. It's about time the establishment stopped treating us like children. Extremely balanced response . I agree with you that freedom of the press should be paramount... there ARE governmental guidelines though as to what is verifiable "news" and what is unverifiable "opinion" ... https://www.nla.gov.au/faq/what-is-fake-news-misinformation-and-disinformation#:~:text=Misinformation%3A%20%E2%80%9Cfalse%20information%20that%20is,narrative%20or%20facts%3B%20propaganda.%E2%80%9D big lol you're one of those 'govern me harder daddy' types aren't you Wow, you got me there, I wish I had your courage. Did the bikie that tattooed the swastika on your forehead spit in your mouth first?
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xI could easily write 10,000 words about this bill, but in the interests of myself and the dozen or so people (and their multis) who frequent this forum, I'll keep it short. In a nutshell, the main problems I have with this bill are the following: 1) What exactly is the definition of "misinformation"? 2) Who gets to decide if information is "truth" or "misinformation"? I’m still yet to find an adequate definition of the word "mis(dis)information" from the political classes and media. It seems to be more about protecting narratives than protecting the public. The lack of clear definitions for “misinformation” and “disinformation” creates the potential for misuse. This ambiguity could allow for the suppression of dissenting opinions under the guise of combating false information. Who determines what constitutes “misinformation” or “disinformation”? This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. The democratic process is already compromised enough by lobby groups to be brutally honest, but this bill would only make things worse. If people perceive that information is being controlled or censored, it could lead to greater distrust in both the media and the government (already low as it is), exacerbating the very problem this bill allegedly seeks to address. The fact that they 'allowed' such a short timeframe for public input is also extremely suspicious, particularly during grand final week. Hmmm. It's about time the establishment stopped treating us like children. Extremely balanced response . I agree with you that freedom of the press should be paramount... there ARE governmental guidelines though as to what is verifiable "news" and what is unverifiable "opinion" ... https://www.nla.gov.au/faq/what-is-fake-news-misinformation-and-disinformation#:~:text=Misinformation%3A%20%E2%80%9Cfalse%20information%20that%20is,narrative%20or%20facts%3B%20propaganda.%E2%80%9D big lol you're one of those 'govern me harder daddy' types aren't you Wow, you got me there, I wish I had your courage. Did the bikie that tattooed the swastika on your forehead spit in your mouth first? ^ and there you have it ladies and gentlemen
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xI could easily write 10,000 words about this bill, but in the interests of myself and the dozen or so people (and their multis) who frequent this forum, I'll keep it short. In a nutshell, the main problems I have with this bill are the following: 1) What exactly is the definition of "misinformation"? 2) Who gets to decide if information is "truth" or "misinformation"? I’m still yet to find an adequate definition of the word "mis(dis)information" from the political classes and media. It seems to be more about protecting narratives than protecting the public. The lack of clear definitions for “misinformation” and “disinformation” creates the potential for misuse. This ambiguity could allow for the suppression of dissenting opinions under the guise of combating false information. Who determines what constitutes “misinformation” or “disinformation”? This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. The democratic process is already compromised enough by lobby groups to be brutally honest, but this bill would only make things worse. If people perceive that information is being controlled or censored, it could lead to greater distrust in both the media and the government (already low as it is), exacerbating the very problem this bill allegedly seeks to address. The fact that they 'allowed' such a short timeframe for public input is also extremely suspicious, particularly during grand final week. Hmmm. It's about time the establishment stopped treating us like children. Extremely balanced response . I agree with you that freedom of the press should be paramount... there ARE governmental guidelines though as to what is verifiable "news" and what is unverifiable "opinion" ... https://www.nla.gov.au/faq/what-is-fake-news-misinformation-and-disinformation#:~:text=Misinformation%3A%20%E2%80%9Cfalse%20information%20that%20is,narrative%20or%20facts%3B%20propaganda.%E2%80%9D big lol you're one of those 'govern me harder daddy' types aren't you Wow, you got me there, I wish I had your courage. Did the bikie that tattooed the swastika on your forehead spit in your mouth first? ^ and there you have it ladies and gentlemen neurolinguistic programming has captured your mind
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xI could easily write 10,000 words about this bill, but in the interests of myself and the dozen or so people (and their multis) who frequent this forum, I'll keep it short. In a nutshell, the main problems I have with this bill are the following: 1) What exactly is the definition of "misinformation"? 2) Who gets to decide if information is "truth" or "misinformation"? I’m still yet to find an adequate definition of the word "mis(dis)information" from the political classes and media. It seems to be more about protecting narratives than protecting the public. The lack of clear definitions for “misinformation” and “disinformation” creates the potential for misuse. This ambiguity could allow for the suppression of dissenting opinions under the guise of combating false information. Who determines what constitutes “misinformation” or “disinformation”? This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. The democratic process is already compromised enough by lobby groups to be brutally honest, but this bill would only make things worse. If people perceive that information is being controlled or censored, it could lead to greater distrust in both the media and the government (already low as it is), exacerbating the very problem this bill allegedly seeks to address. The fact that they 'allowed' such a short timeframe for public input is also extremely suspicious, particularly during grand final week. Hmmm. It's about time the establishment stopped treating us like children. Extremely balanced response . I agree with you that freedom of the press should be paramount... there ARE governmental guidelines though as to what is verifiable "news" and what is unverifiable "opinion" ... https://www.nla.gov.au/faq/what-is-fake-news-misinformation-and-disinformation#:~:text=Misinformation%3A%20%E2%80%9Cfalse%20information%20that%20is,narrative%20or%20facts%3B%20propaganda.%E2%80%9D big lol you're one of those 'govern me harder daddy' types aren't you Wow, you got me there, I wish I had your courage. Did the bikie that tattooed the swastika on your forehead spit in your mouth first? ^ and there you have it ladies and gentlemen neurolinguistic programming has captured your mind Big chemtrail energy with him
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI could easily write 10,000 words about this bill, but in the interests of myself and the dozen or so people (and their multis) who frequent this forum, I'll keep it short. In a nutshell, the main problems I have with this bill are the following: 1) What exactly is the definition of "misinformation"? 2) Who gets to decide if information is "truth" or "misinformation"? I’m still yet to find an adequate definition of the word "mis(dis)information" from the political classes and media. It seems to be more about protecting narratives than protecting the public. The lack of clear definitions for “misinformation” and “disinformation” creates the potential for misuse. This ambiguity could allow for the suppression of dissenting opinions under the guise of combating false information. Who determines what constitutes “misinformation” or “disinformation”? This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. The democratic process is already compromised enough by lobby groups to be brutally honest, but this bill would only make things worse. If people perceive that information is being controlled or censored, it could lead to greater distrust in both the media and the government (already low as it is), exacerbating the very problem this bill allegedly seeks to address. The fact that they 'allowed' such a short timeframe for public input is also extremely suspicious, particularly during grand final week. Hmmm. It's about time the establishment stopped treating us like children. Extremely balanced response . I agree with you that freedom of the press should be paramount... there ARE governmental guidelines though as to what is verifiable "news" and what is unverifiable "opinion" ... https://www.nla.gov.au/faq/what-is-fake-news-misinformation-and-disinformation#:~:text=Misinformation%3A%20%E2%80%9Cfalse%20information%20that%20is,narrative%20or%20facts%3B%20propaganda.%E2%80%9D big lol you're one of those 'govern me harder daddy' types aren't you Wow, you got me there, I wish I had your courage. Did the bikie that tattooed the swastika on your forehead spit in your mouth first? ^ and there you have it ladies and gentlemen neurolinguistic programming has captured your mind Big chemtrail energy with him another air swing
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI could easily write 10,000 words about this bill, but in the interests of myself and the dozen or so people (and their multis) who frequent this forum, I'll keep it short. In a nutshell, the main problems I have with this bill are the following: 1) What exactly is the definition of "misinformation"? 2) Who gets to decide if information is "truth" or "misinformation"? I’m still yet to find an adequate definition of the word "mis(dis)information" from the political classes and media. It seems to be more about protecting narratives than protecting the public. The lack of clear definitions for “misinformation” and “disinformation” creates the potential for misuse. This ambiguity could allow for the suppression of dissenting opinions under the guise of combating false information. Who determines what constitutes “misinformation” or “disinformation”? This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. The democratic process is already compromised enough by lobby groups to be brutally honest, but this bill would only make things worse. If people perceive that information is being controlled or censored, it could lead to greater distrust in both the media and the government (already low as it is), exacerbating the very problem this bill allegedly seeks to address. The fact that they 'allowed' such a short timeframe for public input is also extremely suspicious, particularly during grand final week. Hmmm. It's about time the establishment stopped treating us like children. Extremely balanced response . I agree with you that freedom of the press should be paramount... there ARE governmental guidelines though as to what is verifiable "news" and what is unverifiable "opinion" ... https://www.nla.gov.au/faq/what-is-fake-news-misinformation-and-disinformation#:~:text=Misinformation%3A%20%E2%80%9Cfalse%20information%20that%20is,narrative%20or%20facts%3B%20propaganda.%E2%80%9D big lol you're one of those 'govern me harder daddy' types aren't you Wow, you got me there, I wish I had your courage. Did the bikie that tattooed the swastika on your forehead spit in your mouth first? ^ and there you have it ladies and gentlemen neurolinguistic programming has captured your mind Big chemtrail energy with him another air swing I don't think it's up to you to decide how you come across. That's for all us to judge.
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThis is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law. Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens.
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xThis is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xThis is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not?
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xThis is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK?
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xThis is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly.
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xThis is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly. Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy. Sounds like fun. Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important?
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThis is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly. Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy. Sounds like fun. Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important? You seem to have the time to familiarise yourself with a lot of other goings on here, not to mention post on this forum. I see you being evasive because you're caught in a conundrum, being a true believer and all.
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly. Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy. Sounds like fun. Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important? You seem to have the time to familiarise yourself with a lot of other goings on here, not to mention post on this forum. I see you being evasive because you're caught in a conundrum, being a true believer and all. A true believer in what? There no conundrum. I don't have an opinion just like I don't have an opinion on the Kurds, the Houtis or Hezbollah. I'm not across it except I believe it has bipartisan support and has something to do with getting rid of rank, outright mis/disinformation. I understand you like black and white opinions and things like sophisticated arguments, considering the nuance and minutiae, escapes you but it's quite important to someone like me.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly. Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy. Sounds like fun. Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important? You seem to have the time to familiarise yourself with a lot of other goings on here, not to mention post on this forum. I see you being evasive because you're caught in a conundrum, being a true believer and all. A true believer in what? There no conundrum. I don't have an opinion just like I don't have an opinion on the Kurds, the Houtis or Hezbollah. I'm not across it except I believe it has bipartisan support and has something to do with getting rid of rank, outright mis/disinformation. I understand you like black and white opinions and things like sophisticated arguments, considering the nuance and minutiae, escapes you but it's quite important to someone like me. Lupi 33, if you want to dialogue with Muz, you need to understand where Muz is coming from. Muz totally believes 100% of everything that the Mainstream Media tells him, zero questions asked. Muz defines "misinformation" as anything which contradicts what the 6 o'clock news and morning breakfast shows tell him. Hence, even if Leftist governments and Big Tech censored Australian into a Soviet Gulag, it would not affect Muz a single bit, since 100% of Muz's opinions are in lock step with the Media. So Muz personally would not be inconvenienced by any censorship whatsoever - because any opinion Muz might want to express would be in 100% alignment with the television news.
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly. Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy. Sounds like fun. Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important? You seem to have the time to familiarise yourself with a lot of other goings on here, not to mention post on this forum. I see you being evasive because you're caught in a conundrum, being a true believer and all. A true believer in what? There no conundrum. I don't have an opinion just like I don't have an opinion on the Kurds, the Houtis or Hezbollah. I'm not across it except I believe it has bipartisan support and has something to do with getting rid of rank, outright mis/disinformation. I understand you like black and white opinions and things like sophisticated arguments, considering the nuance and minutiae, escapes you but it's quite important to someone like me. Lupi 33, if you want to dialogue with Muz, you need to understand where Muz is coming from. Muz totally believes 100% of everything that the Mainstream Media tells him, zero questions asked. Muz defines "misinformation" as anything which contradicts what the 6 o'clock news and morning breakfast shows tell him. Hence, even if Leftist governments and Big Tech censored Australian into a Soviet Gulag, it would not affect Muz a single bit, since 100% of Muz's opinions are in lock step with the Media. So Muz personally would not be inconvenienced by any censorship whatsoever - because any opinion Muz might want to express would be in 100% alignment with the television news. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. When you answer that I might engage with your pathetic ramblings.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly. Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy. Sounds like fun. Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important? You seem to have the time to familiarise yourself with a lot of other goings on here, not to mention post on this forum. I see you being evasive because you're caught in a conundrum, being a true believer and all. A true believer in what? There no conundrum. I don't have an opinion just like I don't have an opinion on the Kurds, the Houtis or Hezbollah. I'm not across it except I believe it has bipartisan support and has something to do with getting rid of rank, outright mis/disinformation. I understand you like black and white opinions and things like sophisticated arguments, considering the nuance and minutiae, escapes you but it's quite important to someone like me. Lupi 33, if you want to dialogue with Muz, you need to understand where Muz is coming from. Muz totally believes 100% of everything that the Mainstream Media tells him, zero questions asked. Muz defines "misinformation" as anything which contradicts what the 6 o'clock news and morning breakfast shows tell him. Hence, even if Leftist governments and Big Tech censored Australian into a Soviet Gulag, it would not affect Muz a single bit, since 100% of Muz's opinions are in lock step with the Media. So Muz personally would not be inconvenienced by any censorship whatsoever - because any opinion Muz might want to express would be in 100% alignment with the television news. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. When you answer that I might engage with your pathetic ramblings.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly. Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy. Sounds like fun. Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important? You seem to have the time to familiarise yourself with a lot of other goings on here, not to mention post on this forum. I see you being evasive because you're caught in a conundrum, being a true believer and all. A true believer in what? There no conundrum. I don't have an opinion just like I don't have an opinion on the Kurds, the Houtis or Hezbollah. I'm not across it except I believe it has bipartisan support and has something to do with getting rid of rank, outright mis/disinformation. I understand you like black and white opinions and things like sophisticated arguments, considering the nuance and minutiae, escapes you but it's quite important to someone like me. Lupi 33, if you want to dialogue with Muz, you need to understand where Muz is coming from. Muz totally believes 100% of everything that the Mainstream Media tells him, zero questions asked. Muz defines "misinformation" as anything which contradicts what the 6 o'clock news and morning breakfast shows tell him. Hence, even if Leftist governments and Big Tech censored Australian into a Soviet Gulag, it would not affect Muz a single bit, since 100% of Muz's opinions are in lock step with the Media. So Muz personally would not be inconvenienced by any censorship whatsoever - because any opinion Muz might want to express would be in 100% alignment with the television news. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. When you answer that I might engage with your pathetic ramblings. People like Muz represent the mob who would deal with opposing information by BANNING, CENSORSHIP, FINES, and JAIL for Muz's opponents. This is because, in daily life - which you can see from Muz's track record on this forum - he does not engage in debate based on facts and evidence. With Miz, it's just mocking and jeering at his opponents. Therefore people like Muz are drawn to political parties that Ban, Censor, Fine and Jail their opponents. Remember, in the 6,000 years of recorded human history, there have been a short few hundreds years, in a few places, where people have been free to speak opposing ideas. Muz's mentality represents to norm of 6,000 years of human history, where force is used to crush opposing voices. Over 6,000 years most people are like Muz. Muz is "most people".Look at this report from Democrat John Carey wanting to silence the opposition. https://x.com/SwipeWright/status/1840231811554664541As for me, in contrast to Muz, I stand for open debate. Let the best reasoning prevail. Let facts and evidence be the way young people are taught to base their ideas, not on mob pressure of succumbing to the pressure of prevailing ideas. I might be one of the few people in Australia that still hold to the maxim: "I might disagree with you, but I will fight for your right to express your view". Very few Australians are left who believe in this foundation of Democracy".
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly. Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy. Sounds like fun. Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important? You seem to have the time to familiarise yourself with a lot of other goings on here, not to mention post on this forum. I see you being evasive because you're caught in a conundrum, being a true believer and all. A true believer in what? There no conundrum. I don't have an opinion just like I don't have an opinion on the Kurds, the Houtis or Hezbollah. I'm not across it except I believe it has bipartisan support and has something to do with getting rid of rank, outright mis/disinformation. I understand you like black and white opinions and things like sophisticated arguments, considering the nuance and minutiae, escapes you but it's quite important to someone like me. Lupi 33, if you want to dialogue with Muz, you need to understand where Muz is coming from. Muz totally believes 100% of everything that the Mainstream Media tells him, zero questions asked. Muz defines "misinformation" as anything which contradicts what the 6 o'clock news and morning breakfast shows tell him. Hence, even if Leftist governments and Big Tech censored Australian into a Soviet Gulag, it would not affect Muz a single bit, since 100% of Muz's opinions are in lock step with the Media. So Muz personally would not be inconvenienced by any censorship whatsoever - because any opinion Muz might want to express would be in 100% alignment with the television news. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. When you answer that I might engage with your pathetic ramblings. I might be one of the few people in Australia that still hold to the maxim: "I might disagree with you, but I will fight for your right to express your view".
The young people of Australia need you now, so they can wave their Hezbollah flags. Dutton wants to jail people for this.
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly. Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy. Sounds like fun. Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important? You seem to have the time to familiarise yourself with a lot of other goings on here, not to mention post on this forum. I see you being evasive because you're caught in a conundrum, being a true believer and all. A true believer in what? There no conundrum. I don't have an opinion just like I don't have an opinion on the Kurds, the Houtis or Hezbollah. I'm not across it except I believe it has bipartisan support and has something to do with getting rid of rank, outright mis/disinformation. I understand you like black and white opinions and things like sophisticated arguments, considering the nuance and minutiae, escapes you but it's quite important to someone like me. Lupi 33, if you want to dialogue with Muz, you need to understand where Muz is coming from. Muz totally believes 100% of everything that the Mainstream Media tells him, zero questions asked. Muz defines "misinformation" as anything which contradicts what the 6 o'clock news and morning breakfast shows tell him. Hence, even if Leftist governments and Big Tech censored Australian into a Soviet Gulag, it would not affect Muz a single bit, since 100% of Muz's opinions are in lock step with the Media. So Muz personally would not be inconvenienced by any censorship whatsoever - because any opinion Muz might want to express would be in 100% alignment with the television news. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. When you answer that I might engage with your pathetic ramblings. I might be one of the few people in Australia that still hold to the maxim: "I might disagree with you, but I will fight for your right to express your view".
The young people of Australia need you now, so they can wave their Hezbollah flags. Dutton wants to jail people for this. you missed the 6,000 years of recorded human history bit... that shit NEVER gets old. Göbekli Tepe is a fake planted by big pharma, global archaeology, anthropology , geography and scientific communities to discredit myocarditis stats.
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly. Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy. Sounds like fun. Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important? You seem to have the time to familiarise yourself with a lot of other goings on here, not to mention post on this forum. I see you being evasive because you're caught in a conundrum, being a true believer and all. A true believer in what? There no conundrum. I don't have an opinion just like I don't have an opinion on the Kurds, the Houtis or Hezbollah. I'm not across it except I believe it has bipartisan support and has something to do with getting rid of rank, outright mis/disinformation. I understand you like black and white opinions and things like sophisticated arguments, considering the nuance and minutiae, escapes you but it's quite important to someone like me. Lupi 33, if you want to dialogue with Muz, you need to understand where Muz is coming from. Muz totally believes 100% of everything that the Mainstream Media tells him, zero questions asked. Muz defines "misinformation" as anything which contradicts what the 6 o'clock news and morning breakfast shows tell him. Hence, even if Leftist governments and Big Tech censored Australian into a Soviet Gulag, it would not affect Muz a single bit, since 100% of Muz's opinions are in lock step with the Media. So Muz personally would not be inconvenienced by any censorship whatsoever - because any opinion Muz might want to express would be in 100% alignment with the television news. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. When you answer that I might engage with your pathetic ramblings. I might be one of the few people in Australia that still hold to the maxim: "I might disagree with you, but I will fight for your right to express your view".
The young people of Australia need you now, so they can wave their Hezbollah flags. Dutton wants to jail people for this. you missed the 6,000 years of recorded human history bit... that shit NEVER gets old. Göbekli Tepe is a fake planted by big pharma, global archaeology, anthropology , geography and scientific communities to discredit myocarditis stats.
Just let that one go straight through to the keeper :D
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly. Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy. Sounds like fun. Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important? You seem to have the time to familiarise yourself with a lot of other goings on here, not to mention post on this forum. I see you being evasive because you're caught in a conundrum, being a true believer and all. A true believer in what? There no conundrum. I don't have an opinion just like I don't have an opinion on the Kurds, the Houtis or Hezbollah. I'm not across it except I believe it has bipartisan support and has something to do with getting rid of rank, outright mis/disinformation. I understand you like black and white opinions and things like sophisticated arguments, considering the nuance and minutiae, escapes you but it's quite important to someone like me. Lupi 33, if you want to dialogue with Muz, you need to understand where Muz is coming from. Muz totally believes 100% of everything that the Mainstream Media tells him, zero questions asked. Muz defines "misinformation" as anything which contradicts what the 6 o'clock news and morning breakfast shows tell him. Hence, even if Leftist governments and Big Tech censored Australian into a Soviet Gulag, it would not affect Muz a single bit, since 100% of Muz's opinions are in lock step with the Media. So Muz personally would not be inconvenienced by any censorship whatsoever - because any opinion Muz might want to express would be in 100% alignment with the television news. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. When you answer that I might engage with your pathetic ramblings. I might be one of the few people in Australia that still hold to the maxim: "I might disagree with you, but I will fight for your right to express your view".
The young people of Australia need you now, so they can wave their Hezbollah flags. Dutton wants to jail people for this. you missed the 6,000 years of recorded human history bit... that shit NEVER gets old. Göbekli Tepe is a fake planted by big pharma, global archaeology, anthropology , geography and scientific communities to discredit myocarditis stats.
Just let that one go straight through to the keeper :D See how you are so biased, even getting triggered on facts and data. It's people like you - when most people are like you - that will turn Australia away from a democracy into a Leftist gulag where people, who hold certain views, are dragged off into the night in vans. A.I. states: "Recorded human history spans approximately 5,500 years, beginning around 3,500 BCE with the advent of writing systems in ancient civilizations such as Mesopotamia and Egypt. This marks the transition from prehistory, which includes the time from the emergence of Homo sapiens approximately 300,000 years ago." "Summary: - Total Recorded History: ~5,500 years - Start of Recorded History: ~3,500 BCE"
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly. Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy. Sounds like fun. Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important? You seem to have the time to familiarise yourself with a lot of other goings on here, not to mention post on this forum. I see you being evasive because you're caught in a conundrum, being a true believer and all. A true believer in what? There no conundrum. I don't have an opinion just like I don't have an opinion on the Kurds, the Houtis or Hezbollah. I'm not across it except I believe it has bipartisan support and has something to do with getting rid of rank, outright mis/disinformation. I understand you like black and white opinions and things like sophisticated arguments, considering the nuance and minutiae, escapes you but it's quite important to someone like me. Lupi 33, if you want to dialogue with Muz, you need to understand where Muz is coming from. Muz totally believes 100% of everything that the Mainstream Media tells him, zero questions asked. Muz defines "misinformation" as anything which contradicts what the 6 o'clock news and morning breakfast shows tell him. Hence, even if Leftist governments and Big Tech censored Australian into a Soviet Gulag, it would not affect Muz a single bit, since 100% of Muz's opinions are in lock step with the Media. So Muz personally would not be inconvenienced by any censorship whatsoever - because any opinion Muz might want to express would be in 100% alignment with the television news. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. When you answer that I might engage with your pathetic ramblings. I might be one of the few people in Australia that still hold to the maxim: "I might disagree with you, but I will fight for your right to express your view".
The young people of Australia need you now, so they can wave their Hezbollah flags. Dutton wants to jail people for this. you missed the 6,000 years of recorded human history bit... that shit NEVER gets old. Göbekli Tepe is a fake planted by big pharma, global archaeology, anthropology , geography and scientific communities to discredit myocarditis stats.
Just let that one go straight through to the keeper :D See how you are so biased, even getting triggered on facts and data. It's people like you - when most people are like you - that will turn Australia away from a democracy into a Leftist gulag where people, who hold certain views, are dragged off into the night in vans. Why are the religious so terrified of the left? Is it because they don't believe in the big fella? Bad for the grift?
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly. Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy. Sounds like fun. Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important? You seem to have the time to familiarise yourself with a lot of other goings on here, not to mention post on this forum. I see you being evasive because you're caught in a conundrum, being a true believer and all. A true believer in what? There no conundrum. I don't have an opinion just like I don't have an opinion on the Kurds, the Houtis or Hezbollah. I'm not across it except I believe it has bipartisan support and has something to do with getting rid of rank, outright mis/disinformation. I understand you like black and white opinions and things like sophisticated arguments, considering the nuance and minutiae, escapes you but it's quite important to someone like me. Lupi 33, if you want to dialogue with Muz, you need to understand where Muz is coming from. Muz totally believes 100% of everything that the Mainstream Media tells him, zero questions asked. Muz defines "misinformation" as anything which contradicts what the 6 o'clock news and morning breakfast shows tell him. Hence, even if Leftist governments and Big Tech censored Australian into a Soviet Gulag, it would not affect Muz a single bit, since 100% of Muz's opinions are in lock step with the Media. So Muz personally would not be inconvenienced by any censorship whatsoever - because any opinion Muz might want to express would be in 100% alignment with the television news. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. When you answer that I might engage with your pathetic ramblings. I might be one of the few people in Australia that still hold to the maxim: "I might disagree with you, but I will fight for your right to express your view".
The young people of Australia need you now, so they can wave their Hezbollah flags. Dutton wants to jail people for this. you missed the 6,000 years of recorded human history bit... that shit NEVER gets old. Göbekli Tepe is a fake planted by big pharma, global archaeology, anthropology , geography and scientific communities to discredit myocarditis stats.
Just let that one go straight through to the keeper :D See how you are so biased, even getting triggered on facts and data. It's people like you - when most people are like you - that will turn Australia away from a democracy into a Leftist gulag where people, who hold certain views, are dragged off into the night in vans. Why are the religious so terrified of the left? Is it because they don't believe in the big fella? Bad for the grift? No mate, the truly religious see socialism as the way of Christ: - Mark 12:41-44
He sat down opposite the treasury, and watched the crowd putting money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums. A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which are worth a penny. Then he called his disciples and said to them, ‘Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury. For all of them have contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on.’
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly. Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy. Sounds like fun. Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important? You seem to have the time to familiarise yourself with a lot of other goings on here, not to mention post on this forum. I see you being evasive because you're caught in a conundrum, being a true believer and all. A true believer in what? There no conundrum. I don't have an opinion just like I don't have an opinion on the Kurds, the Houtis or Hezbollah. I'm not across it except I believe it has bipartisan support and has something to do with getting rid of rank, outright mis/disinformation. I understand you like black and white opinions and things like sophisticated arguments, considering the nuance and minutiae, escapes you but it's quite important to someone like me. Lupi 33, if you want to dialogue with Muz, you need to understand where Muz is coming from. Muz totally believes 100% of everything that the Mainstream Media tells him, zero questions asked. Muz defines "misinformation" as anything which contradicts what the 6 o'clock news and morning breakfast shows tell him. Hence, even if Leftist governments and Big Tech censored Australian into a Soviet Gulag, it would not affect Muz a single bit, since 100% of Muz's opinions are in lock step with the Media. So Muz personally would not be inconvenienced by any censorship whatsoever - because any opinion Muz might want to express would be in 100% alignment with the television news. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. When you answer that I might engage with your pathetic ramblings. I might be one of the few people in Australia that still hold to the maxim: "I might disagree with you, but I will fight for your right to express your view".
The young people of Australia need you now, so they can wave their Hezbollah flags. Dutton wants to jail people for this. you missed the 6,000 years of recorded human history bit... that shit NEVER gets old. Göbekli Tepe is a fake planted by big pharma, global archaeology, anthropology , geography and scientific communities to discredit myocarditis stats.
Just let that one go straight through to the keeper :D See how you are so biased, even getting triggered on facts and data. It's people like you - when most people are like you - that will turn Australia away from a democracy into a Leftist gulag where people, who hold certain views, are dragged off into the night in vans. A.I. states: "Recorded human history spans approximately 5,500 years, beginning around 3,500 BCE with the advent of writing systems in ancient civilizations such as Mesopotamia and Egypt. This marks the transition from prehistory, which includes the time from the emergence of Homo sapiens approximately 300,000 years ago." "Summary: - Total Recorded History: ~5,500 years - Start of Recorded History: ~3,500 BCE" So homo sapiens emerged 300,00 years ago yet the universe began with a little working bee God had going on 6,000 years ago that lasted 6 days with an RDO on the 7th? What universe did the home sapiens exit in BEFORE hand?
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly. Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy. Sounds like fun. Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important? You seem to have the time to familiarise yourself with a lot of other goings on here, not to mention post on this forum. I see you being evasive because you're caught in a conundrum, being a true believer and all. A true believer in what? There no conundrum. I don't have an opinion just like I don't have an opinion on the Kurds, the Houtis or Hezbollah. I'm not across it except I believe it has bipartisan support and has something to do with getting rid of rank, outright mis/disinformation. I understand you like black and white opinions and things like sophisticated arguments, considering the nuance and minutiae, escapes you but it's quite important to someone like me. Lupi 33, if you want to dialogue with Muz, you need to understand where Muz is coming from. Muz totally believes 100% of everything that the Mainstream Media tells him, zero questions asked. Muz defines "misinformation" as anything which contradicts what the 6 o'clock news and morning breakfast shows tell him. Hence, even if Leftist governments and Big Tech censored Australian into a Soviet Gulag, it would not affect Muz a single bit, since 100% of Muz's opinions are in lock step with the Media. So Muz personally would not be inconvenienced by any censorship whatsoever - because any opinion Muz might want to express would be in 100% alignment with the television news. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. When you answer that I might engage with your pathetic ramblings. People like Muz represent the mob who would deal with opposing information by BANNING, CENSORSHIP, FINES, and JAIL for Muz's opponents. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly. Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy. Sounds like fun. Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important? You seem to have the time to familiarise yourself with a lot of other goings on here, not to mention post on this forum. I see you being evasive because you're caught in a conundrum, being a true believer and all. A true believer in what? There no conundrum. I don't have an opinion just like I don't have an opinion on the Kurds, the Houtis or Hezbollah. I'm not across it except I believe it has bipartisan support and has something to do with getting rid of rank, outright mis/disinformation. I understand you like black and white opinions and things like sophisticated arguments, considering the nuance and minutiae, escapes you but it's quite important to someone like me. Lupi 33, if you want to dialogue with Muz, you need to understand where Muz is coming from. Muz totally believes 100% of everything that the Mainstream Media tells him, zero questions asked. Muz defines "misinformation" as anything which contradicts what the 6 o'clock news and morning breakfast shows tell him. Hence, even if Leftist governments and Big Tech censored Australian into a Soviet Gulag, it would not affect Muz a single bit, since 100% of Muz's opinions are in lock step with the Media. So Muz personally would not be inconvenienced by any censorship whatsoever - because any opinion Muz might want to express would be in 100% alignment with the television news. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. When you answer that I might engage with your pathetic ramblings. People like Muz represent the mob who would deal with opposing information by BANNING, CENSORSHIP, FINES, and JAIL for Muz's opponents. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. Muz, Im 100% behind the sentiment however wouldn't go asking questions you dont want the answers too bud... Not many copies of Animal Farm and Dr Zhivago floating around in China or North Korea these days either :)
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly. Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy. Sounds like fun. Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important? You seem to have the time to familiarise yourself with a lot of other goings on here, not to mention post on this forum. I see you being evasive because you're caught in a conundrum, being a true believer and all. A true believer in what? There no conundrum. I don't have an opinion just like I don't have an opinion on the Kurds, the Houtis or Hezbollah. I'm not across it except I believe it has bipartisan support and has something to do with getting rid of rank, outright mis/disinformation. I understand you like black and white opinions and things like sophisticated arguments, considering the nuance and minutiae, escapes you but it's quite important to someone like me. Lupi 33, if you want to dialogue with Muz, you need to understand where Muz is coming from. Muz totally believes 100% of everything that the Mainstream Media tells him, zero questions asked. Muz defines "misinformation" as anything which contradicts what the 6 o'clock news and morning breakfast shows tell him. Hence, even if Leftist governments and Big Tech censored Australian into a Soviet Gulag, it would not affect Muz a single bit, since 100% of Muz's opinions are in lock step with the Media. So Muz personally would not be inconvenienced by any censorship whatsoever - because any opinion Muz might want to express would be in 100% alignment with the television news. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. When you answer that I might engage with your pathetic ramblings. People like Muz represent the mob who would deal with opposing information by BANNING, CENSORSHIP, FINES, and JAIL for Muz's opponents. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. Muz, Im 100% behind the sentiment however wouldn't go asking questions you dont want the answers too bud... Not many copies of Animal Farm and Dr Zhivago floating around in China or North Korea these days either :) Sure but they're authoritarian dictatorships. They're not, for want of better phrasing, a free and functioning democracy.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly. Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy. Sounds like fun. Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important? You seem to have the time to familiarise yourself with a lot of other goings on here, not to mention post on this forum. I see you being evasive because you're caught in a conundrum, being a true believer and all. A true believer in what? There no conundrum. I don't have an opinion just like I don't have an opinion on the Kurds, the Houtis or Hezbollah. I'm not across it except I believe it has bipartisan support and has something to do with getting rid of rank, outright mis/disinformation. I understand you like black and white opinions and things like sophisticated arguments, considering the nuance and minutiae, escapes you but it's quite important to someone like me. Lupi 33, if you want to dialogue with Muz, you need to understand where Muz is coming from. Muz totally believes 100% of everything that the Mainstream Media tells him, zero questions asked. Muz defines "misinformation" as anything which contradicts what the 6 o'clock news and morning breakfast shows tell him. Hence, even if Leftist governments and Big Tech censored Australian into a Soviet Gulag, it would not affect Muz a single bit, since 100% of Muz's opinions are in lock step with the Media. So Muz personally would not be inconvenienced by any censorship whatsoever - because any opinion Muz might want to express would be in 100% alignment with the television news. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. When you answer that I might engage with your pathetic ramblings. People like Muz represent the mob who would deal with opposing information by BANNING, CENSORSHIP, FINES, and JAIL for Muz's opponents. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. Muz, Im 100% behind the sentiment however wouldn't go asking questions you dont want the answers too bud... Not many copies of Animal Farm and Dr Zhivago floating around in China or North Korea these days either :) +x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly. Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy. Sounds like fun. Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important? You seem to have the time to familiarise yourself with a lot of other goings on here, not to mention post on this forum. I see you being evasive because you're caught in a conundrum, being a true believer and all. A true believer in what? There no conundrum. I don't have an opinion just like I don't have an opinion on the Kurds, the Houtis or Hezbollah. I'm not across it except I believe it has bipartisan support and has something to do with getting rid of rank, outright mis/disinformation. I understand you like black and white opinions and things like sophisticated arguments, considering the nuance and minutiae, escapes you but it's quite important to someone like me. Lupi 33, if you want to dialogue with Muz, you need to understand where Muz is coming from. Muz totally believes 100% of everything that the Mainstream Media tells him, zero questions asked. Muz defines "misinformation" as anything which contradicts what the 6 o'clock news and morning breakfast shows tell him. Hence, even if Leftist governments and Big Tech censored Australian into a Soviet Gulag, it would not affect Muz a single bit, since 100% of Muz's opinions are in lock step with the Media. So Muz personally would not be inconvenienced by any censorship whatsoever - because any opinion Muz might want to express would be in 100% alignment with the television news. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. When you answer that I might engage with your pathetic ramblings. People like Muz represent the mob who would deal with opposing information by BANNING, CENSORSHIP, FINES, and JAIL for Muz's opponents. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. are you okay with the government enforcing online censorship or not? or you only have a problem when its some obscure church in the USA doing it?
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]+x[quote]This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly. Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy. Sounds like fun. Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important? You seem to have the time to familiarise yourself with a lot of other goings on here, not to mention post on this forum. I see you being evasive because you're caught in a conundrum, being a true believer and all. A true believer in what? There no conundrum. I don't have an opinion just like I don't have an opinion on the Kurds, the Houtis or Hezbollah. I'm not across it except I believe it has bipartisan support and has something to do with getting rid of rank, outright mis/disinformation. I understand you like black and white opinions and things like sophisticated arguments, considering the nuance and minutiae, escapes you but it's quite important to someone like me. Lupi 33, if you want to dialogue with Muz, you need to understand where Muz is coming from. Muz totally believes 100% of everything that the Mainstream Media tells him, zero questions asked. Muz defines "misinformation" as anything which contradicts what the 6 o'clock news and morning breakfast shows tell him. Hence, even if Leftist governments and Big Tech censored Australian into a Soviet Gulag, it would not affect Muz a single bit, since 100% of Muz's opinions are in lock step with the Media. So Muz personally would not be inconvenienced by any censorship whatsoever - because any opinion Muz might want to express would be in 100% alignment with the television news. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. When you answer that I might engage with your pathetic ramblings. People like Muz represent the mob who would deal with opposing information by BANNING, CENSORSHIP, FINES, and JAIL for Muz's opponents. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. Muz, Im 100% behind the sentiment however wouldn't go asking questions you dont want the answers too bud... Not many copies of Animal Farm and Dr Zhivago floating around in China or North Korea these days either :) +x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThis is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly. Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy. Sounds like fun. Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important? You seem to have the time to familiarise yourself with a lot of other goings on here, not to mention post on this forum. I see you being evasive because you're caught in a conundrum, being a true believer and all. A true believer in what?
There no conundrum. I don't have an opinion just like I don't have an opinion on the Kurds, the Houtis or Hezbollah.
I'm not across it except I believe it has bipartisan support and has something to do with getting rid of rank, outright mis/disinformation.
I understand you like black and white opinions and things like sophisticated arguments, considering the nuance and minutiae, escapes you but it's quite important to someone like me.
Lupi 33, if you want to dialogue with Muz, you need to understand where Muz is coming from.
Muz totally believes 100% of everything that the Mainstream Media tells him, zero questions asked. Muz defines "misinformation" as anything which contradicts what the 6 o'clock news and morning breakfast shows tell him.
Hence, even if Leftist governments and Big Tech censored Australian into a Soviet Gulag, it would not affect Muz a single bit, since 100% of Muz's opinions are in lock step with the Media. So Muz personally would not be inconvenienced by any censorship whatsoever - because any opinion Muz might want to express would be in 100% alignment with the television news.
Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '.
When you answer that I might engage with your pathetic ramblings. People like Muz represent the mob who would deal with opposing information by BANNING, CENSORSHIP, FINES, and JAIL for Muz's opponents.
Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '.
are you okay with the government enforcing online censorship or not?
Are you arguing for kiddie material?
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]+x[quote]This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly. Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy. Sounds like fun. Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important? You seem to have the time to familiarise yourself with a lot of other goings on here, not to mention post on this forum. I see you being evasive because you're caught in a conundrum, being a true believer and all. A true believer in what? There no conundrum. I don't have an opinion just like I don't have an opinion on the Kurds, the Houtis or Hezbollah. I'm not across it except I believe it has bipartisan support and has something to do with getting rid of rank, outright mis/disinformation. I understand you like black and white opinions and things like sophisticated arguments, considering the nuance and minutiae, escapes you but it's quite important to someone like me. Lupi 33, if you want to dialogue with Muz, you need to understand where Muz is coming from. Muz totally believes 100% of everything that the Mainstream Media tells him, zero questions asked. Muz defines "misinformation" as anything which contradicts what the 6 o'clock news and morning breakfast shows tell him. Hence, even if Leftist governments and Big Tech censored Australian into a Soviet Gulag, it would not affect Muz a single bit, since 100% of Muz's opinions are in lock step with the Media. So Muz personally would not be inconvenienced by any censorship whatsoever - because any opinion Muz might want to express would be in 100% alignment with the television news. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. When you answer that I might engage with your pathetic ramblings. People like Muz represent the mob who would deal with opposing information by BANNING, CENSORSHIP, FINES, and JAIL for Muz's opponents. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. Muz, Im 100% behind the sentiment however wouldn't go asking questions you dont want the answers too bud... Not many copies of Animal Farm and Dr Zhivago floating around in China or North Korea these days either :) +x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThis is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly. Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy. Sounds like fun. Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important? You seem to have the time to familiarise yourself with a lot of other goings on here, not to mention post on this forum. I see you being evasive because you're caught in a conundrum, being a true believer and all. A true believer in what?
There no conundrum. I don't have an opinion just like I don't have an opinion on the Kurds, the Houtis or Hezbollah.
I'm not across it except I believe it has bipartisan support and has something to do with getting rid of rank, outright mis/disinformation.
I understand you like black and white opinions and things like sophisticated arguments, considering the nuance and minutiae, escapes you but it's quite important to someone like me.
Lupi 33, if you want to dialogue with Muz, you need to understand where Muz is coming from.
Muz totally believes 100% of everything that the Mainstream Media tells him, zero questions asked. Muz defines "misinformation" as anything which contradicts what the 6 o'clock news and morning breakfast shows tell him.
Hence, even if Leftist governments and Big Tech censored Australian into a Soviet Gulag, it would not affect Muz a single bit, since 100% of Muz's opinions are in lock step with the Media. So Muz personally would not be inconvenienced by any censorship whatsoever - because any opinion Muz might want to express would be in 100% alignment with the television news.
Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '.
When you answer that I might engage with your pathetic ramblings. People like Muz represent the mob who would deal with opposing information by BANNING, CENSORSHIP, FINES, and JAIL for Muz's opponents.
Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '.
are you okay with the government enforcing online censorship or not?
Are you arguing for kiddie material? And bestiality, torture and snuff films. We need to get that sort of thing off the dark web and online where everyone can see it 'in the interests of free speech'.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]+x[quote]This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly. Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy. Sounds like fun. Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important? You seem to have the time to familiarise yourself with a lot of other goings on here, not to mention post on this forum. I see you being evasive because you're caught in a conundrum, being a true believer and all. A true believer in what? There no conundrum. I don't have an opinion just like I don't have an opinion on the Kurds, the Houtis or Hezbollah. I'm not across it except I believe it has bipartisan support and has something to do with getting rid of rank, outright mis/disinformation. I understand you like black and white opinions and things like sophisticated arguments, considering the nuance and minutiae, escapes you but it's quite important to someone like me. Lupi 33, if you want to dialogue with Muz, you need to understand where Muz is coming from. Muz totally believes 100% of everything that the Mainstream Media tells him, zero questions asked. Muz defines "misinformation" as anything which contradicts what the 6 o'clock news and morning breakfast shows tell him. Hence, even if Leftist governments and Big Tech censored Australian into a Soviet Gulag, it would not affect Muz a single bit, since 100% of Muz's opinions are in lock step with the Media. So Muz personally would not be inconvenienced by any censorship whatsoever - because any opinion Muz might want to express would be in 100% alignment with the television news. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. When you answer that I might engage with your pathetic ramblings. People like Muz represent the mob who would deal with opposing information by BANNING, CENSORSHIP, FINES, and JAIL for Muz's opponents. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. Muz, Im 100% behind the sentiment however wouldn't go asking questions you dont want the answers too bud... Not many copies of Animal Farm and Dr Zhivago floating around in China or North Korea these days either :) +x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThis is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly. Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy. Sounds like fun. Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important? You seem to have the time to familiarise yourself with a lot of other goings on here, not to mention post on this forum. I see you being evasive because you're caught in a conundrum, being a true believer and all. A true believer in what?
There no conundrum. I don't have an opinion just like I don't have an opinion on the Kurds, the Houtis or Hezbollah.
I'm not across it except I believe it has bipartisan support and has something to do with getting rid of rank, outright mis/disinformation.
I understand you like black and white opinions and things like sophisticated arguments, considering the nuance and minutiae, escapes you but it's quite important to someone like me.
Lupi 33, if you want to dialogue with Muz, you need to understand where Muz is coming from.
Muz totally believes 100% of everything that the Mainstream Media tells him, zero questions asked. Muz defines "misinformation" as anything which contradicts what the 6 o'clock news and morning breakfast shows tell him.
Hence, even if Leftist governments and Big Tech censored Australian into a Soviet Gulag, it would not affect Muz a single bit, since 100% of Muz's opinions are in lock step with the Media. So Muz personally would not be inconvenienced by any censorship whatsoever - because any opinion Muz might want to express would be in 100% alignment with the television news.
Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '.
When you answer that I might engage with your pathetic ramblings. People like Muz represent the mob who would deal with opposing information by BANNING, CENSORSHIP, FINES, and JAIL for Muz's opponents.
Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '.
are you okay with the government enforcing online censorship or not?
Are you arguing for kiddie material? What are you talking about?
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly. Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy. Sounds like fun. Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important? You seem to have the time to familiarise yourself with a lot of other goings on here, not to mention post on this forum. I see you being evasive because you're caught in a conundrum, being a true believer and all. A true believer in what? There no conundrum. I don't have an opinion just like I don't have an opinion on the Kurds, the Houtis or Hezbollah. I'm not across it except I believe it has bipartisan support and has something to do with getting rid of rank, outright mis/disinformation. I understand you like black and white opinions and things like sophisticated arguments, considering the nuance and minutiae, escapes you but it's quite important to someone like me. Lupi 33, if you want to dialogue with Muz, you need to understand where Muz is coming from. Muz totally believes 100% of everything that the Mainstream Media tells him, zero questions asked. Muz defines "misinformation" as anything which contradicts what the 6 o'clock news and morning breakfast shows tell him. Hence, even if Leftist governments and Big Tech censored Australian into a Soviet Gulag, it would not affect Muz a single bit, since 100% of Muz's opinions are in lock step with the Media. So Muz personally would not be inconvenienced by any censorship whatsoever - because any opinion Muz might want to express would be in 100% alignment with the television news. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. When you answer that I might engage with your pathetic ramblings. People like Muz represent the mob who would deal with opposing information by BANNING, CENSORSHIP, FINES, and JAIL for Muz's opponents. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. Speaking for myself, I disagree and am against many things - but, for adults, I do not go around advocating banning anything. I believe in a level playing field, where all people can present argument and reasons for why they disagree. i.e. when a person becomes an adult, it's their freedom of choice. These pertain to personal freedoms. As for under-age children, I am in favour of banning materials from schools that are regarded as inappropriate for young children. For example, when I was growing up, we had sex education classes in Year 10 where most of the students were aged around 15 or 16. In such instances, I see that the parents of the child are the ones primary having the responsibility to bring up their children, not the State. It is because of the innocence of children that is the reason for seeking to protect children. This is the prime motive of banning things like "child pornography". It is absolutely appropriate for the law to ban child pornography, in film format and in book format - because of the need to protect under-age children who are not yet adults. In my opinion, it is inappropriate to provide sex education to pre-teen children who are at an age where their sexuality is many years away from becoming part of their awareness. Although one may debate when that age a person's sexuality becomes an awareness, surely it is common sense that a 4 to 6 year old is many years away from developing their sexual awareness. Regarding personal freedoms, I see a principle that one can exercise one's personal freedoms, provided they do not kill someone else. That is why I am against abortion. Sure, a person has the right to personal freedom as to what happens to their body ... but that does not extend to killing another person that, for a few months, is resident inside someone else's body as it grows. In other words, there are two counter-balancing principles - the person's right over their own body, versus the life of the child resident inside that body. It is a separate person with separate DNA, and separate heartbeat. The baby is not the body of the adult. This is how I would argue my case, and I am against a society that threatens the expression of such ideas with the force of law.
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly. Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy. Sounds like fun. Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important? You seem to have the time to familiarise yourself with a lot of other goings on here, not to mention post on this forum. I see you being evasive because you're caught in a conundrum, being a true believer and all. A true believer in what? There no conundrum. I don't have an opinion just like I don't have an opinion on the Kurds, the Houtis or Hezbollah. I'm not across it except I believe it has bipartisan support and has something to do with getting rid of rank, outright mis/disinformation. I understand you like black and white opinions and things like sophisticated arguments, considering the nuance and minutiae, escapes you but it's quite important to someone like me. Lupi 33, if you want to dialogue with Muz, you need to understand where Muz is coming from. Muz totally believes 100% of everything that the Mainstream Media tells him, zero questions asked. Muz defines "misinformation" as anything which contradicts what the 6 o'clock news and morning breakfast shows tell him. Hence, even if Leftist governments and Big Tech censored Australian into a Soviet Gulag, it would not affect Muz a single bit, since 100% of Muz's opinions are in lock step with the Media. So Muz personally would not be inconvenienced by any censorship whatsoever - because any opinion Muz might want to express would be in 100% alignment with the television news. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. When you answer that I might engage with your pathetic ramblings. People like Muz represent the mob who would deal with opposing information by BANNING, CENSORSHIP, FINES, and JAIL for Muz's opponents. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. I am in favour of banning materials from schools that are regarded as inappropriate for young children. So you're in favour of your form of government censorship. Got it. Not even going to touch the rest,
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly. Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy. Sounds like fun. Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important? You seem to have the time to familiarise yourself with a lot of other goings on here, not to mention post on this forum. I see you being evasive because you're caught in a conundrum, being a true believer and all. A true believer in what? There no conundrum. I don't have an opinion just like I don't have an opinion on the Kurds, the Houtis or Hezbollah. I'm not across it except I believe it has bipartisan support and has something to do with getting rid of rank, outright mis/disinformation. I understand you like black and white opinions and things like sophisticated arguments, considering the nuance and minutiae, escapes you but it's quite important to someone like me. Lupi 33, if you want to dialogue with Muz, you need to understand where Muz is coming from. Muz totally believes 100% of everything that the Mainstream Media tells him, zero questions asked. Muz defines "misinformation" as anything which contradicts what the 6 o'clock news and morning breakfast shows tell him. Hence, even if Leftist governments and Big Tech censored Australian into a Soviet Gulag, it would not affect Muz a single bit, since 100% of Muz's opinions are in lock step with the Media. So Muz personally would not be inconvenienced by any censorship whatsoever - because any opinion Muz might want to express would be in 100% alignment with the television news. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. When you answer that I might engage with your pathetic ramblings. People like Muz represent the mob who would deal with opposing information by BANNING, CENSORSHIP, FINES, and JAIL for Muz's opponents. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. I am in favour of banning materials from schools that are regarded as inappropriate for young children. So you're in favour of your form of government censorship. Got it. Not even going to touch the rest, tsf, I don't know if you have children. But if you do -- you're saying that you, as a parent, DO NOT give boundaries to your kids? Anything they want, you let them? It is deceptive to equate giving boundaries to children with "censorship". It is these types of devious arguments that Marxists bring change to society. Actually many modern younger Australian parents do just that ... and it explains the downward spiral of western society.
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly. Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy. Sounds like fun. Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important? You seem to have the time to familiarise yourself with a lot of other goings on here, not to mention post on this forum. I see you being evasive because you're caught in a conundrum, being a true believer and all. A true believer in what? There no conundrum. I don't have an opinion just like I don't have an opinion on the Kurds, the Houtis or Hezbollah. I'm not across it except I believe it has bipartisan support and has something to do with getting rid of rank, outright mis/disinformation. I understand you like black and white opinions and things like sophisticated arguments, considering the nuance and minutiae, escapes you but it's quite important to someone like me. Lupi 33, if you want to dialogue with Muz, you need to understand where Muz is coming from. Muz totally believes 100% of everything that the Mainstream Media tells him, zero questions asked. Muz defines "misinformation" as anything which contradicts what the 6 o'clock news and morning breakfast shows tell him. Hence, even if Leftist governments and Big Tech censored Australian into a Soviet Gulag, it would not affect Muz a single bit, since 100% of Muz's opinions are in lock step with the Media. So Muz personally would not be inconvenienced by any censorship whatsoever - because any opinion Muz might want to express would be in 100% alignment with the television news. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. When you answer that I might engage with your pathetic ramblings. People like Muz represent the mob who would deal with opposing information by BANNING, CENSORSHIP, FINES, and JAIL for Muz's opponents. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. I am in favour of banning materials from schools that are regarded as inappropriate for young children. So you're in favour of your form of government censorship. Got it. Not even going to touch the rest, tsf, I don't know if you have children. But if you do -- you're saying that you, as a parent, DO NOT give boundaries to your kids? Anything they want, you let them? It is deceptive to equate giving boundaries to children with "censorship". It is these types of devious arguments that Marxists bring change to society. Actually many modern younger Australian parents do just that ... and it explains the downward spiral of western society. This sounds like someone who wants to control people would say. And basically against what you claim the government are doing with social media. Having said that they could also argue your point. So maybe your good align with them?
BTW What is in schools that needs to be banned? Isis bomb making guides? Books trying to get kids to play AFL?
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly. Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy. Sounds like fun. Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important? You seem to have the time to familiarise yourself with a lot of other goings on here, not to mention post on this forum. I see you being evasive because you're caught in a conundrum, being a true believer and all. A true believer in what? There no conundrum. I don't have an opinion just like I don't have an opinion on the Kurds, the Houtis or Hezbollah. I'm not across it except I believe it has bipartisan support and has something to do with getting rid of rank, outright mis/disinformation. I understand you like black and white opinions and things like sophisticated arguments, considering the nuance and minutiae, escapes you but it's quite important to someone like me. Lupi 33, if you want to dialogue with Muz, you need to understand where Muz is coming from. Muz totally believes 100% of everything that the Mainstream Media tells him, zero questions asked. Muz defines "misinformation" as anything which contradicts what the 6 o'clock news and morning breakfast shows tell him. Hence, even if Leftist governments and Big Tech censored Australian into a Soviet Gulag, it would not affect Muz a single bit, since 100% of Muz's opinions are in lock step with the Media. So Muz personally would not be inconvenienced by any censorship whatsoever - because any opinion Muz might want to express would be in 100% alignment with the television news. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. When you answer that I might engage with your pathetic ramblings. People like Muz represent the mob who would deal with opposing information by BANNING, CENSORSHIP, FINES, and JAIL for Muz's opponents. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. I am in favour of banning materials from schools that are regarded as inappropriate for young children. So you're in favour of your form of government censorship. Got it. Not even going to touch the rest, tsf, I don't know if you have children. But if you do -- you're saying that you, as a parent, DO NOT give boundaries to your kids? Anything they want, you let them? It is deceptive to equate giving boundaries to children with "censorship". It is these types of devious arguments that Marxists bring change to society. Actually many modern younger Australian parents do just that ... and it explains the downward spiral of western society. So you're in agreeance. Censorship is warranted in some cases. Thanks for playing.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly. Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy. Sounds like fun. Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important? You seem to have the time to familiarise yourself with a lot of other goings on here, not to mention post on this forum. I see you being evasive because you're caught in a conundrum, being a true believer and all. A true believer in what? There no conundrum. I don't have an opinion just like I don't have an opinion on the Kurds, the Houtis or Hezbollah. I'm not across it except I believe it has bipartisan support and has something to do with getting rid of rank, outright mis/disinformation. I understand you like black and white opinions and things like sophisticated arguments, considering the nuance and minutiae, escapes you but it's quite important to someone like me. Lupi 33, if you want to dialogue with Muz, you need to understand where Muz is coming from. Muz totally believes 100% of everything that the Mainstream Media tells him, zero questions asked. Muz defines "misinformation" as anything which contradicts what the 6 o'clock news and morning breakfast shows tell him. Hence, even if Leftist governments and Big Tech censored Australian into a Soviet Gulag, it would not affect Muz a single bit, since 100% of Muz's opinions are in lock step with the Media. So Muz personally would not be inconvenienced by any censorship whatsoever - because any opinion Muz might want to express would be in 100% alignment with the television news. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. When you answer that I might engage with your pathetic ramblings. People like Muz represent the mob who would deal with opposing information by BANNING, CENSORSHIP, FINES, and JAIL for Muz's opponents. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. I am in favour of banning materials from schools that are regarded as inappropriate for young children. So you're in favour of your form of government censorship. Got it. Not even going to touch the rest, tsf, I don't know if you have children. But if you do -- you're saying that you, as a parent, DO NOT give boundaries to your kids? Anything they want, you let them? It is deceptive to equate giving boundaries to children with "censorship". It is these types of devious arguments that Marxists bring change to society. Actually many modern younger Australian parents do just that ... and it explains the downward spiral of western society. So you're in agreeance. Censorship is warranted in some cases. Thanks for playing. yes, he appears to have just argued the opposite while trying to make a point.
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly. Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy. Sounds like fun. Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important? You seem to have the time to familiarise yourself with a lot of other goings on here, not to mention post on this forum. I see you being evasive because you're caught in a conundrum, being a true believer and all. A true believer in what? There no conundrum. I don't have an opinion just like I don't have an opinion on the Kurds, the Houtis or Hezbollah. I'm not across it except I believe it has bipartisan support and has something to do with getting rid of rank, outright mis/disinformation. I understand you like black and white opinions and things like sophisticated arguments, considering the nuance and minutiae, escapes you but it's quite important to someone like me. Lupi 33, if you want to dialogue with Muz, you need to understand where Muz is coming from. Muz totally believes 100% of everything that the Mainstream Media tells him, zero questions asked. Muz defines "misinformation" as anything which contradicts what the 6 o'clock news and morning breakfast shows tell him. Hence, even if Leftist governments and Big Tech censored Australian into a Soviet Gulag, it would not affect Muz a single bit, since 100% of Muz's opinions are in lock step with the Media. So Muz personally would not be inconvenienced by any censorship whatsoever - because any opinion Muz might want to express would be in 100% alignment with the television news. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. When you answer that I might engage with your pathetic ramblings. People like Muz represent the mob who would deal with opposing information by BANNING, CENSORSHIP, FINES, and JAIL for Muz's opponents. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. As for under-age children, I am in favour of banning materials from schools that are regarded as inappropriate for young children. In who's opinion? Evangelical christians? Because who says what you think (they think) is appropriate is in line with what I think, or anyone else thinks, is appropriate. Who made you the ground poohbah of what is and isn't appropriate?
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly. Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy. Sounds like fun. Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important? You seem to have the time to familiarise yourself with a lot of other goings on here, not to mention post on this forum. I see you being evasive because you're caught in a conundrum, being a true believer and all. A true believer in what? There no conundrum. I don't have an opinion just like I don't have an opinion on the Kurds, the Houtis or Hezbollah. I'm not across it except I believe it has bipartisan support and has something to do with getting rid of rank, outright mis/disinformation. I understand you like black and white opinions and things like sophisticated arguments, considering the nuance and minutiae, escapes you but it's quite important to someone like me. Lupi 33, if you want to dialogue with Muz, you need to understand where Muz is coming from. Muz totally believes 100% of everything that the Mainstream Media tells him, zero questions asked. Muz defines "misinformation" as anything which contradicts what the 6 o'clock news and morning breakfast shows tell him. Hence, even if Leftist governments and Big Tech censored Australian into a Soviet Gulag, it would not affect Muz a single bit, since 100% of Muz's opinions are in lock step with the Media. So Muz personally would not be inconvenienced by any censorship whatsoever - because any opinion Muz might want to express would be in 100% alignment with the television news. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. When you answer that I might engage with your pathetic ramblings. People like Muz represent the mob who would deal with opposing information by BANNING, CENSORSHIP, FINES, and JAIL for Muz's opponents. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. As for under-age children, I am in favour of banning materials from schools that are regarded as inappropriate for young children. In who's opinion? Evangelical christians? Because who says what you think (they think) is appropriate is in line with what I think, or anyone else thinks, is appropriate. Who made you the ground poohbah of what is and isn't appropriate? I also like that it's not illegal material, or false/disinformation material he wants to ban, only things that are 'inappropriate', which is an incredibly hilarious yardstick to gauge. Ask 100 people on the street what that is and you'd get 100 different answers, unless you asked 100 evangelical Christians that is.
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly. Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy. Sounds like fun. Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important? You seem to have the time to familiarise yourself with a lot of other goings on here, not to mention post on this forum. I see you being evasive because you're caught in a conundrum, being a true believer and all. A true believer in what? There no conundrum. I don't have an opinion just like I don't have an opinion on the Kurds, the Houtis or Hezbollah. I'm not across it except I believe it has bipartisan support and has something to do with getting rid of rank, outright mis/disinformation. I understand you like black and white opinions and things like sophisticated arguments, considering the nuance and minutiae, escapes you but it's quite important to someone like me. Lupi 33, if you want to dialogue with Muz, you need to understand where Muz is coming from. Muz totally believes 100% of everything that the Mainstream Media tells him, zero questions asked. Muz defines "misinformation" as anything which contradicts what the 6 o'clock news and morning breakfast shows tell him. Hence, even if Leftist governments and Big Tech censored Australian into a Soviet Gulag, it would not affect Muz a single bit, since 100% of Muz's opinions are in lock step with the Media. So Muz personally would not be inconvenienced by any censorship whatsoever - because any opinion Muz might want to express would be in 100% alignment with the television news. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. When you answer that I might engage with your pathetic ramblings. People like Muz represent the mob who would deal with opposing information by BANNING, CENSORSHIP, FINES, and JAIL for Muz's opponents. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. As for under-age children, I am in favour of banning materials from schools that are regarded as inappropriate for young children. In who's opinion? Evangelical christians? Because who says what you think (they think) is appropriate is in line with what I think, or anyone else thinks, is appropriate. Who made you the ground poohbah of what is and isn't appropriate? I also like that it's not illegal material, or false/disinformation material he wants to ban, only things that are 'inappropriate', which is an incredibly hilarious yardstick to gauge. Ask 100 people on the street what that is and you'd get 100 different answers, unless you asked 100 evangelical Christians that is. so you're conflating illegal images with 'false/disinformation' (judged by whom) as one and the same? Is this one of the talking points at your local Antifa workshop?
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly. Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy. Sounds like fun. Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important? You seem to have the time to familiarise yourself with a lot of other goings on here, not to mention post on this forum. I see you being evasive because you're caught in a conundrum, being a true believer and all. A true believer in what? There no conundrum. I don't have an opinion just like I don't have an opinion on the Kurds, the Houtis or Hezbollah. I'm not across it except I believe it has bipartisan support and has something to do with getting rid of rank, outright mis/disinformation. I understand you like black and white opinions and things like sophisticated arguments, considering the nuance and minutiae, escapes you but it's quite important to someone like me. Lupi 33, if you want to dialogue with Muz, you need to understand where Muz is coming from. Muz totally believes 100% of everything that the Mainstream Media tells him, zero questions asked. Muz defines "misinformation" as anything which contradicts what the 6 o'clock news and morning breakfast shows tell him. Hence, even if Leftist governments and Big Tech censored Australian into a Soviet Gulag, it would not affect Muz a single bit, since 100% of Muz's opinions are in lock step with the Media. So Muz personally would not be inconvenienced by any censorship whatsoever - because any opinion Muz might want to express would be in 100% alignment with the television news. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. When you answer that I might engage with your pathetic ramblings. People like Muz represent the mob who would deal with opposing information by BANNING, CENSORSHIP, FINES, and JAIL for Muz's opponents. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. As for under-age children, I am in favour of banning materials from schools that are regarded as inappropriate for young children. In who's opinion? Evangelical christians? Because who says what you think (they think) is appropriate is in line with what I think, or anyone else thinks, is appropriate. Who made you the ground poohbah of what is and isn't appropriate? I also like that it's not illegal material, or false/disinformation material he wants to ban, only things that are 'inappropriate', which is an incredibly hilarious yardstick to gauge. Ask 100 people on the street what that is and you'd get 100 different answers, unless you asked 100 evangelical Christians that is. so you're conflating illegal images with 'false/disinformation' (judged by whom) as one and the same? Is this one of the talking points at your local Antifa workshop? I am not mixing anything. Re-read the sentence, they are two totally different things
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly. Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy. Sounds like fun. Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important? You seem to have the time to familiarise yourself with a lot of other goings on here, not to mention post on this forum. I see you being evasive because you're caught in a conundrum, being a true believer and all. A true believer in what? There no conundrum. I don't have an opinion just like I don't have an opinion on the Kurds, the Houtis or Hezbollah. I'm not across it except I believe it has bipartisan support and has something to do with getting rid of rank, outright mis/disinformation. I understand you like black and white opinions and things like sophisticated arguments, considering the nuance and minutiae, escapes you but it's quite important to someone like me. Lupi 33, if you want to dialogue with Muz, you need to understand where Muz is coming from. Muz totally believes 100% of everything that the Mainstream Media tells him, zero questions asked. Muz defines "misinformation" as anything which contradicts what the 6 o'clock news and morning breakfast shows tell him. Hence, even if Leftist governments and Big Tech censored Australian into a Soviet Gulag, it would not affect Muz a single bit, since 100% of Muz's opinions are in lock step with the Media. So Muz personally would not be inconvenienced by any censorship whatsoever - because any opinion Muz might want to express would be in 100% alignment with the television news. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. When you answer that I might engage with your pathetic ramblings. People like Muz represent the mob who would deal with opposing information by BANNING, CENSORSHIP, FINES, and JAIL for Muz's opponents. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. As for under-age children, I am in favour of banning materials from schools that are regarded as inappropriate for young children. In who's opinion? Evangelical christians? Because who says what you think (they think) is appropriate is in line with what I think, or anyone else thinks, is appropriate. Who made you the ground poohbah of what is and isn't appropriate? I also like that it's not illegal material, or false/disinformation material he wants to ban, only things that are 'inappropriate', which is an incredibly hilarious yardstick to gauge. Ask 100 people on the street what that is and you'd get 100 different answers, unless you asked 100 evangelical Christians that is. so you're conflating illegal images with 'false/disinformation' (judged by whom) as one and the same? Is this one of the talking points at your local Antifa workshop? I am not mixing anything. Re-read the sentence, they are two totally different things if they're two totally different things then why introduce to the discussion in this thread? can you not stay on topic?
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly. Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy. Sounds like fun. Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important? You seem to have the time to familiarise yourself with a lot of other goings on here, not to mention post on this forum. I see you being evasive because you're caught in a conundrum, being a true believer and all. A true believer in what? There no conundrum. I don't have an opinion just like I don't have an opinion on the Kurds, the Houtis or Hezbollah. I'm not across it except I believe it has bipartisan support and has something to do with getting rid of rank, outright mis/disinformation. I understand you like black and white opinions and things like sophisticated arguments, considering the nuance and minutiae, escapes you but it's quite important to someone like me. Lupi 33, if you want to dialogue with Muz, you need to understand where Muz is coming from. Muz totally believes 100% of everything that the Mainstream Media tells him, zero questions asked. Muz defines "misinformation" as anything which contradicts what the 6 o'clock news and morning breakfast shows tell him. Hence, even if Leftist governments and Big Tech censored Australian into a Soviet Gulag, it would not affect Muz a single bit, since 100% of Muz's opinions are in lock step with the Media. So Muz personally would not be inconvenienced by any censorship whatsoever - because any opinion Muz might want to express would be in 100% alignment with the television news. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. When you answer that I might engage with your pathetic ramblings. People like Muz represent the mob who would deal with opposing information by BANNING, CENSORSHIP, FINES, and JAIL for Muz's opponents. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. As for under-age children, I am in favour of banning materials from schools that are regarded as inappropriate for young children. In who's opinion? Evangelical christians? Because who says what you think (they think) is appropriate is in line with what I think, or anyone else thinks, is appropriate. Who made you the ground poohbah of what is and isn't appropriate? I also like that it's not illegal material, or false/disinformation material he wants to ban, only things that are 'inappropriate', which is an incredibly hilarious yardstick to gauge. Ask 100 people on the street what that is and you'd get 100 different answers, unless you asked 100 evangelical Christians that is. so you're conflating illegal images with 'false/disinformation' (judged by whom) as one and the same? Is this one of the talking points at your local Antifa workshop? I am not mixing anything. Re-read the sentence, they are two totally different things if they're two totally different things then why introduce to the discussion in this thread? can you not stay on topic? Ok, lets get back on topic. What's your take on this bill?
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly. Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy. Sounds like fun. Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important? You seem to have the time to familiarise yourself with a lot of other goings on here, not to mention post on this forum. I see you being evasive because you're caught in a conundrum, being a true believer and all. A true believer in what? There no conundrum. I don't have an opinion just like I don't have an opinion on the Kurds, the Houtis or Hezbollah. I'm not across it except I believe it has bipartisan support and has something to do with getting rid of rank, outright mis/disinformation. I understand you like black and white opinions and things like sophisticated arguments, considering the nuance and minutiae, escapes you but it's quite important to someone like me. Lupi 33, if you want to dialogue with Muz, you need to understand where Muz is coming from. Muz totally believes 100% of everything that the Mainstream Media tells him, zero questions asked. Muz defines "misinformation" as anything which contradicts what the 6 o'clock news and morning breakfast shows tell him. Hence, even if Leftist governments and Big Tech censored Australian into a Soviet Gulag, it would not affect Muz a single bit, since 100% of Muz's opinions are in lock step with the Media. So Muz personally would not be inconvenienced by any censorship whatsoever - because any opinion Muz might want to express would be in 100% alignment with the television news. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. When you answer that I might engage with your pathetic ramblings. People like Muz represent the mob who would deal with opposing information by BANNING, CENSORSHIP, FINES, and JAIL for Muz's opponents. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. As for under-age children, I am in favour of banning materials from schools that are regarded as inappropriate for young children. In who's opinion? Evangelical christians? Because who says what you think (they think) is appropriate is in line with what I think, or anyone else thinks, is appropriate. Who made you the ground poohbah of what is and isn't appropriate? I also like that it's not illegal material, or false/disinformation material he wants to ban, only things that are 'inappropriate', which is an incredibly hilarious yardstick to gauge. Ask 100 people on the street what that is and you'd get 100 different answers, unless you asked 100 evangelical Christians that is. so you're conflating illegal images with 'false/disinformation' (judged by whom) as one and the same? Is this one of the talking points at your local Antifa workshop? I am not mixing anything. Re-read the sentence, they are two totally different things if they're two totally different things then why introduce to the discussion in this thread? can you not stay on topic? Ok, lets get back on topic. What's your take on this bill? I'm not a fan of it.
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly. Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy. Sounds like fun. Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important? You seem to have the time to familiarise yourself with a lot of other goings on here, not to mention post on this forum. I see you being evasive because you're caught in a conundrum, being a true believer and all. A true believer in what? There no conundrum. I don't have an opinion just like I don't have an opinion on the Kurds, the Houtis or Hezbollah. I'm not across it except I believe it has bipartisan support and has something to do with getting rid of rank, outright mis/disinformation. I understand you like black and white opinions and things like sophisticated arguments, considering the nuance and minutiae, escapes you but it's quite important to someone like me. Lupi 33, if you want to dialogue with Muz, you need to understand where Muz is coming from. Muz totally believes 100% of everything that the Mainstream Media tells him, zero questions asked. Muz defines "misinformation" as anything which contradicts what the 6 o'clock news and morning breakfast shows tell him. Hence, even if Leftist governments and Big Tech censored Australian into a Soviet Gulag, it would not affect Muz a single bit, since 100% of Muz's opinions are in lock step with the Media. So Muz personally would not be inconvenienced by any censorship whatsoever - because any opinion Muz might want to express would be in 100% alignment with the television news. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. When you answer that I might engage with your pathetic ramblings. People like Muz represent the mob who would deal with opposing information by BANNING, CENSORSHIP, FINES, and JAIL for Muz's opponents. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. As for under-age children, I am in favour of banning materials from schools that are regarded as inappropriate for young children. In who's opinion? Evangelical christians? Because who says what you think (they think) is appropriate is in line with what I think, or anyone else thinks, is appropriate. Who made you the ground poohbah of what is and isn't appropriate? I also like that it's not illegal material, or false/disinformation material he wants to ban, only things that are 'inappropriate', which is an incredibly hilarious yardstick to gauge. Ask 100 people on the street what that is and you'd get 100 different answers, unless you asked 100 evangelical Christians that is. so you're conflating illegal images with 'false/disinformation' (judged by whom) as one and the same? Is this one of the talking points at your local Antifa workshop? I am not mixing anything. Re-read the sentence, they are two totally different things if they're two totally different things then why introduce to the discussion in this thread? can you not stay on topic? Ok, lets get back on topic. What's your take on this bill? I'm not a fan of it. Bravo. A thorough and comprehensive debunking. Why did this run to 6 pages?
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly. Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy. Sounds like fun. Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important? You seem to have the time to familiarise yourself with a lot of other goings on here, not to mention post on this forum. I see you being evasive because you're caught in a conundrum, being a true believer and all. A true believer in what? There no conundrum. I don't have an opinion just like I don't have an opinion on the Kurds, the Houtis or Hezbollah. I'm not across it except I believe it has bipartisan support and has something to do with getting rid of rank, outright mis/disinformation. I understand you like black and white opinions and things like sophisticated arguments, considering the nuance and minutiae, escapes you but it's quite important to someone like me. Lupi 33, if you want to dialogue with Muz, you need to understand where Muz is coming from. Muz totally believes 100% of everything that the Mainstream Media tells him, zero questions asked. Muz defines "misinformation" as anything which contradicts what the 6 o'clock news and morning breakfast shows tell him. Hence, even if Leftist governments and Big Tech censored Australian into a Soviet Gulag, it would not affect Muz a single bit, since 100% of Muz's opinions are in lock step with the Media. So Muz personally would not be inconvenienced by any censorship whatsoever - because any opinion Muz might want to express would be in 100% alignment with the television news. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. When you answer that I might engage with your pathetic ramblings. People like Muz represent the mob who would deal with opposing information by BANNING, CENSORSHIP, FINES, and JAIL for Muz's opponents. Sorry mate, remind me again which side of politics is banning books? You know..... ' engaging in censorship '. As for under-age children, I am in favour of banning materials from schools that are regarded as inappropriate for young children. In who's opinion? Evangelical christians? Because who says what you think (they think) is appropriate is in line with what I think, or anyone else thinks, is appropriate. Who made you the ground poohbah of what is and isn't appropriate? I also like that it's not illegal material, or false/disinformation material he wants to ban, only things that are 'inappropriate', which is an incredibly hilarious yardstick to gauge. Ask 100 people on the street what that is and you'd get 100 different answers, unless you asked 100 evangelical Christians that is. so you're conflating illegal images with 'false/disinformation' (judged by whom) as one and the same? Is this one of the talking points at your local Antifa workshop? I am not mixing anything. Re-read the sentence, they are two totally different things if they're two totally different things then why introduce to the discussion in this thread? can you not stay on topic? Do you know what commas are for and what the sentence was describing?
I know I am speaking English as a third/fourth language and I don’t always check my Sentence structure or grammar, but your compression of basic language and nuances is really bad.
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology. e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists. We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only. We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion". Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens. There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob. Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump. Are you for this bill or not? I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty. I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.) Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK? You have the internet. We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly. Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy. Sounds like fun. Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important? You seem to have the time to familiarise yourself with a lot of other goings on here, not to mention post on this forum. I see you being evasive because you're caught in a conundrum, being a true believer and all. A true believer in what? There no conundrum. I don't have an opinion just like I don't have an opinion on the Kurds, the Houtis or Hezbollah. I'm not across it except I believe it has bipartisan support and has something to do with getting rid of rank, outright mis/disinformation. I understand you like black and white opinions and things like sophisticated arguments, considering the nuance and minutiae, escapes you but it's quite important to someone like me. A true believer in the ALP
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
Last week it was revealed the ABC doctored footage that made it falsely appear an Australian soldier had committed war crimes. The ABC had to settle a defamation case against that same soldier for separate lies reported previously. But let the government decide what is truth and fiction in media.
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
The following is the type of information that should be open for scientific and public debate, rather than censored for being misinformation that goes against the "MRNA vaccines are safe and effective" narrative. "Global research already suggests the risk of COVID-19 infection rises with each mRNA vaccine dose and a higher risk of heart inflammation in jabbed young people, especially males, who face a low risk from COVID itself." "Now a three-year study of nearly 1,000 heart attack patients at a hospital in Spain, published in a peer-reviewed Elsevier journal this month, suggests vaccination makes them far more likely to have "major adverse cardiovascular events" including death within six months of their heart attacks, especially when they've also recovered from COVID infection." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X24009873?https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/coronavirus/covid-vaccines-worsen-outcomes-after-heart-attacks-patients-priorHow many of you notice in the news the prevalence of young people in their 20's and 30's dying of heart attacks?
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
this place is a mad house
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
you can save your breath with the childish left antifa blah blah....
It's not an insult. I am a die-hard communist, so far left that I am almost coming out the right side. So far left that even Stalin would think I'm too extreme. If I had my way we'd skip the gulags and just solve problems the easier way. I yearn for the days of a soviet union on steroids.
However if you don't want to save your breath, you're welcome to please sweet talk me with all the far left marxist stuff you can
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+xyou can save your breath with the childish left antifa blah blah.... It's not an insult. I am a die-hard communist, so far left that I am almost coming out the right side. So far left that even Stalin would think I'm too extreme. If I had my way we'd skip the gulags and just solve problems the easier way. I yearn for the days of a soviet union on steroids. However if you don't want to save your breath, you're welcome to please sweet talk me with all the far left marxist stuff you can I'm aware of this. You people are actually a danger to society as you all end up causing violence. Its the only way you can enforce your 'ideas' onto others as your arguments lack merit.
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+xyou can save your breath with the childish left antifa blah blah.... It's not an insult. I am a die-hard communist, so far left that I am almost coming out the right side. So far left that even Stalin would think I'm too extreme. If I had my way we'd skip the gulags and just solve problems the easier way. I yearn for the days of a soviet union on steroids. However if you don't want to save your breath, you're welcome to please sweet talk me with all the far left marxist stuff you can tsf, the fork in the road between Communism/Leftist/Totalitarianism versus Democracy - is the issue of personal freedom. Of course, in this Fallen world, most people - including you and me - use personal freedoms in a damaging way. But nonetheless, there is something written on every person's heart that they desire Freedom. That is because that is the way that God designed and Created us to desire freedom. Freedom is the hallmark of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Galatians 5:1 - "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery." Thus, true-Christianity sets people free; false-Christianity is characterised by crushing people's freedoms. This is why Totalitarian and Communist regimes are anti-Christian, and characterised by crushing freedoms - all in the name of helping people. tsf, just because you say you're Communist, it doesn't have to be that way forever. Many conservatives start off their young years as Leftists, then mature with wisdom and go to the Right. Even I was Left when I was young - although I came to the light sooner than most people. (And I'm not saying the political-Right is the full answer, because they're just as messed up as the Left). Coming back to the point of this thread: I am against the censorship Bill because it gives the power to a few government bureaucrats to determine what is, and what isn't, misinformation. And they will decide the question of misinformation from their ideology. It is totally opposite to a free-market of ideas where the best reasoning prevails. Rather, it is a westernised version of Stalinism where only the Pravda newspaper is authorised to give information, and anything that contracts Pravda is deemed misinformation by the State. We are now at a late stage in this transition of Democracy to Communism where people in the UK and US are being jailed for expressing views contrary to the State. Remember, in the recorded history of the world across 6,000 years, we happen to be living at the back end of a few short hundreds of years where there has been freedom. And if you think this freedom will automatically continue, you do not study history. MOST PEOPLE in history are like tsf and Muz - they want to forcefully silence their critics. WHY? In order to help people. The motive is good. But the method is evil.
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xyou can save your breath with the childish left antifa blah blah.... It's not an insult. I am a die-hard communist, so far left that I am almost coming out the right side. So far left that even Stalin would think I'm too extreme. If I had my way we'd skip the gulags and just solve problems the easier way. I yearn for the days of a soviet union on steroids. However if you don't want to save your breath, you're welcome to please sweet talk me with all the far left marxist stuff you can I am against the censorship Bill because it gives the power to a few government bureaucrats . Just to be clear, you're against government intervention with social media companies but you're for government intervention when it comes to women's health?
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xyou can save your breath with the childish left antifa blah blah.... It's not an insult. I am a die-hard communist, so far left that I am almost coming out the right side. So far left that even Stalin would think I'm too extreme. If I had my way we'd skip the gulags and just solve problems the easier way. I yearn for the days of a soviet union on steroids. However if you don't want to save your breath, you're welcome to please sweet talk me with all the far left marxist stuff you can I am against the censorship Bill because it gives the power to a few government bureaucrats . Just to be clear, you're against government intervention with social media companies but you're for government intervention when it comes to women's health? To take a big picture: when a society is filled with a majority of morally-upright people, the people do these things as a consequence of their moral uprightness. Moral decay is a widely accepted symptom of the fall of once-great civilisations. But after a majority of people adopt the lifestyle of moral decay, no amount of laws can save that civilisation. I'm speaking in terms of the rise and fall of a civilisation over hundreds of years. We are now at the tail end of the western civilisation characterised by freedom of speech, massive technological advancement (which requires freedom of scientific inquiry, rather than censorship of any scientist who goes against the consensus). tsf and Muz: take heed of this quote: "It’s easy for all scientists to be in consensus when the ones who disagree are silenced."And, at this tail end of this western civilisation, the people who are attacking its foundations are those who - in their own demented minds - think they are doing the best to help people. For example, in the Soviet Communist Revolution, it was driven by idealistic, atheistic young people thinking they were doing the best for Russia. Such people are characterised by crowd-followers, easily manipulated by slogans, because such people inherently do not think deeply. They mock and jeer, rather than engage in a search for truth. (Muz and tsf, if you'd like to meet such people, to the mirror). Think. In the Communist revolutions, why is it that intellectuals are the ones sent to the Gulags? Because the mob, comprised of people like tsf and Muz, inwardly loathe those people who think and operate from facts and evidence.
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xyou can save your breath with the childish left antifa blah blah.... It's not an insult. I am a die-hard communist, so far left that I am almost coming out the right side. So far left that even Stalin would think I'm too extreme. If I had my way we'd skip the gulags and just solve problems the easier way. I yearn for the days of a soviet union on steroids. However if you don't want to save your breath, you're welcome to please sweet talk me with all the far left marxist stuff you can I am against the censorship Bill because it gives the power to a few government bureaucrats . Just to be clear, you're against government intervention with social media companies but you're for government intervention when it comes to women's health? To take a big picture: when a society is filled with a majority of morally-upright people, the people do these things as a consequence of their moral uprightness. Moral decay is a widely accepted symptom of the fall of once-great civilisations. But after a majority of people adopt the lifestyle of moral decay, no amount of laws can save that civilisation. I'm speaking in terms of the rise and fall of a civilisation over hundreds of years. We are now at the tail end of the western civilisation characterised by freedom of speech, massive technological advancement (which requires freedom of scientific inquiry, rather than censorship of any scientist who goes against the consensus). tsf and Muz: take heed of this quote: "It’s easy for all scientists to be in consensus when the ones who disagree are silenced."And, at this tail end of this western civilisation, the people who are attacking its foundations are those who - in their own demented minds - think they are doing the best to help people. For example, in the Soviet Communist Revolution, it was driven by idealistic, atheistic young people thinking they were doing the best for Russia. Such people are characterised by crowd-followers, easily manipulated by slogans, because such people inherently do not think deeply. They mock and jeer, rather than engage in a search for truth. (Muz and tsf, if you'd like to meet such people, to the mirror). Think. In the Communist revolutions, why is it that intellectuals are the ones sent to the Gulags? Because the mob, comprised of people like tsf and Muz, inwardly loathe those people who think and operate from facts and evidence. yes would suffice.
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xyou can save your breath with the childish left antifa blah blah.... It's not an insult. I am a die-hard communist, so far left that I am almost coming out the right side. So far left that even Stalin would think I'm too extreme. If I had my way we'd skip the gulags and just solve problems the easier way. I yearn for the days of a soviet union on steroids. However if you don't want to save your breath, you're welcome to please sweet talk me with all the far left marxist stuff you can I am against the censorship Bill because it gives the power to a few government bureaucrats . Just to be clear, you're against government intervention with social media companies but you're for government intervention when it comes to women's health? murdering a 7 month term baby = "women's health"
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xyou can save your breath with the childish left antifa blah blah.... It's not an insult. I am a die-hard communist, so far left that I am almost coming out the right side. So far left that even Stalin would think I'm too extreme. If I had my way we'd skip the gulags and just solve problems the easier way. I yearn for the days of a soviet union on steroids. However if you don't want to save your breath, you're welcome to please sweet talk me with all the far left marxist stuff you can I am against the censorship Bill because it gives the power to a few government bureaucrats . Just to be clear, you're against government intervention with social media companies but you're for government intervention when it comes to women's health? murdering a 7 month term baby = "women's health" I know crazy right! That's seven months of child support the poor bloke has to pay her...right? Cause it's an actual baby. Do they backtrack that stuff? But I guess you believe that the men should be paying child support from the 'second of conception'. No wonder every women is waiting until the day before the baby drops to get the procedure done, they want to milk the last dollar out of blokes possible! Madness
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xyou can save your breath with the childish left antifa blah blah.... It's not an insult. I am a die-hard communist, so far left that I am almost coming out the right side. So far left that even Stalin would think I'm too extreme. If I had my way we'd skip the gulags and just solve problems the easier way. I yearn for the days of a soviet union on steroids. However if you don't want to save your breath, you're welcome to please sweet talk me with all the far left marxist stuff you can I am against the censorship Bill because it gives the power to a few government bureaucrats . Just to be clear, you're against government intervention with social media companies but you're for government intervention when it comes to women's health? murdering a 7 month term baby = "women's health" I know crazy right! That's seven months of child support the poor bloke has to pay her...right? Cause it's an actual baby. Do they backtrack that stuff? But I guess you believe that the men should be paying child support from the 'second of conception'. No wonder every women is waiting until the day before the baby drops to get the procedure done, they want to milk the last dollar out of blokes possible! Madness Ladies and Gents, tsf is un-masking the dark soul of Communism. People are treated as meat production. To the communist, if the person is not viable, kill them off before they're born, or kill them off when they're old. This is the mentality that drives the bringing of legislation by Leftist politicians. People like tsf are drawn to Leftist politicians because of the way he thinks, as show in his quote. Whereas civilisations based on the Judeo-Christian ethic are based on appreciating human life as inherently sacred. That is why Christianity respects every human life. tsf is the product of a Leftist education industry and a Leftist Media and Entertainment industry. tsf never thought through his worldview. He just went with the crowd he happened to be in during his formative years. Both Right and Left are deeply flawed, and if one trusts the System, it will surely disappoint. The only one Who does not disappoint is the Lord Jesus Christ.
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xyou can save your breath with the childish left antifa blah blah.... It's not an insult. I am a die-hard communist, so far left that I am almost coming out the right side. So far left that even Stalin would think I'm too extreme. If I had my way we'd skip the gulags and just solve problems the easier way. I yearn for the days of a soviet union on steroids. However if you don't want to save your breath, you're welcome to please sweet talk me with all the far left marxist stuff you can I am against the censorship Bill because it gives the power to a few government bureaucrats . Just to be clear, you're against government intervention with social media companies but you're for government intervention when it comes to women's health? murdering a 7 month term baby = "women's health" I know crazy right! That's seven months of child support the poor bloke has to pay her...right? Cause it's an actual baby. Do they backtrack that stuff? But I guess you believe that the men should be paying child support from the 'second of conception'. No wonder every women is waiting until the day before the baby drops to get the procedure done, they want to milk the last dollar out of blokes possible! Madness . The only one Who does not disappoint is the Lord Jesus Christ. amen brother
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xyou can save your breath with the childish left antifa blah blah.... It's not an insult. I am a die-hard communist, so far left that I am almost coming out the right side. So far left that even Stalin would think I'm too extreme. If I had my way we'd skip the gulags and just solve problems the easier way. I yearn for the days of a soviet union on steroids. However if you don't want to save your breath, you're welcome to please sweet talk me with all the far left marxist stuff you can I am against the censorship Bill because it gives the power to a few government bureaucrats . Just to be clear, you're against government intervention with social media companies but you're for government intervention when it comes to women's health? murdering a 7 month term baby = "women's health" I know crazy right! That's seven months of child support the poor bloke has to pay her...right? Cause it's an actual baby. Do they backtrack that stuff? But I guess you believe that the men should be paying child support from the 'second of conception'. No wonder every women is waiting until the day before the baby drops to get the procedure done, they want to milk the last dollar out of blokes possible! Madness Whereas civilisations based on the Judeo-Christian ethic are based on appreciating human life as inherently sacred. That is why Christianity respects every human life. Grabbed this from online. (Because you know 'sacred'.)
Just to name a few notable instances, God killed:
- Everybody in Sodom and Gomorrah
- The firstborn children of non-Jewish Egyptians
- The Egyptian army when pursuing Moses and the Israelites.
- False prophets, along with their families.
- 14,000 Israeli followers of those prophets
- 24,00 Israelites for sexual immorality
- Up to 50,000 Israelites for looking into the Ark of the Covenant
- 42 youths for making fun of Elisha’s bald head (sent two bears to maul them to death)
- Everybody on Earth (except for one family) in a massive global flood
and God killed a lot of people in the Bible.
There are 160 separate killing sprees in the Bible for which God is to blame. He either commits them directly, or they are carried out by assistance or approval. For 107 of those, the Holy Bible provides us the number of people that died. If we count all these Holy killings, we end up with a total of 2,821,364 deaths.[1]
However, this doesn't include the 53 other great killings of which the Bible unfortunately leaves us in the dark about how many people exactly died. For example the moment when God decided to drown all life on earth in a flood, except for one human family and a few of all animal species on one boat to repopulate the world again afterwards. According to the estimations of Steve Wells, writer of the book “Drunk With Blood: God’s Killings In The Bible”, God’s kill count comes closer to 25 million when these killings are included as well. [2]
The total amount of killings that Satan committed is 10.
Kill counts by God per book in the Bible:
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xyou can save your breath with the childish left antifa blah blah.... It's not an insult. I am a die-hard communist, so far left that I am almost coming out the right side. So far left that even Stalin would think I'm too extreme. If I had my way we'd skip the gulags and just solve problems the easier way. I yearn for the days of a soviet union on steroids. However if you don't want to save your breath, you're welcome to please sweet talk me with all the far left marxist stuff you can I am against the censorship Bill because it gives the power to a few government bureaucrats . Just to be clear, you're against government intervention with social media companies but you're for government intervention when it comes to women's health? murdering a 7 month term baby = "women's health" I know crazy right! That's seven months of child support the poor bloke has to pay her...right? Cause it's an actual baby. Do they backtrack that stuff? But I guess you believe that the men should be paying child support from the 'second of conception'. No wonder every women is waiting until the day before the baby drops to get the procedure done, they want to milk the last dollar out of blokes possible! Madness keep talking...
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xyou can save your breath with the childish left antifa blah blah.... It's not an insult. I am a die-hard communist, so far left that I am almost coming out the right side. So far left that even Stalin would think I'm too extreme. If I had my way we'd skip the gulags and just solve problems the easier way. I yearn for the days of a soviet union on steroids. However if you don't want to save your breath, you're welcome to please sweet talk me with all the far left marxist stuff you can I am against the censorship Bill because it gives the power to a few government bureaucrats . Just to be clear, you're against government intervention with social media companies but you're for government intervention when it comes to women's health? murdering a 7 month term baby = "women's health" Sure. Because that happens all the time. Any retard would know that that sort of thing only happens when there is imminent danger to the mother or the baby or both. Stop being a fucking idiot.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xyou can save your breath with the childish left antifa blah blah.... It's not an insult. I am a die-hard communist, so far left that I am almost coming out the right side. So far left that even Stalin would think I'm too extreme. If I had my way we'd skip the gulags and just solve problems the easier way. I yearn for the days of a soviet union on steroids. However if you don't want to save your breath, you're welcome to please sweet talk me with all the far left marxist stuff you can I am against the censorship Bill because it gives the power to a few government bureaucrats . Just to be clear, you're against government intervention with social media companies but you're for government intervention when it comes to women's health? murdering a 7 month term baby = "women's health" Sure. Because that happens all the time. Any retard would know that that sort of thing only happens when there is imminent danger to the mother or the baby or both. Stop being a fucking idiot. well since you're a retard then you tell me... how do you actually know what goes on in practice? you're obviously not aware of how lucrative the baby organ business is and what incentives that provides...
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]you can save your breath with the childish left antifa blah blah.... It's not an insult. I am a die-hard communist, so far left that I am almost coming out the right side. So far left that even Stalin would think I'm too extreme. If I had my way we'd skip the gulags and just solve problems the easier way. I yearn for the days of a soviet union on steroids. However if you don't want to save your breath, you're welcome to please sweet talk me with all the far left marxist stuff you can I am against the censorship Bill because it gives the power to a few government bureaucrats . Just to be clear, you're against government intervention with social media companies but you're for government intervention when it comes to women's health? murdering a 7 month term baby = "women's health" Sure. Because that happens all the time. Any retard would know that that sort of thing only happens when there is imminent danger to the mother or the baby or both. Stop being a fucking idiot. well since you're a retard then you tell me... how do you actually know what goes on in practice? you're obviously not aware of how lucrative the baby organ business is and what incentives that provides... 'baby organ business'....... There's been a lot of dumb shit written in this forum over the years but this might be the dumbest thing I've ever read here. And that really is saying something because johnsmith also posts here. Let me guess you're an adrenochrome conspiracy adherent. Am I close?
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]you can save your breath with the childish left antifa blah blah.... It's not an insult. I am a die-hard communist, so far left that I am almost coming out the right side. So far left that even Stalin would think I'm too extreme. If I had my way we'd skip the gulags and just solve problems the easier way. I yearn for the days of a soviet union on steroids. However if you don't want to save your breath, you're welcome to please sweet talk me with all the far left marxist stuff you can I am against the censorship Bill because it gives the power to a few government bureaucrats . Just to be clear, you're against government intervention with social media companies but you're for government intervention when it comes to women's health? murdering a 7 month term baby = "women's health" Sure. Because that happens all the time. Any retard would know that that sort of thing only happens when there is imminent danger to the mother or the baby or both. Stop being a fucking idiot. well since you're a retard then you tell me... how do you actually know what goes on in practice? you're obviously not aware of how lucrative the baby organ business is and what incentives that provides... 'baby organ business'....... There's been a lot of dumb shit written in this forum over the years but this might be the dumbest thing I've ever read here. And that really is saying something because johnsmith also posts here. Let me guess you're an adrenochrome conspiracy adherent. Am I close? lol these nuts said at the start of covid that the lockdowns where because they’re bodies of children buried under various city spots and infrastructure projects are going to expose them so they need to be moved asap 😂😂
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]you can save your breath with the childish left antifa blah blah.... It's not an insult. I am a die-hard communist, so far left that I am almost coming out the right side. So far left that even Stalin would think I'm too extreme. If I had my way we'd skip the gulags and just solve problems the easier way. I yearn for the days of a soviet union on steroids. However if you don't want to save your breath, you're welcome to please sweet talk me with all the far left marxist stuff you can I am against the censorship Bill because it gives the power to a few government bureaucrats . Just to be clear, you're against government intervention with social media companies but you're for government intervention when it comes to women's health? murdering a 7 month term baby = "women's health" Sure. Because that happens all the time. Any retard would know that that sort of thing only happens when there is imminent danger to the mother or the baby or both. Stop being a fucking idiot. well since you're a retard then you tell me... how do you actually know what goes on in practice? you're obviously not aware of how lucrative the baby organ business is and what incentives that provides... 'baby organ business'....... There's been a lot of dumb shit written in this forum over the years but this might be the dumbest thing I've ever read here. And that really is saying something because johnsmith also posts here. Let me guess you're an adrenochrome conspiracy adherent. Am I close? no you're not close its Planned Parenthood's business model and various others you're the one fixated on conspiracy theories, not me
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]you can save your breath with the childish left antifa blah blah.... It's not an insult. I am a die-hard communist, so far left that I am almost coming out the right side. So far left that even Stalin would think I'm too extreme. If I had my way we'd skip the gulags and just solve problems the easier way. I yearn for the days of a soviet union on steroids. However if you don't want to save your breath, you're welcome to please sweet talk me with all the far left marxist stuff you can I am against the censorship Bill because it gives the power to a few government bureaucrats . Just to be clear, you're against government intervention with social media companies but you're for government intervention when it comes to women's health? murdering a 7 month term baby = "women's health" Sure. Because that happens all the time. Any retard would know that that sort of thing only happens when there is imminent danger to the mother or the baby or both. Stop being a fucking idiot. well since you're a retard then you tell me... how do you actually know what goes on in practice? you're obviously not aware of how lucrative the baby organ business is and what incentives that provides... 'baby organ business'....... There's been a lot of dumb shit written in this forum over the years but this might be the dumbest thing I've ever read here. And that really is saying something because johnsmith also posts here. Let me guess you're an adrenochrome conspiracy adherent. Am I close? You're clueless, living in bubble - and you don't care because it doesn't affect you personally. "In 2015, the pro-life group first gained notoriety after it released online secretly recorded conversations with doctors and staff from Planned Parenthood. The video showed abortion provider executives haggling over the price of fetal body parts, which sparked backlash and investigations at the federal and state levels." https://conservativebrief.com/supreme-court-dec-76929/
"PURE EVIL: Newly Released Undercover Video Exposes Planned Parenthood Employees Joking and Laughing While Allegedly Admitting to Selling Aborted Baby Organs and Dismembered Parts" https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/08/pure-evil-newly-released-undercover-video-exposes-planned/
"Kamala Harris Ordered Raid on Undercover Journalist Who Exposed Planned Parenthood’s Sale of Baby Parts, Seized Videos to Block Their Release to the Public" https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/08/kamala-harris-ordered-raid-undercover-journalist-who-exposed/
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]you can save your breath with the childish left antifa blah blah.... It's not an insult. I am a die-hard communist, so far left that I am almost coming out the right side. So far left that even Stalin would think I'm too extreme. If I had my way we'd skip the gulags and just solve problems the easier way. I yearn for the days of a soviet union on steroids. However if you don't want to save your breath, you're welcome to please sweet talk me with all the far left marxist stuff you can I am against the censorship Bill because it gives the power to a few government bureaucrats . Just to be clear, you're against government intervention with social media companies but you're for government intervention when it comes to women's health? murdering a 7 month term baby = "women's health" Sure. Because that happens all the time. Any retard would know that that sort of thing only happens when there is imminent danger to the mother or the baby or both. Stop being a fucking idiot. well since you're a retard then you tell me... how do you actually know what goes on in practice? you're obviously not aware of how lucrative the baby organ business is and what incentives that provides... 'baby organ business'....... There's been a lot of dumb shit written in this forum over the years but this might be the dumbest thing I've ever read here. And that really is saying something because johnsmith also posts here. Let me guess you're an adrenochrome conspiracy adherent. Am I close? You're clueless, living in bubble - and you don't care because it doesn't affect you personally. "In 2015, the pro-life group first gained notoriety after it released online secretly recorded conversations with doctors and staff from Planned Parenthood. The video showed abortion provider executives haggling over the price of fetal body parts, which sparked backlash and investigations at the federal and state levels." https://conservativebrief.com/supreme-court-dec-76929/
"PURE EVIL: Newly Released Undercover Video Exposes Planned Parenthood Employees Joking and Laughing While Allegedly Admitting to Selling Aborted Baby Organs and Dismembered Parts" https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/08/pure-evil-newly-released-undercover-video-exposes-planned/
"Kamala Harris Ordered Raid on Undercover Journalist Who Exposed Planned Parenthood’s Sale of Baby Parts, Seized Videos to Block Their Release to the Public" https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/08/kamala-harris-ordered-raid-undercover-journalist-who-exposed/
Shhhhh........ https://www.npr.org/2016/01/28/464594826/in-wake-of-videos-planned-parenthood-investigations-find-no-fetal-tissue-saleshttps://www.healthaffairs.org/content/forefront/planned-parenthood-and-fetal-tissue-sale-manufactured-controversy-and-real-ethical
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]you can save your breath with the childish left antifa blah blah.... It's not an insult. I am a die-hard communist, so far left that I am almost coming out the right side. So far left that even Stalin would think I'm too extreme. If I had my way we'd skip the gulags and just solve problems the easier way. I yearn for the days of a soviet union on steroids. However if you don't want to save your breath, you're welcome to please sweet talk me with all the far left marxist stuff you can I am against the censorship Bill because it gives the power to a few government bureaucrats . Just to be clear, you're against government intervention with social media companies but you're for government intervention when it comes to women's health? murdering a 7 month term baby = "women's health" Sure. Because that happens all the time. Any retard would know that that sort of thing only happens when there is imminent danger to the mother or the baby or both. Stop being a fucking idiot. well since you're a retard then you tell me... how do you actually know what goes on in practice? you're obviously not aware of how lucrative the baby organ business is and what incentives that provides... 'baby organ business'....... There's been a lot of dumb shit written in this forum over the years but this might be the dumbest thing I've ever read here. And that really is saying something because johnsmith also posts here. Let me guess you're an adrenochrome conspiracy adherent. Am I close? You're clueless, living in bubble - and you don't care because it doesn't affect you personally. "In 2015, the pro-life group first gained notoriety after it released online secretly recorded conversations with doctors and staff from Planned Parenthood. The video showed abortion provider executives haggling over the price of fetal body parts, which sparked backlash and investigations at the federal and state levels." https://conservativebrief.com/supreme-court-dec-76929/
"PURE EVIL: Newly Released Undercover Video Exposes Planned Parenthood Employees Joking and Laughing While Allegedly Admitting to Selling Aborted Baby Organs and Dismembered Parts" https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/08/pure-evil-newly-released-undercover-video-exposes-planned/
"Kamala Harris Ordered Raid on Undercover Journalist Who Exposed Planned Parenthood’s Sale of Baby Parts, Seized Videos to Block Their Release to the Public" https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/08/kamala-harris-ordered-raid-undercover-journalist-who-exposed/
Shhhhh........ https://www.npr.org/2016/01/28/464594826/in-wake-of-videos-planned-parenthood-investigations-find-no-fetal-tissue-saleshttps://www.healthaffairs.org/content/forefront/planned-parenthood-and-fetal-tissue-sale-manufactured-controversy-and-real-ethical did you actually read the article in the second link you posted? talk about self ownage champ
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]you can save your breath with the childish left antifa blah blah.... It's not an insult. I am a die-hard communist, so far left that I am almost coming out the right side. So far left that even Stalin would think I'm too extreme. If I had my way we'd skip the gulags and just solve problems the easier way. I yearn for the days of a soviet union on steroids. However if you don't want to save your breath, you're welcome to please sweet talk me with all the far left marxist stuff you can I am against the censorship Bill because it gives the power to a few government bureaucrats . Just to be clear, you're against government intervention with social media companies but you're for government intervention when it comes to women's health? murdering a 7 month term baby = "women's health" Sure. Because that happens all the time. Any retard would know that that sort of thing only happens when there is imminent danger to the mother or the baby or both. Stop being a fucking idiot. well since you're a retard then you tell me... how do you actually know what goes on in practice? you're obviously not aware of how lucrative the baby organ business is and what incentives that provides... 'baby organ business'....... There's been a lot of dumb shit written in this forum over the years but this might be the dumbest thing I've ever read here. And that really is saying something because johnsmith also posts here. Let me guess you're an adrenochrome conspiracy adherent. Am I close? You're clueless, living in bubble - and you don't care because it doesn't affect you personally. "In 2015, the pro-life group first gained notoriety after it released online secretly recorded conversations with doctors and staff from Planned Parenthood. The video showed abortion provider executives haggling over the price of fetal body parts, which sparked backlash and investigations at the federal and state levels." https://conservativebrief.com/supreme-court-dec-76929/
"PURE EVIL: Newly Released Undercover Video Exposes Planned Parenthood Employees Joking and Laughing While Allegedly Admitting to Selling Aborted Baby Organs and Dismembered Parts" https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/08/pure-evil-newly-released-undercover-video-exposes-planned/
"Kamala Harris Ordered Raid on Undercover Journalist Who Exposed Planned Parenthood’s Sale of Baby Parts, Seized Videos to Block Their Release to the Public" https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/08/kamala-harris-ordered-raid-undercover-journalist-who-exposed/
Shhhhh........ https://www.npr.org/2016/01/28/464594826/in-wake-of-videos-planned-parenthood-investigations-find-no-fetal-tissue-saleshttps://www.healthaffairs.org/content/forefront/planned-parenthood-and-fetal-tissue-sale-manufactured-controversy-and-real-ethical did you actually read the article in the second link you posted? talk about self ownage champ That's right. Muz did not read the article he posted. The article clearly states that sale of body parts used to be done, with the purpose of supplying massive amounts of baby body parts to researchers in the field who need baby body parts. Also, Muz believes there is no such thing as "under the table" transactions. If you read this entire Extra Time forum searching for Muz's responses, Muz lives in a world where the Media never lies, government employees never make mistakes etc. Imagine if Muz brought that naivety to his consulting in the real business world?
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]you can save your breath with the childish left antifa blah blah.... It's not an insult. I am a die-hard communist, so far left that I am almost coming out the right side. So far left that even Stalin would think I'm too extreme. If I had my way we'd skip the gulags and just solve problems the easier way. I yearn for the days of a soviet union on steroids. However if you don't want to save your breath, you're welcome to please sweet talk me with all the far left marxist stuff you can I am against the censorship Bill because it gives the power to a few government bureaucrats . Just to be clear, you're against government intervention with social media companies but you're for government intervention when it comes to women's health? murdering a 7 month term baby = "women's health" Sure. Because that happens all the time. Any retard would know that that sort of thing only happens when there is imminent danger to the mother or the baby or both. Stop being a fucking idiot. well since you're a retard then you tell me... how do you actually know what goes on in practice? you're obviously not aware of how lucrative the baby organ business is and what incentives that provides... 'baby organ business'....... There's been a lot of dumb shit written in this forum over the years but this might be the dumbest thing I've ever read here. And that really is saying something because johnsmith also posts here. Let me guess you're an adrenochrome conspiracy adherent. Am I close? You're clueless, living in bubble - and you don't care because it doesn't affect you personally. "In 2015, the pro-life group first gained notoriety after it released online secretly recorded conversations with doctors and staff from Planned Parenthood. The video showed abortion provider executives haggling over the price of fetal body parts, which sparked backlash and investigations at the federal and state levels." https://conservativebrief.com/supreme-court-dec-76929/
"PURE EVIL: Newly Released Undercover Video Exposes Planned Parenthood Employees Joking and Laughing While Allegedly Admitting to Selling Aborted Baby Organs and Dismembered Parts" https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/08/pure-evil-newly-released-undercover-video-exposes-planned/
"Kamala Harris Ordered Raid on Undercover Journalist Who Exposed Planned Parenthood’s Sale of Baby Parts, Seized Videos to Block Their Release to the Public" https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/08/kamala-harris-ordered-raid-undercover-journalist-who-exposed/
Shhhhh........ https://www.npr.org/2016/01/28/464594826/in-wake-of-videos-planned-parenthood-investigations-find-no-fetal-tissue-saleshttps://www.healthaffairs.org/content/forefront/planned-parenthood-and-fetal-tissue-sale-manufactured-controversy-and-real-ethical did you actually read the article in the second link you posted? talk about self ownage champ That's right. Muz did not read the article he posted. The article clearly states that sale of body parts used to be done, with the purpose of supplying massive amounts of baby body parts to researchers in the field who need baby body parts. Also, Muz believes there is no such thing as "under the table" transactions. If you read this entire Extra Time forum searching for Muz's responses, Muz lives in a world where the Media never lies, government employees never make mistakes etc. Imagine if Muz brought that naivety to his consulting in the real business world? Medical research is not buying baby organs and blood to drink in a satanic ritual. You are off your fucking head.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]you can save your breath with the childish left antifa blah blah.... It's not an insult. I am a die-hard communist, so far left that I am almost coming out the right side. So far left that even Stalin would think I'm too extreme. If I had my way we'd skip the gulags and just solve problems the easier way. I yearn for the days of a soviet union on steroids. However if you don't want to save your breath, you're welcome to please sweet talk me with all the far left marxist stuff you can I am against the censorship Bill because it gives the power to a few government bureaucrats . Just to be clear, you're against government intervention with social media companies but you're for government intervention when it comes to women's health? murdering a 7 month term baby = "women's health" Sure. Because that happens all the time. Any retard would know that that sort of thing only happens when there is imminent danger to the mother or the baby or both. Stop being a fucking idiot. well since you're a retard then you tell me... how do you actually know what goes on in practice? you're obviously not aware of how lucrative the baby organ business is and what incentives that provides... 'baby organ business'....... There's been a lot of dumb shit written in this forum over the years but this might be the dumbest thing I've ever read here. And that really is saying something because johnsmith also posts here. Let me guess you're an adrenochrome conspiracy adherent. Am I close? You're clueless, living in bubble - and you don't care because it doesn't affect you personally. "In 2015, the pro-life group first gained notoriety after it released online secretly recorded conversations with doctors and staff from Planned Parenthood. The video showed abortion provider executives haggling over the price of fetal body parts, which sparked backlash and investigations at the federal and state levels." https://conservativebrief.com/supreme-court-dec-76929/
"PURE EVIL: Newly Released Undercover Video Exposes Planned Parenthood Employees Joking and Laughing While Allegedly Admitting to Selling Aborted Baby Organs and Dismembered Parts" https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/08/pure-evil-newly-released-undercover-video-exposes-planned/
"Kamala Harris Ordered Raid on Undercover Journalist Who Exposed Planned Parenthood’s Sale of Baby Parts, Seized Videos to Block Their Release to the Public" https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/08/kamala-harris-ordered-raid-undercover-journalist-who-exposed/
Shhhhh........ https://www.npr.org/2016/01/28/464594826/in-wake-of-videos-planned-parenthood-investigations-find-no-fetal-tissue-saleshttps://www.healthaffairs.org/content/forefront/planned-parenthood-and-fetal-tissue-sale-manufactured-controversy-and-real-ethical did you actually read the article in the second link you posted? talk about self ownage champ That's right. Muz did not read the article he posted. The article clearly states that sale of body parts used to be done, with the purpose of supplying massive amounts of baby body parts to researchers in the field who need baby body parts. Also, Muz believes there is no such thing as "under the table" transactions. If you read this entire Extra Time forum searching for Muz's responses, Muz lives in a world where the Media never lies, government employees never make mistakes etc. Imagine if Muz brought that naivety to his consulting in the real business world? Medical research is not buying baby organs and blood to drink in a satanic ritual. You are off your fucking head.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+xyou can save your breath with the childish left antifa blah blah.... It's not an insult. I am a die-hard communist, so far left that I am almost coming out the right side. So far left that even Stalin would think I'm too extreme. If I had my way we'd skip the gulags and just solve problems the easier way. I yearn for the days of a soviet union on steroids. However if you don't want to save your breath, you're welcome to please sweet talk me with all the far left marxist stuff you can All true Christians are communists :) Welcome to the cause tovarisch..
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xyou can save your breath with the childish left antifa blah blah.... It's not an insult. I am a die-hard communist, so far left that I am almost coming out the right side. So far left that even Stalin would think I'm too extreme. If I had my way we'd skip the gulags and just solve problems the easier way. I yearn for the days of a soviet union on steroids. However if you don't want to save your breath, you're welcome to please sweet talk me with all the far left marxist stuff you can All true Christians are communists :) Welcome to the cause tovarisch.. ![Warrior Priest, member of the Greek resistance, with fellow partisan c.1943 [507x704] : r/HistoryPorn](https://i.redd.it/t02x2f2d8fi91.jpg) Comrade!
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
158 instances of God doling out some 'smiting'. https://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html?m=1My favourite is God sending bears to rip 42 children to pieces for ripping the piss out of a follically challenged bloke. ----------------------------------------//--------------------------------------- A few examples of how God puts His victims to death: God “smote” 1,000,000 Ethiopians: A few examples of how God puts His victims to death:
God “smote” 1,000,000 Ethiopians:
“So the Lord smote the Ethiopians before Asa, and before Judah; and the Ethiopians fled. And Asa and the people that were with him pursued them unto Gerar: and the Ethiopians were overthrown, that they could not recover themselves; for they were destroyed before the Lord, and before his host; and they carried away very much spoil.” 2 Chronicles 14:12-13
God burns two teenagers:
“Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu took their censers, put fire in them and added incense; and they offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, contrary to his command. So fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord.” Leviticus 10:1-2
God demands a whole town to be burned as a burnt offering:
“… you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you.” Deuteronomy 13:13-19
God creates a plague:
"Behold, the Lord will bring a great plague on your people, your children, your wives, and all your possessions, and you yourself will have a severe sickness with a disease of your bowels, until your bowels come out because of the disease, day by day.’" 2 Chronicles 21:14-15
God orders human helpers to kill:
“Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, “Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple.” So they began by killing the seventy leaders. “Defile the Temple!” the LORD commanded. “Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!” So they went throughout the city and did as they were told.” Ezekiel 9:5-7
God kills 27,000 Syrians by making a wall fall on them:
“The rest of them escaped to the city of Aphek, where the wall collapsed on twenty-seven thousand of them. And Ben-Hadad fled to the city and hid in an inner room.” 1 Kings 20:30
God makes a lion kill someone:
“Meanwhile, the LORD instructed one of the group of prophets to say to another man, “Strike me!” But the man refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet told him, “Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, a lion will kill you as soon as you leave me.” And sure enough, when he had gone, a lion attacked and killed him.” 1 Kings 20:35-36
God lets two shebears shred 42 children to pieces:
“From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. “Go up baldhead,” they shouted, “go up baldhead!” The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces.” 2 Kings 2:23-24
God truly is a sweet and all-loving god!“So the Lord smote the Ethiopians before Asa, and before Judah; and the Ethiopians fled. And Asa and the people that were with him pursued them unto Gerar: and the Ethiopians were overthrown, that they could not recover themselves; for they were destroyed before the Lord, and before his host; and they carried away very much spoil.” 2 Chronicles 14:12-13
God burns two teenagers: “Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu took their censers, put fire in them and added incense; and they offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, contrary to his command. So fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord.” Leviticus 10:1-2
God demands a whole town to be burned as a burnt offering: “… you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you.” Deuteronomy 13:13-19
God creates a plague: "Behold, the Lord will bring a great plague on your people, your children, your wives, and all your possessions, and you yourself will have a severe sickness with a disease of your bowels, until your bowels come out because of the disease, day by day.’" 2 Chronicles 21:14-15
God orders human helpers to kill: “Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, “Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple.” So they began by killing the seventy leaders. “Defile the Temple!” the LORD commanded. “Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!” So they went throughout the city and did as they were told.” Ezekiel 9:5-7
God kills 27,000 Syrians by making a wall fall on them: “The rest of them escaped to the city of Aphek, where the wall collapsed on twenty-seven thousand of them. And Ben-Hadad fled to the city and hid in an inner room.” 1 Kings 20:30
God makes a lion kill someone: “Meanwhile, the LORD instructed one of the group of prophets to say to another man, “Strike me!” But the man refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet told him, “Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, a lion will kill you as soon as you leave me.” And sure enough, when he had gone, a lion attacked and killed him.” 1 Kings 20:35-36
God lets two shebears shred 42 children to pieces: “From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. “Go up baldhead,” they shouted, “go up baldhead!” The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces.” 2 Kings 2:23-24
God truly is a sweet and all-loving god!
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x158 instances of God doling out some 'smiting'. https://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html?m=1My favourite is God sending bears to rip 42 children to pieces for ripping the piss out of a follically challenged bloke. ----------------------------------------//--------------------------------------- A few examples of how God puts His victims to death: God “smote” 1,000,000 Ethiopians: A few examples of how God puts His victims to death:
God “smote” 1,000,000 Ethiopians:
“So the Lord smote the Ethiopians before Asa, and before Judah; and the Ethiopians fled. And Asa and the people that were with him pursued them unto Gerar: and the Ethiopians were overthrown, that they could not recover themselves; for they were destroyed before the Lord, and before his host; and they carried away very much spoil.” 2 Chronicles 14:12-13
God burns two teenagers:
“Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu took their censers, put fire in them and added incense; and they offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, contrary to his command. So fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord.” Leviticus 10:1-2
God demands a whole town to be burned as a burnt offering:
“… you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you.” Deuteronomy 13:13-19
God creates a plague:
"Behold, the Lord will bring a great plague on your people, your children, your wives, and all your possessions, and you yourself will have a severe sickness with a disease of your bowels, until your bowels come out because of the disease, day by day.’" 2 Chronicles 21:14-15
God orders human helpers to kill:
“Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, “Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple.” So they began by killing the seventy leaders. “Defile the Temple!” the LORD commanded. “Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!” So they went throughout the city and did as they were told.” Ezekiel 9:5-7
God kills 27,000 Syrians by making a wall fall on them:
“The rest of them escaped to the city of Aphek, where the wall collapsed on twenty-seven thousand of them. And Ben-Hadad fled to the city and hid in an inner room.” 1 Kings 20:30
God makes a lion kill someone:
“Meanwhile, the LORD instructed one of the group of prophets to say to another man, “Strike me!” But the man refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet told him, “Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, a lion will kill you as soon as you leave me.” And sure enough, when he had gone, a lion attacked and killed him.” 1 Kings 20:35-36
God lets two shebears shred 42 children to pieces:
“From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. “Go up baldhead,” they shouted, “go up baldhead!” The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces.” 2 Kings 2:23-24
God truly is a sweet and all-loving god!“So the Lord smote the Ethiopians before Asa, and before Judah; and the Ethiopians fled. And Asa and the people that were with him pursued them unto Gerar: and the Ethiopians were overthrown, that they could not recover themselves; for they were destroyed before the Lord, and before his host; and they carried away very much spoil.” 2 Chronicles 14:12-13
God burns two teenagers: “Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu took their censers, put fire in them and added incense; and they offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, contrary to his command. So fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord.” Leviticus 10:1-2
God demands a whole town to be burned as a burnt offering: “… you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you.” Deuteronomy 13:13-19
God creates a plague: "Behold, the Lord will bring a great plague on your people, your children, your wives, and all your possessions, and you yourself will have a severe sickness with a disease of your bowels, until your bowels come out because of the disease, day by day.’" 2 Chronicles 21:14-15
God orders human helpers to kill: “Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, “Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple.” So they began by killing the seventy leaders. “Defile the Temple!” the LORD commanded. “Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!” So they went throughout the city and did as they were told.” Ezekiel 9:5-7
God kills 27,000 Syrians by making a wall fall on them: “The rest of them escaped to the city of Aphek, where the wall collapsed on twenty-seven thousand of them. And Ben-Hadad fled to the city and hid in an inner room.” 1 Kings 20:30
God makes a lion kill someone: “Meanwhile, the LORD instructed one of the group of prophets to say to another man, “Strike me!” But the man refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet told him, “Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, a lion will kill you as soon as you leave me.” And sure enough, when he had gone, a lion attacked and killed him.” 1 Kings 20:35-36
God lets two shebears shred 42 children to pieces: “From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. “Go up baldhead,” they shouted, “go up baldhead!” The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces.” 2 Kings 2:23-24
God truly is a sweet and all-loving god! hahahaha this was amazing.... thanks for the chuckle.
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x158 instances of God doling out some 'smiting'. https://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html?m=1My favourite is God sending bears to rip 42 children to pieces for ripping the piss out of a follically challenged bloke. ----------------------------------------//--------------------------------------- A few examples of how God puts His victims to death: God “smote” 1,000,000 Ethiopians: A few examples of how God puts His victims to death:
God “smote” 1,000,000 Ethiopians:
“So the Lord smote the Ethiopians before Asa, and before Judah; and the Ethiopians fled. And Asa and the people that were with him pursued them unto Gerar: and the Ethiopians were overthrown, that they could not recover themselves; for they were destroyed before the Lord, and before his host; and they carried away very much spoil.” 2 Chronicles 14:12-13
God burns two teenagers:
“Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu took their censers, put fire in them and added incense; and they offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, contrary to his command. So fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord.” Leviticus 10:1-2
God demands a whole town to be burned as a burnt offering:
“… you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you.” Deuteronomy 13:13-19
God creates a plague:
"Behold, the Lord will bring a great plague on your people, your children, your wives, and all your possessions, and you yourself will have a severe sickness with a disease of your bowels, until your bowels come out because of the disease, day by day.’" 2 Chronicles 21:14-15
God orders human helpers to kill:
“Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, “Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple.” So they began by killing the seventy leaders. “Defile the Temple!” the LORD commanded. “Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!” So they went throughout the city and did as they were told.” Ezekiel 9:5-7
God kills 27,000 Syrians by making a wall fall on them:
“The rest of them escaped to the city of Aphek, where the wall collapsed on twenty-seven thousand of them. And Ben-Hadad fled to the city and hid in an inner room.” 1 Kings 20:30
God makes a lion kill someone:
“Meanwhile, the LORD instructed one of the group of prophets to say to another man, “Strike me!” But the man refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet told him, “Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, a lion will kill you as soon as you leave me.” And sure enough, when he had gone, a lion attacked and killed him.” 1 Kings 20:35-36
God lets two shebears shred 42 children to pieces:
“From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. “Go up baldhead,” they shouted, “go up baldhead!” The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces.” 2 Kings 2:23-24
God truly is a sweet and all-loving god!“So the Lord smote the Ethiopians before Asa, and before Judah; and the Ethiopians fled. And Asa and the people that were with him pursued them unto Gerar: and the Ethiopians were overthrown, that they could not recover themselves; for they were destroyed before the Lord, and before his host; and they carried away very much spoil.” 2 Chronicles 14:12-13
God burns two teenagers: “Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu took their censers, put fire in them and added incense; and they offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, contrary to his command. So fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord.” Leviticus 10:1-2
God demands a whole town to be burned as a burnt offering: “… you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you.” Deuteronomy 13:13-19
God creates a plague: "Behold, the Lord will bring a great plague on your people, your children, your wives, and all your possessions, and you yourself will have a severe sickness with a disease of your bowels, until your bowels come out because of the disease, day by day.’" 2 Chronicles 21:14-15
God orders human helpers to kill: “Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, “Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple.” So they began by killing the seventy leaders. “Defile the Temple!” the LORD commanded. “Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!” So they went throughout the city and did as they were told.” Ezekiel 9:5-7
God kills 27,000 Syrians by making a wall fall on them: “The rest of them escaped to the city of Aphek, where the wall collapsed on twenty-seven thousand of them. And Ben-Hadad fled to the city and hid in an inner room.” 1 Kings 20:30
God makes a lion kill someone: “Meanwhile, the LORD instructed one of the group of prophets to say to another man, “Strike me!” But the man refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet told him, “Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, a lion will kill you as soon as you leave me.” And sure enough, when he had gone, a lion attacked and killed him.” 1 Kings 20:35-36
God lets two shebears shred 42 children to pieces: “From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. “Go up baldhead,” they shouted, “go up baldhead!” The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces.” 2 Kings 2:23-24
God truly is a sweet and all-loving god! hahahaha this was amazing.... thanks for the chuckle. I'm still laughing at being called a 'communist'. I have my own small consultancy that I've run for 20 years and although I'm a bit of a lefty I do like money. I'm so conflicted.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x158 instances of God doling out some 'smiting'. https://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html?m=1My favourite is God sending bears to rip 42 children to pieces for ripping the piss out of a follically challenged bloke. ----------------------------------------//--------------------------------------- A few examples of how God puts His victims to death: God “smote” 1,000,000 Ethiopians: A few examples of how God puts His victims to death:
God “smote” 1,000,000 Ethiopians:
“So the Lord smote the Ethiopians before Asa, and before Judah; and the Ethiopians fled. And Asa and the people that were with him pursued them unto Gerar: and the Ethiopians were overthrown, that they could not recover themselves; for they were destroyed before the Lord, and before his host; and they carried away very much spoil.” 2 Chronicles 14:12-13
God burns two teenagers:
“Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu took their censers, put fire in them and added incense; and they offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, contrary to his command. So fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord.” Leviticus 10:1-2
God demands a whole town to be burned as a burnt offering:
“… you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you.” Deuteronomy 13:13-19
God creates a plague:
"Behold, the Lord will bring a great plague on your people, your children, your wives, and all your possessions, and you yourself will have a severe sickness with a disease of your bowels, until your bowels come out because of the disease, day by day.’" 2 Chronicles 21:14-15
God orders human helpers to kill:
“Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, “Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple.” So they began by killing the seventy leaders. “Defile the Temple!” the LORD commanded. “Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!” So they went throughout the city and did as they were told.” Ezekiel 9:5-7
God kills 27,000 Syrians by making a wall fall on them:
“The rest of them escaped to the city of Aphek, where the wall collapsed on twenty-seven thousand of them. And Ben-Hadad fled to the city and hid in an inner room.” 1 Kings 20:30
God makes a lion kill someone:
“Meanwhile, the LORD instructed one of the group of prophets to say to another man, “Strike me!” But the man refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet told him, “Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, a lion will kill you as soon as you leave me.” And sure enough, when he had gone, a lion attacked and killed him.” 1 Kings 20:35-36
God lets two shebears shred 42 children to pieces:
“From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. “Go up baldhead,” they shouted, “go up baldhead!” The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces.” 2 Kings 2:23-24
God truly is a sweet and all-loving god!“So the Lord smote the Ethiopians before Asa, and before Judah; and the Ethiopians fled. And Asa and the people that were with him pursued them unto Gerar: and the Ethiopians were overthrown, that they could not recover themselves; for they were destroyed before the Lord, and before his host; and they carried away very much spoil.” 2 Chronicles 14:12-13
God burns two teenagers: “Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu took their censers, put fire in them and added incense; and they offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, contrary to his command. So fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord.” Leviticus 10:1-2
God demands a whole town to be burned as a burnt offering: “… you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you.” Deuteronomy 13:13-19
God creates a plague: "Behold, the Lord will bring a great plague on your people, your children, your wives, and all your possessions, and you yourself will have a severe sickness with a disease of your bowels, until your bowels come out because of the disease, day by day.’" 2 Chronicles 21:14-15
God orders human helpers to kill: “Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, “Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple.” So they began by killing the seventy leaders. “Defile the Temple!” the LORD commanded. “Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!” So they went throughout the city and did as they were told.” Ezekiel 9:5-7
God kills 27,000 Syrians by making a wall fall on them: “The rest of them escaped to the city of Aphek, where the wall collapsed on twenty-seven thousand of them. And Ben-Hadad fled to the city and hid in an inner room.” 1 Kings 20:30
God makes a lion kill someone: “Meanwhile, the LORD instructed one of the group of prophets to say to another man, “Strike me!” But the man refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet told him, “Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, a lion will kill you as soon as you leave me.” And sure enough, when he had gone, a lion attacked and killed him.” 1 Kings 20:35-36
God lets two shebears shred 42 children to pieces: “From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. “Go up baldhead,” they shouted, “go up baldhead!” The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces.” 2 Kings 2:23-24
God truly is a sweet and all-loving god! hahahaha this was amazing.... thanks for the chuckle. I'm still laughing at being called a 'communist'. I have my own small consultancy that I've run for 20 years and although I'm a bit of a lefty I do like money. I'm so conflicted. You MUST be in the Politburo .... hahahahahahahah some of the shit I read on here is really entertaining I have to say.
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x158 instances of God doling out some 'smiting'. https://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html?m=1My favourite is God sending bears to rip 42 children to pieces for ripping the piss out of a follically challenged bloke. ----------------------------------------//--------------------------------------- A few examples of how God puts His victims to death: God “smote” 1,000,000 Ethiopians: A few examples of how God puts His victims to death:
God “smote” 1,000,000 Ethiopians:
“So the Lord smote the Ethiopians before Asa, and before Judah; and the Ethiopians fled. And Asa and the people that were with him pursued them unto Gerar: and the Ethiopians were overthrown, that they could not recover themselves; for they were destroyed before the Lord, and before his host; and they carried away very much spoil.” 2 Chronicles 14:12-13
God burns two teenagers:
“Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu took their censers, put fire in them and added incense; and they offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, contrary to his command. So fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord.” Leviticus 10:1-2
God demands a whole town to be burned as a burnt offering:
“… you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you.” Deuteronomy 13:13-19
God creates a plague:
"Behold, the Lord will bring a great plague on your people, your children, your wives, and all your possessions, and you yourself will have a severe sickness with a disease of your bowels, until your bowels come out because of the disease, day by day.’" 2 Chronicles 21:14-15
God orders human helpers to kill:
“Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, “Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple.” So they began by killing the seventy leaders. “Defile the Temple!” the LORD commanded. “Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!” So they went throughout the city and did as they were told.” Ezekiel 9:5-7
God kills 27,000 Syrians by making a wall fall on them:
“The rest of them escaped to the city of Aphek, where the wall collapsed on twenty-seven thousand of them. And Ben-Hadad fled to the city and hid in an inner room.” 1 Kings 20:30
God makes a lion kill someone:
“Meanwhile, the LORD instructed one of the group of prophets to say to another man, “Strike me!” But the man refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet told him, “Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, a lion will kill you as soon as you leave me.” And sure enough, when he had gone, a lion attacked and killed him.” 1 Kings 20:35-36
God lets two shebears shred 42 children to pieces:
“From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. “Go up baldhead,” they shouted, “go up baldhead!” The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces.” 2 Kings 2:23-24
God truly is a sweet and all-loving god!“So the Lord smote the Ethiopians before Asa, and before Judah; and the Ethiopians fled. And Asa and the people that were with him pursued them unto Gerar: and the Ethiopians were overthrown, that they could not recover themselves; for they were destroyed before the Lord, and before his host; and they carried away very much spoil.” 2 Chronicles 14:12-13
God burns two teenagers: “Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu took their censers, put fire in them and added incense; and they offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, contrary to his command. So fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord.” Leviticus 10:1-2
God demands a whole town to be burned as a burnt offering: “… you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you.” Deuteronomy 13:13-19
God creates a plague: "Behold, the Lord will bring a great plague on your people, your children, your wives, and all your possessions, and you yourself will have a severe sickness with a disease of your bowels, until your bowels come out because of the disease, day by day.’" 2 Chronicles 21:14-15
God orders human helpers to kill: “Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, “Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple.” So they began by killing the seventy leaders. “Defile the Temple!” the LORD commanded. “Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!” So they went throughout the city and did as they were told.” Ezekiel 9:5-7
God kills 27,000 Syrians by making a wall fall on them: “The rest of them escaped to the city of Aphek, where the wall collapsed on twenty-seven thousand of them. And Ben-Hadad fled to the city and hid in an inner room.” 1 Kings 20:30
God makes a lion kill someone: “Meanwhile, the LORD instructed one of the group of prophets to say to another man, “Strike me!” But the man refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet told him, “Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, a lion will kill you as soon as you leave me.” And sure enough, when he had gone, a lion attacked and killed him.” 1 Kings 20:35-36
God lets two shebears shred 42 children to pieces: “From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. “Go up baldhead,” they shouted, “go up baldhead!” The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces.” 2 Kings 2:23-24
God truly is a sweet and all-loving god! hahahaha this was amazing.... thanks for the chuckle. I'm still laughing at being called a 'communist'. I have my own small consultancy that I've run for 20 years and although I'm a bit of a lefty I do like money. I'm so conflicted. You MUST be in the Politburo .... hahahahahahahah some of the shit I read on here is really entertaining I have to say. Somehow caring about others and wanting the world to be a better place gets conflated with being some sort of 'Stalinist' who wants people thrown in the Gulag. Apropos of nothing I am currently sitting on a ferry from Bastia, Corsica to Livorno, Italy. Pick up a car from Pisa this afternoon, drive to Trieste, pick the kids up and head into Croatia. Yewwwwww!
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
Speaking of government control. Amazing how Mr free speech Dutton is now trying to shut down protest and outlaw flags 😂
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+xSpeaking of government control. Amazing how Mr free speech Dutton is now trying to shut down protest and outlaw flags 😂 And now he wants expel people for tweets https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-04/peter-dutton-calls-for-iranian-ambassador-to-be-expelled-/104432518
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
Dutton has never been for free speech. What ever gave you this idea?
He agrees with Albo on the majority of the big issues.
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
Can't edit this stupid thing. Medical research is not buying baby organs and blood to drink in a satanic ritual. You are off your fucking head if you think one equals the other.
You are intimating that the practice is immoral and illegal.
You can only hope you're not afflicted by any disease that is benefitted by this research.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
Life begins at non-consensual conception!
|
|
|
ErogenousZone
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.6K,
Visits: 0
|
On this bill I just want to say that I think it's extremely dangerous to allow government to decide what is true and what is not. Very undemocratic in my opinion.
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+xOn this bill I just want to say that I think it's extremely dangerous to allow government to decide what is true and what is not. Very undemocratic in my opinion. Thats an oversimplification of what the bill is about mate, in my opinion. We already allow the government to dictate what can be shown to under 18s, what can't be advertised to the whole population (no tobacco ads for example) what can be broadcast over FTA and streaming TV and Radio in regards to classifications, language, pornography etc... This is a very very very late attempt to curtail "news" being pushed on a, as yet, unregulated medium.... Freedom of the press should be (and is in most civilised countries) of paramount importance to a democratic society, but regulations around standards and behaviour shouldn't be seen as control as much as protection... The same opponents to this probably don't like being forced into wearing seatbelts and think they have every right to die in a car crash if they choose to ..... but don't consider their lack of safely operating their vehicles effecting others in the society we ALL live in.....
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xOn this bill I just want to say that I think it's extremely dangerous to allow government to decide what is true and what is not. Very undemocratic in my opinion. Thats an oversimplification of what the bill is about mate, in my opinion. We already allow the government to dictate what can be shown to under 18s, what can't be advertised to the whole population (no tobacco ads for example) what can be broadcast over FTA and streaming TV and Radio in regards to classifications, language, pornography etc... This is a very very very late attempt to curtail "news" being pushed on a, as yet, unregulated medium.... Freedom of the press should be (and is in most civilised countries) of paramount importance to a democratic society, but regulations around standards and behaviour shouldn't be seen as control as much as protection... The same opponents to this probably don't like being forced into wearing seatbelts and think they have every right to die in a car crash if they choose to ..... but don't consider their lack of safely operating their vehicles effecting others in the society we ALL live in..... I like this summary. I do agree it's an oversimplification. The way it's written (from what I've seen) is that social media making claims must be backed up by a reputable source, and that does include "Professional news" as a source
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xOn this bill I just want to say that I think it's extremely dangerous to allow government to decide what is true and what is not. Very undemocratic in my opinion. Thats an oversimplification of what the bill is about mate, in my opinion. We already allow the government to dictate what can be shown to under 18s, what can't be advertised to the whole population (no tobacco ads for example) what can be broadcast over FTA and streaming TV and Radio in regards to classifications, language, pornography etc... This is a very very very late attempt to curtail "news" being pushed on a, as yet, unregulated medium.... Freedom of the press should be (and is in most civilised countries) of paramount importance to a democratic society, but regulations around standards and behaviour shouldn't be seen as control as much as protection... The same opponents to this probably don't like being forced into wearing seatbelts and think they have every right to die in a car crash if they choose to ..... but don't consider their lack of safely operating their vehicles effecting others in the society we ALL live in..... I like this summary. I do agree it's an oversimplification. The way it's written (from what I've seen) is that social media making claims must be backed up by a reputable source, and that does include "Professional news" as a source Thats my understating too and its something I dont have a problem with, surprised that other would to be honest. I think regulating AI is going to be the next big world wide legal quagmire....
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xOn this bill I just want to say that I think it's extremely dangerous to allow government to decide what is true and what is not. Very undemocratic in my opinion. Thats an oversimplification of what the bill is about mate, in my opinion. We already allow the government to dictate what can be shown to under 18s, what can't be advertised to the whole population (no tobacco ads for example) what can be broadcast over FTA and streaming TV and Radio in regards to classifications, language, pornography etc... This is a very very very late attempt to curtail "news" being pushed on a, as yet, unregulated medium.... Freedom of the press should be (and is in most civilised countries) of paramount importance to a democratic society, but regulations around standards and behaviour shouldn't be seen as control as much as protection... The same opponents to this probably don't like being forced into wearing seatbelts and think they have every right to die in a car crash if they choose to ..... but don't consider their lack of safely operating their vehicles effecting others in the society we ALL live in..... Well said.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xOn this bill I just want to say that I think it's extremely dangerous to allow government to decide what is true and what is not. Very undemocratic in my opinion. Thats an oversimplification of what the bill is about mate, in my opinion. We already allow the government to dictate what can be shown to under 18s, what can't be advertised to the whole population (no tobacco ads for example) what can be broadcast over FTA and streaming TV and Radio in regards to classifications, language, pornography etc... This is a very very very late attempt to curtail "news" being pushed on a, as yet, unregulated medium.... Freedom of the press should be (and is in most civilised countries) of paramount importance to a democratic society, but regulations around standards and behaviour shouldn't be seen as control as much as protection... The same opponents to this probably don't like being forced into wearing seatbelts and think they have every right to die in a car crash if they choose to ..... but don't consider their lack of safely operating their vehicles effecting others in the society we ALL live in..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etBRqzt7OqY&ab_channel=shebafication
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xOn this bill I just want to say that I think it's extremely dangerous to allow government to decide what is true and what is not. Very undemocratic in my opinion. Thats an oversimplification of what the bill is about mate, in my opinion. We already allow the government to dictate what can be shown to under 18s, what can't be advertised to the whole population (no tobacco ads for example) what can be broadcast over FTA and streaming TV and Radio in regards to classifications, language, pornography etc... This is a very very very late attempt to curtail "news" being pushed on a, as yet, unregulated medium.... Freedom of the press should be (and is in most civilised countries) of paramount importance to a democratic society, but regulations around standards and behaviour shouldn't be seen as control as much as protection... The same opponents to this probably don't like being forced into wearing seatbelts and think they have every right to die in a car crash if they choose to ..... but don't consider their lack of safely operating their vehicles effecting others in the society we ALL live in..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etBRqzt7OqY&ab_channel=shebafication hahahahahahahahha .... perfect clip....
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/05/09/527575055/one-third-of-new-drugs-had-safety-problems-after-fda-approval"One-Third Of New Drugs Had Safety Problems After FDA Approval" "... researchers at the Yale School of Medicine found that nearly a third of those approved from 2001 through 2010 had major safety issues years after the medications were made widely available to patients." And yet, by 2024, western society has fully moved into culture where: - when the governments says a new drug is "safe and effective", my guess is that 75% of people believe that, and attack those who question it - questioning the safety of a drug, based on never-used-before technology, can caused a doctor to lose their job - for university medical professors - who cite evidence of danger from a new drug - to be slandered as quacks and conspiracy theorists And this new legislation blocks YOU the people from questioning the safety of any new drug approved by the government. People like tsf and Muz are samples of the un-thinking masses who think this is a good thing.
|
|
|
involuntarilytransferred
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8,
Visits: 0
|
+xhttps://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/05/09/527575055/one-third-of-new-drugs-had-safety-problems-after-fda-approval"One-Third Of New Drugs Had Safety Problems After FDA Approval" "... researchers at the Yale School of Medicine found that nearly a third of those approved from 2001 through 2010 had major safety issues years after the medications were made widely available to patients." And yet, by 2024, western society has fully moved into culture where: - when the governments says a new drug is "safe and effective", my guess is that 75% of people believe that, and attack those who question it - questioning the safety of a drug, based on never-used-before technology, can caused a doctor to lose their job - for university medical professors - who cite evidence of danger from a new drug - to be slandered as quacks and conspiracy theorists And this new legislation blocks YOU the people from questioning the safety of any new drug approved by the government. People like tsf and Muz are samples of the un-thinking masses who think this is a good thing. They've all gone. You're talking to yourself like you're in some sort of sensory deprivation chamber. Stupid c unt.
|
|
|