The problem is with all the years of work you put into practicing critical thinking, reasoning, logic, research it's all too often undone by insidious little intellectual diseases like bias, group think, rationalisations, etc . These can happen on a macro level too and affect entire fields and institutions. Most of the time it's subconscious and people who think they've perfected the art of objectivity don't realise their work is dripping with bias and errors.

Australia was set up as a police state. Convicts etc etc

What are they covering up Wamackie?

I bet your one of those people who bitch about getting a speeding fine from a hidden road side camera and call it "blatant revenue raising"

If people didn't break the law the revenue would be 0, I've never got a speeding ticket, it's not that hard :lol:

This.

The big issue is not so much whether these laws get used for their stated purpose (eg preventing a terrorist attack from occurring).

The issue is what happens over time as the definition of "terrorism" gets inevitably loosened. Once these laws come in, they are very hard to get rid of.

We shouldn't be bringing in harsher laws in the month after a terrorist incident. There should be a thorough inquiry investigating exactly where the lapses have occurred, and only then do we decide what changes need to be made.

The NSA collection of data is a classic example of good intentions making things worse - they have just created haystacks of information, they haven't made the 'needle' any easier to find. What's the point of having mountains of metadata if you only discover what you have in hindsight. They are collecting far too much data to be able to actually analyse in advance and prevent terrorist acts occurring.

They need to spend their intelligence budget on human assets to infiltrate and investigate, not just on a dragnet of surveillance. Aside from the civil liberties issue, it just isn't efficient or effective!

The sense of right from wrong only comes from the fact that there are laws. How can you judge something to be right or wrong if there is nothing to compare it to?

We are taught morals, we aren't born with them.

Yes, it becomes a Mad Max movie. Every man for himself and everyone killing everyone.
Cant believe these libertarians think this would be a better world.

You may as well say without the bible where would we get our morals from.

And we know what a crock of shit that is too.

Let me guess you are part of the minority

People only do the "right thing" because the laws are in place, take away laws and people start fucking things up

[youtube]wCeJbU26aAI[/youtube]

So take away all the laws related to driving and the roads, what do you think will happen ?

You mean like reclaim and upf? Or the bikies or etc

laws are laws for a reason...to stop the minority of dickheads becoming a majority...

Ever heard the saying 'Standing on the shoulders of giants'?

:lol: You're definitely a uni student.

I wrote a thesis once, it was a pile of shit now that i've been in the real world doing real work for 4 years. Given mine wasn't for a pHd but it was a year i wasted looking up other peoples opinions when I could have been on the ground.

In the real world of not being a full time academic with your head up your arse no one cares how many papers that no one reads that you wrote :lol:

Try and get someone with a pHD to classify soil.

I don't have much time for your ridiculously partisan views or your inability to see issues in terms other than black and white, but I must admit i did get a little bit of enjoyment out of the above retort.

2 out of 2 thumbs up.

Having said that, it would depend on what subject you're talking about.





Edited by munrubenmuz: 19/10/2015 11:55:06 PM

Yeah because wrong doing happens exclusively to wrong doers.

I think he's saying that because most people don't speed those that do should be able to go as fast as they want.

Have I got that right?

yeah cause i'm a terrorist and going to be targeted by the law........:shock: :shock: :shock: #-o #-o #-o :-" :-" :-"

So it means the minority should be able to get away with breaking the laws....because they are only a minority..???...
Epic Fail

All things being equal, someone with a PhD has practised higher levels of critical thinking than one without, as they have had to undergo the relatively arduous process of a literature review & research (on average 3.5 to 4 years), which is all about building an argument founded in reason, logic & evidence then subject it to scrutiny by a panel of far more educated people in that particular field.
So since they have practiced such critical thinking, then yes I do consider their opinion more worthy than others because I expect them to have put more effort into their thinking on the facets of said issue.

On a related note, there is a saying amongst academics & scientists "opinions are like assholes - everyone's got one". Basically meaning that unless you publish in peer review, your opinion is worthless.

As far as I'm aware murder is already illegal and has been so for centuries, statists plan to make everything more ilegaler

Some people desire the Mad Max Utopia

What is your solution? No laws and everyone just does what they want ?

What does the government gain by " keeping the common man inline" ?

What does the government gain by knowing what websites I visit?

Murdoch Rags is a just a feral fuckstick that sprouts sources from willy nilly and thinks having a pHD next to your name makes your opinion more worthy than others

"false flag" would have to be the dumbest conspiracy theory since fake moon landings.

LOL

A word of advice for the conspiracy theorists.

Don't ever use the term "false flag" or you lose credibility. The government does not need to create false flag events to bring in laws that restrict freedoms, they just need to wait for one nut bag to do it for them.

The Lindt cafe siege was inevitable. The teenage radical Parramatta shooting was also inevitable.

Wasn't there also a kid (maybe 18 not sure) who recently stabbed a couple of cops with the intention of beheading one of them before getting shot?

The question you should be asking is whether these new laws will help prevent these events in the future, or whether the laws will predominately be used for other more restrictive reasons?