Christchurch video...
- Thread starter Beer w/Straw
- Start date
I just don't.
Unless, as you say, possession/distribution of said video would amount to jail time being a hasty law made ad lib and not based on already existing laws. That would seem odd.
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
catphish throwing dog-whistles
Bells
Staff member
Yo, truther..
The shooting happened on the 15th of March. New Zealand and Australian media basically started streaming ongoing news of it before they realised a second mosque had also been attacked... On the 15th of March.
If the wiki page is showing 2:55 am, it would be because wikipedia is a US site, and it shows their local time.
And they are quite a bit behind New Zealand because something something about timezones. That is why on New Year's Eve, we can watch the US fireworks in real time and live in the late morning or early afternoon if you live in New Zealand or Australia.. You know, different timezones and what not. Or do are you a NYE truther as well because *gasp* they show Australian fireworks in the US and it isn't even midnight there yet.. Must be a conspiracy!!
And it is probably for the best that you stop responding, because you have already made a complete fool of yourself.
Last edited:
T
The recent report contains evidence of collusion.
That would be Wikipedia's business - Wikipedia is not the source of the news of that issue.
What report?
Mueller's, I assume. Ask Laurie - whichever one was meant. They all do.
I'm not sure about Canada, but in the U.S. you can proudly state that you want to own a gun, maybe a nice big gun, because you need to defend your home and family.
That is, you explicitly can cite the reason for wanting to own a firearm, as being your right to shoot and possibly kill someone.
In NZ, if you said or wrote that on a gun licence application, you would be denied one, probably for life.
Can anyone spot the difference? Is the casual acceptance of a right to kill intruders with a gun, part of the problem, or what?
Facebook has finally accepted some responsibility and is now banning white nationalist/separatist accounts. It has also promised to act more quickly to prevent the likes of the video being discussed here, from being accessed.
But good luck with that one.
That is, you explicitly can cite the reason for wanting to own a firearm, as being your right to shoot and possibly kill someone.
In NZ, if you said or wrote that on a gun licence application, you would be denied one, probably for life.
Can anyone spot the difference? Is the casual acceptance of a right to kill intruders with a gun, part of the problem, or what?
Facebook has finally accepted some responsibility and is now banning white nationalist/separatist accounts. It has also promised to act more quickly to prevent the likes of the video being discussed here, from being accessed.
But good luck with that one.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Here's why this is a faulty analogy:
It is not illegal or immoral to view a news item (which is public, BTW). It is illegal and immoral to view child porn.
That has led you to create a straw man. You have no argument against the actual incident in-question, so you attempt to move the discussion to a (flawed) analogy, where your defense works better.
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
thank you for your response Dave.
what lies in question are several things
laws
morals
culture's
child marriage is extremely prevalent in the world, yet perceived as immoral in many cultures.
it is also illegal in many cultures
while legal in many others
it is also where people seek to expunge a sense of moral accountability by virtue of their own moral judgement on the moral act of treating a child as a slave.
morally it would appear the jury is out(these are the basic data facts of express actions via laws & cultures not my personal opinions or morals)
the act of the censorship is an act or cultural morality being expressed through a law
the point being made by LauriAg & beer with a straw is about perceived rights to access immoral content which has been deemed illegal.
however, the reality of how some people have sold out their own piety to a sense of moral equity via transference is probably more the real debate.
i have made it very clear if you had read my comments.
though given a vast majority of people skim read things i expect you have missed various posts.
skipping to the end of a moral debate to seek an ends justifys the means by virtue or ignorance of the actual events, tends to immoralise the events being skipped over.
i shall post my main points again for you
the victims have not been offered the opportunity before the event to waive their rights
the victims have not signed away their rights
the victims rights are required to be protected by the government
publishing photographs, viewing snuff content or sharing private imagery that is illegal in nature is a crime REGARDLESS of where it may be sourced from, unless you are a government agent in the authority position to deal with that.
it does pain me to think how easily so many seem to be able to throw away the rights of people just because they claim they are only a willing viewer and that by being only a willing viewer they are absolved morally of the act or content.
this act is an attempt of moral equity to be the victim.which is clearly not the case.
willing viewers seeking the material can not claim victim rights unless they are a legal child. this is basic western law.
the act was not legal
thus publishing it was not legal
thus willingly viewing it is not legal
thus making a copy, selling it, holding it or trading it is not legal
simple legal logic
moral self judgement of those people choosing to do so is a completely different subject.
though... no one has offered any moral defense for such a position as yet.
Making shit up in your own head is legal but doesn't mean you're not stupid.
Guessing you wont respond cause you're too scared.
Last edited:
Oh wait, you respect DaveC but not me.
My opinion doesn't matter.
My opinion doesn't matter.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Granted and guilty.
But not by habit; I have been off-continent since Mar 22. Had to skip ahead to catch up.
Still waiting.
On what a horrible person I am I think I at least deserve an answer.
(There's also this thread: http://sciforums.com/threads/morphine-and-alcohol.161693/ )
On what a horrible person I am I think I at least deserve an answer.
(There's also this thread: http://sciforums.com/threads/morphine-and-alcohol.161693/ )
Last edited:
Hey, if you don't answer it means you're a fucking coward and no one should take take you seriously.
Up to you.
Up to you.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Two things:
1] Your statements of legality are false. It is not illegal to publish something that is illegal. I think what you mean is immoral. Immoral things are things that are wrong despite not being illegal.
2] Your logic essentially guts the very concept of news - and would violate our right to information. No news of any illegal events. This is utterly illogical. Why do you think the people don't have the right to know what's going on in their world? If not citizens, then who? What kind of a world would you like to live in, where only the privileged have access to real events? Do you think you would prefer to be fed a version of the world that you can digest?
You see the implication of the world you posit, right? Where crime is secret; where citizens are segregated from knowledge?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Agree. Ourselves. Not someone else. As free citizens with the right to access information, we are entitled to know what's going on in the world.
But let's grant your question. Who will you appoint as your gatekeeper for what you are allowed to see and not allowed to see? Are you comfortable with it being, say, me?
(People who have strong opinions about how the world should work always seem to see it operating on other people, never on themselves.)
While I agree that there is an issue arising from publicity, the solution sure as heck isn't to institutionalize and centralize its censorship.
That's how we give up our basic rights. It's not worth it.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
No. That is a false question. A straw man.
They are not equivalent. (If they were, you wouldn't need to create the straw man.)
Stay on topic.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
To be clear, a crazed lunatic committing heinous crimes should not result in the forced unilateral loss of freedoms for the rest of us. That's bass-ackward.
While I grant that the lunatic's ravings should not get more attention than necessary, I do not grant that the solution id for us to pay the price in the form of some sort of centralized censorship.
I am old enough to remember the days when it was the news media's job to deliver the news of the world, not judge and curate it for us.