Enough with the faux morale outrage!

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Enough with the faux morale outrage!

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15474

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1932111 8-Jan-2018 11:39

Fred99:

Give you a break?

You're still crying moral outrage about something that happened years ago - and had a satisfactory conclusion (closing a loophole which could allow criminals to acquire guns with which to commit "real crimes").

In a thread you started on "faux moral outrage" - that's quite hilarious.

I think you are having a comprehension failure. I responded to someone else, with a single comment that was then picked up on and argued by others including you. I am not crying about it, I am stating I felt she got off without a punishment I felt should have been harsher. Just because it happened years ago, doesn't make it right.

She *actually* committed a crime, unlike the examples I gave where people had misunderstood a simple comment and railed about it for days.

If you're argument is "means justify the end" then I am seriously lost for words.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#1932158 8-Jan-2018 11:53

I believe that the firearm incident was actually decent investigative journalism for a change. No one was harmed and the people who tipped HDA off about this had been complaining to police for a long time. The firearm was purchased in a controlled environment. I believe it was the Police at fault here as they knew about the loophole and were too tired to fix it. Don't get me wrong, I certainly am not a HDA fan boy as some of her rants seem like she is on another planet sometimes.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1932159 8-Jan-2018 11:53

networkn:

Fred99:

Give you a break?

You're still crying moral outrage about something that happened years ago - and had a satisfactory conclusion (closing a loophole which could allow criminals to acquire guns with which to commit "real crimes").

In a thread you started on "faux moral outrage" - that's quite hilarious.

I think you are having a comprehension failure. I responded to someone else, with a single comment that was then picked up on and argued by others including you. I am not crying about it, I am stating I felt she got off without a punishment I felt should have been harsher. Just because it happened years ago, doesn't make it right.

She *actually* committed a crime, unlike the examples I gave where people had misunderstood a simple comment and railed about it for days.

If you're argument is "means justify the end" then I am seriously lost for words.

She *actually* wasn't prosecuted for a crime, justice was served by a warning, she hasn't done it again, and laws have been changed to close the rather stupid loophole she exposed.

And yet - you're very clearly still "morally outraged". Get over it - please.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1932169 8-Jan-2018 12:08

I'll have a "moral outrage" hysterical fit about something in HDPA's article:

There are still good reasons to be angry with Morgan about that tweet. In my opinion, he likely deliberately used it as a sexist dog-whistle.

In my opinion - in saying a dumb thing like that - she should probably best keep some of her opinions to herself.

It's actually an allegation of more sinister moral conduct than if Morgan's misinterpreted "lipstick on a pig" comment really did mean what some snowflakes jumped to the incorrect conclusion - that he'd referred to JA as a pig.

From what I know of Morgan, deliberately using a sexist dog whistle would be completely out of character - he made a mistake (as offense was clearly taken by some), then followed that up with the further mistake of trying to defend what he said by arguing, rather than saying what was needed - a brief apology to those who took offense.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15474

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1932182 8-Jan-2018 12:25

Why should he have apologised when he did nothing wrong? People who were offended had a comprehension failure.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1932197 8-Jan-2018 12:51

networkn: Why should he have apologised when he did nothing wrong? People who were offended had a comprehension failure.

Because he is (or was) a politician. People with comprehension failures still vote, post on FB, reader comments on Stuff etc.

Rule #1 for politicians may be to never say sorry - as it displays weakness apparently, but he was in a real fix on that one.

Defending it by trying to to hold firm on the position that in his opinion, JA was the only appealing thing about the Labour Party did not work.

Morgan should've realised before then that making a headline by deliberately offending people first - stealing the spotlight, then attempting to rationalise it by argument, doesn't achieve what he set out to do.

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 589
Inactive user

#1932229 8-Jan-2018 13:30

Fred99:

WRT HDPA's actions, try looking at it another way:

HDPA may have broken laws, but the end result of that was that Section 43A of the Arms Act 1983 was changed to close the loophole she exposed.

While I acknowledge that the Arms Act was strengthened on the back of this (which I consider to be a good thing) you're being extremely euphemistic to call the mechanism that HDPA used a "loophole".

A "loophole" generally refers to a way that someone can achieve something that they shouldn't be able to by a clever application of existing rules. My understanding from what was reported was that HDPA had to break numerous laws to acquire the firearm... from basic breaches of the Arms Act itself, to Forgery, to Impersonating a Police Officer (on the application).

If a reporter was to install some malware on your computer that collected your Online Banking login details and then used that to empty your accounts, and then run a story about how easy it had been to defraud you... Would you call that a loophole?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1932238 8-Jan-2018 13:53

I might if the reporter returned my money afterwards and explained why she felt she had to do it this way to make her point.

The real issue here is that some people just don't like her. I'm not too wild about her either, though the awful format of Story made even Duncan Garner look bad. I think the point being made, which people seem to want to overlook in their rush to judgement, is that there was a simple procedure that bad guys could exploit to acquire firearms illegally, and it needed to be fixed immediately. I see no problem with the method employed. It did the trick. If she had quietly mentioned it to her MP, it would have just ended up at the bottom of a pile on some bureaucrat's desk. Instead, the hole (loop or otherwise) was instantly plugged. Problem solved.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1932336 8-Jan-2018 18:32

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-07/commonwealth-games-training-politically-correct/9309290

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8468

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1932510 9-Jan-2018 07:50

Rikkitic:
Good to see you back to your old self. How do you feel about bringing back hanging?

Fine by me and cheaper than the current option provided you don’t do what the Americans do and keep them alive for a few decades first.

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8468

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1932512 9-Jan-2018 07:53

networkn:
Fred99:

Give you a break?

You're still crying moral outrage about something that happened years ago - and had a satisfactory conclusion (closing a loophole which could allow criminals to acquire guns with which to commit "real crimes").

In a thread you started on "faux moral outrage" - that's quite hilarious.

I think you are having a comprehension failure. I responded to someone else, with a single comment that was then picked up on and argued by others including you. I am not crying about it, I am stating I felt she got off without a punishment I felt should have been harsher. Just because it happened years ago, doesn't make it right.

She *actually* committed a crime, unlike the examples I gave where people had misunderstood a simple comment and railed about it for days.

If you're argument is "means justify the end" then I am seriously lost for words.

If a firearms licence holder were to commit the offence without the protection of media status, I bet that the Police would have come down on them like a ton of bricks.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15474

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1932734 9-Jan-2018 12:24

The point of my original post, was around the fact that it's nearly impossible to breath without offending someone. Seems like every 5 minutes there is a news article about someone in trouble for doing something perfectly normal, but now some new fringe group is offended by it. Worse still more and more we are being curbed as to what we can say, do, eat, or participate in.

This morning I read that the UK Police posted morning breakfast photo, and some twit got offended on behalf of *vegans* because it had eggs, and bacon, and sausages.

I mean... seriously?

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#1932739 9-Jan-2018 12:33

networkn:

The point of my original post, was around the fact that it's nearly impossible to breath without offending someone. Seems like every 5 minutes there is a news article about someone in trouble for doing something perfectly normal, but now some new fringe group is offended by it. Worse still more and more we are being curbed as to what we can say, do, eat, or participate in.

This morning I read that the UK Police posted morning breakfast photo, and some twit got offended on behalf of *vegans* because it had eggs, and bacon, and sausages.

I mean... seriously?

I don't understand why its happening, other than to blame social media and the lack of investigative journalism these days.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15474

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1932740 9-Jan-2018 12:35

Pumpedd:

networkn:

The point of my original post, was around the fact that it's nearly impossible to breath without offending someone. Seems like every 5 minutes there is a news article about someone in trouble for doing something perfectly normal, but now some new fringe group is offended by it. Worse still more and more we are being curbed as to what we can say, do, eat, or participate in.

This morning I read that the UK Police posted morning breakfast photo, and some twit got offended on behalf of *vegans* because it had eggs, and bacon, and sausages.

I mean... seriously?

I don't understand why its happening, other than to blame social media and the lack of investigative journalism these days.

It's so easy to have a voice these days. You can get a relatively small % of people behind a "cause", but it can still amount to a lot of people.

People these days love to be upset. Drives me nuts. I am occasionally guilty of it myself, I don't think anyone is immune.

If we aren't careful there will be no free speech left. We will all be little identical robots who conform to an ever smaller box of acceptable behaviours.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1932809 9-Jan-2018 13:39

I'm just guessing but I would imagine it has to do with insignificant people feeling important, Andy Warhol's 15 minutes of fame. People are invited to complain about things so some do. I complain about things that I think are genuinely important, because when you let things that matter slide, others start to think they don't matter.

As a vegetarian, though, I have no problem with pictures of bacon and eggs. I do have a slight problem with the smell of cooking flesh, but that is usually easily solved. I just go somewhere else.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | 2 | 3 | 4