Nope to dope or toot toot?

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

Forums › Politics › Nope to dope or toot toot?

1 | ... | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25

6658 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3479

Trusted

#2597897 4-Nov-2020 22:58

Give it a rest mate. You can make your point without being rude and aggressive.

You don't see experts in other areas on here carry on like you do.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2597899 4-Nov-2020 23:02

And your invaluable contribution to this thread was.... posting about another poster? So you're okay with people asserting as matters of fact things that they have no actual/reasonable basis for believing, especially when the assertions are targeted at a debate over an emotionally charged and controversial issue?

Cool.

Edit: For the last time -- people who are non-lawyers can/should feel free to assert whatever they think about the law, so long as they suitably characterise their arguments and do not assert matters of fact about the legal system when they have no basis nor actual knowledge of the issues. One would have thought this is obvious to anyone who cares to be intellectually honest and to be polite enough to not pollute a public space with drivel. Courtesy isn't just this shallow notion of backslapping each other and being "nice".

networkn

Networkn
32884 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15483

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2597909 4-Nov-2020 23:16

You have it wrong. I did not randomly start digging anywhere. My belief that a prosecution could be stopped if not in the public interest or if it was considered a health matter, was a result of hearing of this amendment which the interviewer or interviewee clearly labelled as intended to be a workaround (or effectively the same as) decriminlization. I believe that the amendment referred to was that one I posted, which more or less reads the same as the interview was inferring as best I could tell.

It was based on this interview (where the person being interviewed said Police needed more education and a push to apply it) and reading those clauses that I formed my understanding (as non legally educated as it may be) that both the police and the courts had discretion over arrests or prosecutions if the arrest wasn't in the public interest or could be deemed more suitably handled as a health matter. You disputed that and I asked you to clarify the meaning of the sections I posted.

Even if, as you assert, I was wildly off, you could have stripped your post of the mocking, sarcasm and generally nasty tone and still imparted the knowledge, in an non legal easy to digest manner so as to educate me and the others here. I don't swallow for one second that it required you to strongly and definintively correct the issue in the manner you did, you did that because you get off on it.

Discussions and POV are what make up a large majority of the discussions here. Many many threads are subjective in nature, and many areas of the law is open to interpretation. If you can't handle the unscientific nature of these discussions why don't you just not read them, instead of flying into a rage and eviscerating people?

As proven every single day here, it's entirely possible to correct someones (sometimes wildly) incorrect understanding of a fact or matter, without being a jerk. You should give it a go.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2598006 5-Nov-2020 06:53

networkn:

You have it wrong. I did not randomly start digging anywhere. My belief that a prosecution could be stopped if not in the public interest or if it was considered a health matter, was a result of hearing of this amendment which the interviewer or interviewee clearly labelled as intended to be a workaround (or effectively the same as) decriminlization. I believe that the amendment referred to was that one I posted, which more or less reads the same as the interview was inferring as best I could tell.

It was based on this interview (where the person being interviewed said Police needed more education and a push to apply it) and reading those clauses that I formed my understanding (as non legally educated as it may be) that both the police and the courts had discretion over arrests or prosecutions if the arrest wasn't in the public interest or could be deemed more suitably handled as a health matter. You disputed that and I asked you to clarify the meaning of the sections I posted.

Even if, as you assert, I was wildly off, you could have stripped your post of the mocking, sarcasm and generally nasty tone and still imparted the knowledge, in an non legal easy to digest manner so as to educate me and the others here. I don't swallow for one second that it required you to strongly and definintively correct the issue in the manner you did, you did that because you get off on it.

Discussions and POV are what make up a large majority of the discussions here. Many many threads are subjective in nature, and many areas of the law is open to interpretation. If you can't handle the unscientific nature of these discussions why don't you just not read them, instead of flying into a rage and eviscerating people?

As proven every single day here, it's entirely possible to correct someones (sometimes wildly) incorrect understanding of a fact or matter, without being a jerk. You should give it a go.

100%

If IT discussions were only had between experts, there is no need for a discussion. As they know everything. If legal discussions were only had by lawyers, there is no need for a discussion as they know everything. In a forum such as this, non experts discuss, and its great to have others clarify any points

Deja, do you want to contribute or not? If you can't contribute in a manner that vaguely resembles respect and manners, maybe you need to evaluate if this is the place for you.

Handle9

11937 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9699

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2598008 5-Nov-2020 06:55

If you have a problem with someone either report it and leave it to the mods or take it to PM.

MikeAqua

8036 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3827

#2598049 5-Nov-2020 08:26

dejadeadnz:

And your invaluable contribution to this thread was.... posting about another poster? So you're okay with people asserting as matters of fact things that they have no actual/reasonable basis for believing, especially when the assertions are targeted at a debate over an emotionally charged and controversial issue?

Cool.

Edit: For the last time -- people who are non-lawyers can/should feel free to assert whatever they think about the law, so long as they suitably characterise their arguments and do not assert matters of fact about the legal system when they have no basis nor actual knowledge of the issues. One would have thought this is obvious to anyone who cares to be intellectually honest and to be polite enough to not pollute a public space with drivel. Courtesy isn't just this shallow notion of backslapping each other and being "nice".

I think you're missing the point. It's helpful to share your expertise. However, the manner in which you do this sometime comes across as somewhat high-handed (putting it politely). Your expertise does not give you the authority to shut down other people.

You expertise speaks for itself very well. You have no need for the tone which at times creeps into your posts. You make perfectly cogent arguments without it.

Mike

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

Handle9

11937 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9699

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2599188 6-Nov-2020 17:05

The referendum ended up incredibly close - 50.7% vs 48.4%

There's not a mandate for the proposed legislation but there is pretty clear widespread dissatisfaction for the law the way it is now.

JPNZ

1719 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 845

#2600269 9-Nov-2020 08:16

Handle9:

The referendum ended up incredibly close - 50.7% vs 48.4%

There's not a mandate for the proposed legislation but there is pretty clear widespread dissatisfaction for the law the way it is now.

The misuse of drugs act 1975 is the first thing that needs overhauling.

Panasonic 65GZ1000, Onkyo RZ730, Atmos 5.1.2, AppleTV 4K, Nest Mini's, PS5, PS3, MacbookPro, iPad Pro, Apple watch SE2, iPhone 15+

MikeAqua

8036 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3827

#2601103 10-Nov-2020 16:17

Why did the PM declare her view on euthanasia but not cannabis?

In terms of significance, euthanasia (which I voted for) is clearly the bigger issue. It creates a legal way of killing people.

Cannabis is a paltry issue by comparison. Yet the PM didn't want to influence the electorate on cannabis, but was happy to on euthanasia.

Mike

Handle9

11937 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9699

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2601150 10-Nov-2020 16:22

It would have cost her party votes from "middle" New Zealanders.

Blurtie

487 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 131

#2601267 10-Nov-2020 19:28

My understanding was that she didn't want to be seen to sway people's vote by disclosing her position. I think that's fair enough.. I found it extraordinary that all of the national party caucus voted against it.. After Judith told them to...

There's also the fact that the euthanasia vote was a binding referendum i.e. Had already gone through the whole parliamentary legislative process (bar Royal assent) , so kinda hard not to disclose her position there. While the cannabis referendum was to gauge the view of the public for change...

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.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2601282 10-Nov-2020 19:52

Both Republicans and Democrats in the states have indicated support for (federal) decriminalisation and ending the dismally failed "war on drugs". It's now either legal or decriminalised in 32 of the 50 states, prohibition has failed. What they do will impact on WHO classification for cannabis.

It'll be hilarious to see National (with potential coalition partner ACT) campaigning strongly for decriminalisation - and if Ardern sticks to her guns, she'll have potentially cornered herself by stating "no change" when that's because of a close split in a non-binding referendum - which asked the wrong question (hence "middle NZ" voted with the wrong answer).

Handle9

11937 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9699

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2601285 10-Nov-2020 19:53

Blurtie: My understanding was that she didn't want to be seen to sway people's vote by disclosing her position. I think that's fair enough.. I found it extraordinary that all of the national party caucus voted against it.. After Judith told them to...

There's also the fact that the euthanasia vote was a binding referendum i.e. Had already gone through the whole parliamentary legislative process (bar Royal assent) , so kinda hard not to disclose her position there. While the cannabis referendum was to gauge the view of the public for change...

That's what she said however let's be realistic. Her stance wasn't about principle it was about politics. If she didn't want to influence the outcome of one referendum why didn't she take the same approach for both?

The most likely answer is that she didn't want to be painted as " soft on crime" or " supporting sale of drugs to kids " or what ever other trope would have been used.

Similarly National used it as a wedge issue to paint themselves as " tough on crime" or however else they wanted to paint themselves. None of that is extraordinary, it's politics as usual.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19086 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16356

Lifetime subscriber

#2601298 10-Nov-2020 20:13

Handle9:

That's what she said however let's be realistic. Her stance wasn't about principle it was about politics. If she didn't want to influence the outcome of one referendum why didn't she take the same approach for both?

I think @Blurtie's explanation is the correct one. Jacinda Ardern may well be just a calculating politician, or maybe she isn't, but I don't think the two referenda can be directly compared. Although I wish the result had been different, I think her decision not to influence it by revealing her vote was the correct one.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2601303 10-Nov-2020 20:17

Rikkitic: I think her decision not to influence it by revealing her vote was the correct one.

I think her decision to have a "non-binding" referendum but to pre-announce that she'd be bound by it anyway was a serious tactical error.

1 | ... | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25