Christchurch Mosque Shooting

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

Forums › Politics › Christchurch Mosque Shooting

1 | ... | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | ... | 79

436 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2201706 19-Mar-2019 14:27

Batman:

If anyone feels egging is fine, please send me your name and work number, we can arrange on Monday to get your colleagues, preferably someone from a rival company, best if it were your teenager's boyfriend. When you are in your best attire at 11 am on Monday we will arrange for them to smash a carton of eggs on any part of your body they so choose to. Should be fine. No hard feelings ok.

It doesn't excuse the assault the boy subsequently suffered. Anning is a thug and scum.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18659 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2201721 19-Mar-2019 14:38

networkn:

Says she is, or actually is?

I do think we should keep to the topic but I also think this is an important point. I believe most things can and should be forgiven with enough time and the right kind of reflection. But I also believe some things cannot be. People make choices and they have to deal with the consequences of those. Maybe Tarrant will one day come to regret what he did. But he should never be released. Van Houten has apparently been a model prisoner and done a lot of good. She deserves credit for that. But I don't think she should be released either. She made a decision on that long-ago day and that is why she is where she is.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32350 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2201724 19-Mar-2019 14:39

Rikkitic:

networkn:

Says she is, or actually is?

I do think we should keep to the topic but I also think this is an important point. I believe most things can and should be forgiven with enough time and the right kind of reflection. But I also believe some things cannot be. People make choices and they have to deal with the consequences of those. Maybe Tarrant will one day come to regret what he did. But he should never be released. Van Houten has apparently been a model prisoner and done a lot of good. She deserves credit for that. But I don't think she should be released either. She made a decision on that long-ago day and that is why she is where she is.

Yup 100% agree on all counts. It's a Christmas miracle ;)

I will say, that in todays society, the threshold for what's "unforgivable" in a lot of peoples eyes, seems so low.

Handle9

11386 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2201727 19-Mar-2019 14:44

networkn:

Rikkitic:

networkn:

Rikkitic:

Violent assault is blasting someone with a firearm, or smashing your partner in the face, or going after someone with a bat. An egg is not a weapon. It is a statement. It can't hurt anyone. I am all in favour of it as a measured response to someone like that racist a-hole. Just look at the discussion it has engendered! A million signatures! No polite words could have achieved that.

That's a disappointing response. I'd have thought better of you. It was a violent action taken in anger. The law obviously agrees as he has been charged. He will get a slap with a wet bus ticket.

We are heading down a slipperly slope once we start with the "ends justify the means" discussion.

No slippery slope at all. If I egg you, that is protest. If you punch me in response, that is assault. Anyone who can't make that distinction has no business being in politics or maybe even in civilised society.

That said, you have every right to press charges against me if you don't like being egged. That is what the law is for.

And if the egg hits me in the eye and blinds me? Still not violent? Still not assault?

What a bizarre position. I think it's fairly evident the difference.

Egging is a slippery slope to murder? Really? Do you really believe that?

networkn

Networkn
32350 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2201737 19-Mar-2019 14:52

What a bizarre position. I think it's fairly evident the difference.

Egging is a slippery slope to murder? Really? Do you really believe that?

Not once have I suggested such a thing.

Handle9

11386 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2201749 19-Mar-2019 14:54

networkn:

What a bizarre position. I think it's fairly evident the difference.

Egging is a slippery slope to murder? Really? Do you really believe that?

Not once have I suggested such a thing.

You've made the slippery slope argument and you're progressing it to injuring an eye so what is egging a slippery slope to?

The argument strikes me as a bit silly.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79263 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2201763 19-Mar-2019 15:11

On a more personal side, this is a page for a specific family who lost their husband/father.

networkn

Networkn
32350 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2201764 19-Mar-2019 15:12

Handle9:

The argument strikes me as a bit silly.

It's actually pretty simple actually. Perhaps if you weren't making such a concious effort to nitpick you would see it.

In today's society, laying your hands on people is frowned upon. There are means to protest without doing so, and the benefit is, no-one can unintentionally get hurt. Peaceful protests are all the rage.

In no other context in modern society, could you throw or smack someone with an egg and it be considered ok, why should protesting be any different? The only difference is that the guy that got egged has expressed an exceptionally unacceptable view. Would it have been ok if there had been no egg?

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2201766 19-Mar-2019 15:12

networkn:

I agree with you entirely. The MP in question in my view isn't fit to be an MP and should really be investigated, and ejected. But violence as a retaliatory action esp given the climate we now face is totally unacceptable. It's even more unacceptable that it's being glorified here and other places online as if he "deserved it".

Just to clarify, because it seems to me you're totally oblivious to the realities here. Anning isn't an MP for a start, he's a Senator. MP's are members of the Lower House, he's a member of the Upper House/Senate. Second, he cannot simply be "ejected". A senator can only be removed in accordance with the Constitution of Australia, and no criteria for removal have been met. So he cannot be removed that way. The Governor General could in theory exercise the authority of the Queen of Australia to dismiss him, but that would cause another constitutional crisis so is vanishingly unlikely. The reality is, there is nothing that can be done short of a formal censure.

He's also not currently aligned with a party, so nothing can happen there. He quit One Nation as soon as he got in on their ticket, and joined Katter's Australia Party, who fired him for being too racist.

networkn

Networkn
32350 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2201767 19-Mar-2019 15:15

Kyanar:

networkn:

I agree with you entirely. The MP in question in my view isn't fit to be an MP and should really be investigated, and ejected. But violence as a retaliatory action esp given the climate we now face is totally unacceptable. It's even more unacceptable that it's being glorified here and other places online as if he "deserved it".

Just to clarify, because it seems to me you're totally oblivious to the realities here. Anning isn't an MP for a start, he's a Senator. MP's are members of the Lower House, he's a member of the Upper House/Senate. Second, he cannot simply be "ejected". A senator can only be removed in accordance with the Constitution of Australia, and no criteria for removal have been met. So he cannot be removed that way. The Governor General could in theory exercise the authority of the Queen of Australia to dismiss him, but that would cause another constitutional crisis so is vanishingly unlikely. The reality is, there is nothing that can be done short of a formal censure.

He's also not currently aligned with a party, so nothing can happen there. He quit One Nation as soon as he got in on their ticket, and joined Katter's Australia Party, who fired him for being too racist.

I said he *SHOULD* be. If the law doesn't allow for that currently, then perhaps it's time for a change. Whether he's an MP or a Senator, makes not one ioata of difference to the point, that he has no place in the Government.

I am not oblivious to the realities at all, I got one part of it wrong (In terms of calling him an MP vs Senator which is irrelevant to the point). I am well aware the law doesn't currently support removing him, I disagree with the law.

This doesn't excuse egging him in my view.

Sideface

9353 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2201771 19-Mar-2019 15:19

The New York Times - The Anatomy of White Terror

Anders Breivik, the Norwegian terrorist, was diagnosed with a narcissistic personality disorder. *********, who is accused of killing 50 worshipers in New Zealand, displays similar traits.

By Asne Seierstad

Ms. Seierstad is the author of “One of Us: The Story of Anders Breivik and the Massacre in Norway.”

March 18, 2019 (extracts)

Before he allegedly killed 50 Muslims praying at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, on Friday, *********, a 28-year-old Australian, reportedly posted a 74-page manifesto titled “The Great Replacement” online.

In his tract, Mr. Tarrant wrote that he had only one true inspiration: the Norwegian political terrorist, Anders Breivik, who killed 77 people in 2011. ...

[In their manifestos] the two men mix rage with self-pity.

They see themselves as victims and use terms like “invasion,” “mass immigration” and “white genocide” to describe what they regard as the destruction of Europe and the white race.

Both the Australian and the Norwegian barely mention their own homelands and focus on Europe and the United States.

Mr. Tarrant sees the white population of Australia and New Zealand as Europeans.

He writes how he decided on his “final push” after visiting France in 2017, where he saw how the European French had been “replaced” by “nonwhites.”

Thus the title of his manifesto: “The Great Replacement.” ...

Both men wrote about sacrificing themselves to a greater cause and envisioned that they would be released from prison by their followers after a “conservative revolution”swept through the world.

Mr. Breivik was diagnosed with a narcissistic personality disorder by court psychiatrists; Mr. Tarrant displays similar traits.

He wrote in his manifesto that he not only expects to be released but hopes to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

He should be free after 27 years, he wrote, like Nelson Mandela, after serving “for the same crime.”

While parts of Mr. Breivik’s manifesto can be read as a manual for an act of terror, it is a call to action.

Mr. Tarrant echoes that call, writing, “Whilst you wait for a signal, your people wait for you".

Both described themselves as fascists and used metaphors of war to justify the murders. ...

Sideface

Handle9

11386 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2201772 19-Mar-2019 15:20

networkn:
Handle9:

The argument strikes me as a bit silly.

It's actually pretty simple actually. Perhaps if you weren't making such a concious effort to nitpick you would see it.

In today's society, laying your hands on people is frowned upon. There are means to protest without doing so, and the benefit is, no-one can unintentionally get hurt. Peaceful protests are all the rage.

In no other context in modern society, could you throw or smack someone with an egg and it be considered ok, why should protesting be any different? The only difference is that the guy that got egged has expressed an exceptionally unacceptable view. Would it have been ok if there had been no egg?

Would yelling at some one be ok if it wasn't at a protest? Would blocking a street be ok if it wasn't at a protest? Would throwing a dildo at someone be ok if it wasn't a protest?

Of course this was a protest and it's pretty clear it was.

I'm not going to argue this one anymore as I think it's a pretty silly discussion.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79263 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2201773 19-Mar-2019 15:21

Just received:

A call from the companies providing internet access for the great majority of New Zealanders, to the companies with the greatest influence over social media content

You may be aware that on the afternoon of Friday 15 March, three of New Zealand’s largest broadband providers, Vodafone NZ, Spark and 2degrees, took the unprecedented step to jointly identify and suspend access to web sites that were hosting video footage taken by the gunman related to the horrific terrorism incident in Christchurch.

As key industry players, we believed this extraordinary step was the right thing to do in such extreme and tragic circumstances. Other New Zealand broadband providers have also taken steps to restrict availability of this content, although they may be taking a different approach technically.

We also accept it is impossible as internet service providers to prevent completely access to this material. But hopefully we have made it more difficult for this content to be viewed and shared - reducing the risk our customers may inadvertently be exposed to it and limiting the publicity the gunman was clearly seeking.

We acknowledge that in some circumstances access to legitimate content may have been prevented, and that this raises questions about censorship. For that we apologise to our customers. This is all the more reason why an urgent and broader discussion is required.

Internet service providers are the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, with blunt tools involving the blocking of sites after the fact. The greatest challenge is how to prevent this sort of material being uploaded and shared on social media platforms and forums.

We call on Facebook, Twitter and Google, whose platforms carry so much content, to be a part of an urgent discussion at an industry and New Zealand Government level on an enduring solution to this issue.

We appreciate this is a global issue, however the discussion must start somewhere. We must find the right balance between internet freedom and the need to protect New Zealanders, especially the young and vulnerable, from harmful content. Social media companies and hosting platforms that enable the sharing of user generated content with the public have a legal duty of care to protect their users and wider society by preventing the uploading and sharing of content such as this video.

Although we recognise the speed with which social network companies sought to remove Friday’s video once they were made aware of it, this was still a response to material that was rapidly spreading globally and should never have been made available online. We believe society has the right to expect companies such as yours to take more responsibility for the content on their platforms.

Content sharing platforms have a duty of care to proactively monitor for harmful content, act expeditiously to remove content which is flagged to them as illegal and ensure that such material – once identified – cannot be re-uploaded.

Technology can be a powerful force for good. The very same platforms that were used to share the video were also used to mobilise outpourings of support. But more needs to be done to prevent horrific content being uploaded. Already there are AI techniques that we believe can be used to identify content such as this video, in the same way that copyright infringements can be identified. These must be prioritised as a matter of urgency.

For the most serious types of content, such as terrorist content, more onerous requirements should apply, such as proposed in Europe, including take down within a specified period, proactive measures and fines for failure to do so. Consumers have the right to be protected whether using services funded by money or data.

Now is the time for this conversation to be had, and we call on all of you to join us at the table and be part of the solution.

Simon Mouter (Managing Director, Spark). Jason Paris (Chief Executive, Vodafone NZ), Stewart Sherriff (Chief Executive 2degrees)

networkn

Networkn
32350 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2201777 19-Mar-2019 15:26

Handle9:

Would yelling at some one be ok if it wasn't at a protest? Would blocking a street be ok if it wasn't at a protest? Would throwing a dildo at someone be ok if it wasn't a protest?

Of course this was a protest and it's pretty clear it was.

I'm not going to argue this one anymore as I think it's a pretty silly discussion.

Heh, and theres the crux of it for me. Maybe I just don't know how to protest, but in my book, protesting could be about yelling, but not yelling AT someone.

No, strangely enough, I don't consider throwing a dildo appropriate either. Even more potential to hurt someone. Protesting shouldn't be about hurting or humiliating, degrading or insulting another party regardless of how much you disagree.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18659 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2201789 19-Mar-2019 15:38

Sideface:

Without wishing to be flippant, isn't this also Donald Trump's diagnosis? Doesn't he also think he deserves a Nobel? Maybe it is not so surprising that homicidal lunatics look to him for inspiration.

Placing special value on anyone's race is so stupid it doesn't even warrant discussion. I wish there was a place where I could give my race back. I don't want it. I am ashamed of it.

And then he goes on to compare himself to Madiba? He is a madman, pure and simple. I recommend a nice lobotomy.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | ... | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | ... | 79