Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


18489 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5289

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

Topic # 227442 7-Jan-2018 13:44
2 people support this post
Send private message

I don't often agree with HDP, but in this article, I couldn't agree more with the general sentiment. In the past couple of years, it' seems that some will get wound up over the smallest things. It's almost like they are looking for an excuse. Maybe a need to be heard?

 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11969362

 

The lipstick on a pig thing was an excellent example. JA herself said she wasn't offended. If she wasn't offended, did we need a pitchfork-wielding crowd marching the streets? 

 

 


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
13330 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6270

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1931724 7-Jan-2018 13:52
Send private message

Are you saying that only one side has freedom of speech?




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


Glurp
8444 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3878

Subscriber

  Reply # 1931743 7-Jan-2018 14:32
2 people support this post
Send private message

I have to say I agree with this. There is far too much preciousness and offense taken these days. (Some) people need to chill out and develop thicker skins.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


Glurp
8444 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3878

Subscriber

  Reply # 1931745 7-Jan-2018 14:36
2 people support this post
Send private message

On re-reading, it may be unclear what I am agreeing with. I am agreeing with the OP, but I would add that freedom of speech also means freedom to be offensive - within certain bounds. The most easily offended should not be the arbiter for everyone else. As with most things, there is a common sense middle ground. 

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 




18489 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5289

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1931798 7-Jan-2018 17:59
2 people support this post
Send private message

MikeB4: Are you saying that only one side has freedom of speech?

 

Well, it depends. Do you think it's reasonable for someone to get outraged because of their inability to comprehend a simple phrase? 

 

If one gets upset because one thinks GM called JA a pig for example, rather than the lipstick, then surely the person who gets upset as a result, is in fact WRONG. 

 

 

 

 


3452 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1916

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1931890 7-Jan-2018 22:26
One person supports this post
Send private message

I think noone has the right not to be offended, that free speech is more important than almost anything else in society, and should have very few limits placed on it. I think the entire concept of defining, let alone outlawing "hate speech" is stupid, I think our libel/slander laws are overly broad and need paring back (Joe Bloggs shouldn't have to understand the fine points of differentiating between "In my opinion Jane Doe is a slut" vs "Jane Doe is a slut" when simply intending to insult someone) , and the HDCA needs to be removed from law, screw the geniuses that decided that telling someone to go kill themselves online is a jailable offence but saying the same words to them in person isn't. I don't believe the OFLC should exist, nor do I believe the government should censor anything other than child porn. 





Information wants to be free. The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.


TLD

694 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 153


  Reply # 1931900 8-Jan-2018 00:12
Send private message

Sort of like this lady who goes ape-poo when a man says hello to her.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdPblCjiQNo





Trevor Dennis
Rapaura (near Blenheim)

731 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 569


  Reply # 1931949 8-Jan-2018 09:17
2 people support this post
Send private message

networkn:

 

I don't often agree with HDP, but in this article...

 

 

 

 

I'm going to employ a technique that I've learned from many people here whose views differ from my own...

 

 

 

HDPA was herself full of faux moral outrage when she broke numerous laws to trick a firearms dealer into selling her a rifle that she was not licensed for.  Hence, nothing she has to say about this topic holds any weight whatsoever...  No matter how correct she may be.  ;-)

 

 

 

PS.  Happy New Year everyone :-)




18489 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5289

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1931952 8-Jan-2018 09:21
Send private message

Yeah, hence one of the reasons I don't like her! It was a stupid stunt and she was lucky to avoid prosecution.


7529 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3949


  Reply # 1932053 8-Jan-2018 11:02
2 people support this post
Send private message

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.

 

If she'd broken laws to expose a loophole which could be used by paedophiles to carry out their activities, I expect many of the same people condemning her for what she did would instead have been praising her for breaking the law.

 

Police say they're satisfied the firearm was not purchased for any sinister purpose and that's why the investigation's only resulted in the issuing of warnings.

 

Yes - there should have been a better way to draw the authorities attention to the loophole.

 

Given the reasonable outcome, I'm surprised by the "faux moral outrage" against HDPA's actions - which could have actually saved lives.

 

 




18489 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5289

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1932057 8-Jan-2018 11:07
One person supports this post
Send private message

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.

 

If she'd broken laws to expose a loophole which could be used by paedophiles to carry out their activities, I expect many of the same people condemning her for what she did would instead have been praising her for breaking the law.

 

Police say they're satisfied the firearm was not purchased for any sinister purpose and that's why the investigation's only resulted in the issuing of warnings.

 

Yes - there should have been a better way to draw the authorities attention to the loophole.

 

Given the reasonable outcome, I'm surprised by the "faux moral outrage" against HDPA's actions - which could have actually saved lives.

 

 

 

 

Really?! She could have just raised it with an MP and police commissioner and the current police minister and saved all the trouble, but she sensationalised it for profit and fame, just like Turei did during the election. They should both have been punished more severely. 

 

 


Glurp
8444 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3878

Subscriber

  Reply # 1932061 8-Jan-2018 11:15
2 people support this post
Send private message

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

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


7529 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3949


  Reply # 1932063 8-Jan-2018 11:17
2 people support this post
Send private message

networkn:

 

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.

 

If she'd broken laws to expose a loophole which could be used by paedophiles to carry out their activities, I expect many of the same people condemning her for what she did would instead have been praising her for breaking the law.

 

Police say they're satisfied the firearm was not purchased for any sinister purpose and that's why the investigation's only resulted in the issuing of warnings.

 

Yes - there should have been a better way to draw the authorities attention to the loophole.

 

Given the reasonable outcome, I'm surprised by the "faux moral outrage" against HDPA's actions - which could have actually saved lives.

 

 

 

 

Really?! She could have just raised it with an MP and police commissioner and the current police minister and saved all the trouble, but she sensationalised it for profit and fame, just like Turei did during the election. They should both have been punished more severely. 

 

 

 

 

I'd rather police resources were used to fight real crime where real harm is being done.

 

Not to prosecute victimless crime to placate all the snowflakes crying moral outrage and baying for vengeance.

 

 




18489 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5289

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1932065 8-Jan-2018 11:19
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

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

 

 

 

 

Ditto. 

 

Hanging isn't required, but a fine and or some home detention would have been suitable.




18489 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5289

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1932067 8-Jan-2018 11:20
Send private message

Fred99:

 

 

 

I'd rather police resources were used to fight real crime where real harm is being done.

 

Not to prosecute victimless crime to placate all the snowflakes crying moral outrage and baying for vengeance.

 

 

 

 

Good Grief, give me a break! 

 

How much time was spent on HDPA over her stunt that could have been used to solve "real crimes"? 

 

 

 

 


7529 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3949


  Reply # 1932107 8-Jan-2018 11:28
5 people support this post
Send private message

networkn:

 

Fred99:

 

 

 

I'd rather police resources were used to fight real crime where real harm is being done.

 

Not to prosecute victimless crime to placate all the snowflakes crying moral outrage and baying for vengeance.

 

 

Good Grief, give me a break! 

 

How much time was spent on HDPA over her stunt that could have been used to solve "real crimes"? 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 


 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.