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.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26
5119 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2085


  Reply # 2073681 15-Aug-2018 08:32
Send private message quote this post

Fred99:

 

MikeAqua:

 

Atheists are also protected from discrimination atheism is a ethical belief.

 

 

What?

 

Atheism isn't "ethical" - atheists may choose to be ethical, just like a few god-fearing folk do.

 

 

It's legalise/a concise definition of convenience.  From s21 of the HRA (prohibited grounds of discrimination): -

 

"ethical belief, which means the lack of a religious belief, whether in respect of a particular religion or religions or all religions"

 

Point is: It's illegal for anyone discriminate against you because you are an atheist (with a couple of limited exceptions).

 

They can still tell you that they find you atheism immoral "your soul's gonna burn, in a lake of fire" but of course you won't believe that.

 

Stay away from old prophets, playing with madness and you should be fine.

 

Incidentally, I am also an atheist.

 

 





Mike

BDFL - Memuneh
61322 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12065

Administrator
Trusted
Geekzone
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2073706 15-Aug-2018 09:33
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

@msreef:

 

Censorship is already here - posts are being edited, the ban stick is next for our terrible dissent! :D

 

 

There has been no post editing by Geekzone moderators on this thread. You better stop spreading fake outrage.





58 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 17


  Reply # 2073707 15-Aug-2018 09:34
Send private message quote this post

freitasm:

 

@msreef:

 

Censorship is already here - posts are being edited, the ban stick is next for our terrible dissent! :D

 

 

There has been no post editing by Geekzone moderators on this thread. You better stop spreading fake outrage.

 

 

 

 

Mine was edited, but besides, it was a joke...


BDFL - Memuneh
61322 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12065

Administrator
Trusted
Geekzone
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2073718 15-Aug-2018 10:00
2 people support this post
Send private message quote this post

@msreef:

 

freitasm:

 

@msreef:

 

Censorship is already here - posts are being edited, the ban stick is next for our terrible dissent! :D

 

 

There has been no post editing by Geekzone moderators on this thread. You better stop spreading fake outrage.

 

 

Mine was edited, but besides, it was a joke...

 

 

*sigh*

 

None of your posts were edited. Go through the whole thread and look for the yellow markings that show if a post has been edited.

 

Your post here was quoted here. Fred99 added a "?" to his quote of your post and explained why. 

 

Fred99 is not a moderator. He did not edit your post. He modified his version of the quote.

 

As I said, stop spreading fake outrage.





58 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 17


  Reply # 2073724 15-Aug-2018 10:08
Send private message quote this post

freitasm:

 

@msreef:

 

freitasm:

 

@msreef:

 

Censorship is already here - posts are being edited, the ban stick is next for our terrible dissent! :D

 

 

There has been no post editing by Geekzone moderators on this thread. You better stop spreading fake outrage.

 

 

Mine was edited, but besides, it was a joke...

 

 

*sigh*

 

None of your posts were edited. Go through the whole thread and look for the yellow markings that show if a post has been edited.

 

Your post here was quoted here. Fred99 added a "?" to his quote of your post and explained why. 

 

Fred99 is not a moderator. He did not edit your post. He modified his version of the quote.

 

 

 

 

Oh I see, you're right, my bad.


4757 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1041

Moderator
Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2073727 15-Aug-2018 10:10
Send private message quote this post

I wonder how much of the outrage online and in the world these days could be avoided by both parties actually looking at the facts and the incorrect party saying "oh I see, you're right, my bad".  


5119 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2085


  Reply # 2073834 15-Aug-2018 11:43
3 people support this post
Send private message quote this post

gehenna:

 

I wonder how much of the outrage online and in the world these days could be avoided by both parties actually looking at the facts and the incorrect party saying "oh I see, you're right, my bad".  

 

 

If only.  Part of the issue is a general absence of facts (as I understand the word) in controversial topics.

 

To me a fact is preferably derived from something able to be measured/counted.  If not then a witnessed event could be considered factual, although people's collections and accounts are notoriously unreliable.

 

Unfortunately most of the stuff that gets people really riled up is subjective and/or arbitrary.  People love to tell others they are immoral/unethical/wrong.  It's human nature.  Twitter and Facebook allow facile, shallow communication that encourages and entrenches this behaviour.

 

 





Mike

7393 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3863


  Reply # 2074049 15-Aug-2018 16:54
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

It would be a little easier if fascists had the appearance that most people expect them to have, for example black shirts, symbols/banners, shouting fascist slogans overtly.

 

Not the two who are the subject of this thread.  They can appear on the surface to be quite reasonable and reasoned, yet espouse fascist views such as "scientific racism" as reason for a regimented hierarchical order in society, a new "reich" consisting of a white western "christian" alliance of nations, anti multicultural policies, anti feminist policies etc.

 

They're actually worse IMO than screeching white supremacist thugs, whose overt fascism is rejected by an overwhelming majority of people.  Unfortunately the creeping fascist ideas being pushed by this new breed of "crypto-fascists" or whatever you'd call them, gain traction.  "Have we gone a little bit too far with feminism?" may be a valid question, but  the "whole package" in their cult doesn't stop there.  Next we're "too PC", we "disadvantage whites" when we assist any disadvantaged race - and that's being taken advantage of by non-whites, muslims, communists etc so there's a coordinated global conspiracy of "white genocide" happening.  They are genuine fascists. They want you to believe that sh*t.

 

Their fascist views are immoral, evil, and dangerous.

 

They want to have a genuine debate?  Of course they don't.  They'll use any and every manipulative technique and seize every opportunity they can to draw attention to themselves - while simultaneously pushing an untruth that "we're" trying to suppress their "rights" to freedom of speech, whatever.


7393 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3863


  Reply # 2074057 15-Aug-2018 17:11
Send private message quote this post

MikeAqua:

 

Fred99:

 

MikeAqua:

 

Atheists are also protected from discrimination atheism is a ethical belief.

 

 

What?

 

Atheism isn't "ethical" - atheists may choose to be ethical, just like a few god-fearing folk do.

 

 

It's legalise/a concise definition of convenience.  From s21 of the HRA (prohibited grounds of discrimination): -

 

 

Crossed wires there, discrimination vs "hate speech".  Part my fault I admit.


2523 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 970

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2074080 15-Aug-2018 17:33
Send private message quote this post

Fred99:

 

It would be a little easier if fascists had the appearance that most people expect them to have, for example black shirts, symbols/banners, shouting fascist slogans overtly.

 

Not the two who are the subject of this thread.  They can appear on the surface to be quite reasonable and reasoned, yet espouse fascist views such as "scientific racism" as reason for a regimented hierarchical order in society, a new "reich" consisting of a white western "christian" alliance of nations, anti multicultural policies, anti feminist policies etc.

 

They're actually worse IMO than screeching white supremacist thugs, whose overt fascism is rejected by an overwhelming majority of people.  Unfortunately the creeping fascist ideas being pushed by this new breed of "crypto-fascists" or whatever you'd call them, gain traction.  "Have we gone a little bit too far with feminism?" may be a valid question, but  the "whole package" in their cult doesn't stop there.  Next we're "too PC", we "disadvantage whites" when we assist any disadvantaged race - and that's being taken advantage of by non-whites, muslims, communists etc so there's a coordinated global conspiracy of "white genocide" happening.  They are genuine fascists. They want you to believe that sh*t.

 

Their fascist views are immoral, evil, and dangerous.

 

They want to have a genuine debate?  Of course they don't.  They'll use any and every manipulative technique and seize every opportunity they can to draw attention to themselves - while simultaneously pushing an untruth that "we're" trying to suppress their "rights" to freedom of speech, whatever.

 

 

Be that as it may, they are far less dangerous, exposed by sunlight, than having a situation where someone else can prevent them or anyone else saying their piece (subject to the law of the land).

 

 


7393 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3863


  Reply # 2074084 15-Aug-2018 17:51
Send private message quote this post

kryptonjohn:

 

Be that as it may, they are far less dangerous, exposed by sunlight, than having a situation where someone else can prevent them or anyone else saying their piece (subject to the law of the land).

 

 

Well they're on youtube, facebook, you can buy books.  They're crying about "free speech" when all that happened is the pin was pulled on providing them with a platform.

 

Alex Jones is crying today - he's got himself banned by twitter for a week.  Should government force people or businesses to offer a platform for people they don't like?  

 

NZ anti-discrimination laws say you can't discriminate against someone because of political belief - so should someone who is adamantly opposed to fascism be forced to offer a venue to fascists? 


2523 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 970

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2074123 15-Aug-2018 18:09
2 people support this post
Send private message quote this post

Your question is so twisted its hard to answer. Lets simplify it to what you already said: it's illegal to discriminate against someone because they're fascists. Given that,  it is illegal to de-platform them on the basis of their beliefs. All quite straightforward.

 

 

 

 


7393 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3863


  Reply # 2074131 15-Aug-2018 18:22
Send private message quote this post

kryptonjohn:

 

Your question is so twisted its hard to answer. Lets simplify it to what you already said: it's illegal to discriminate against someone because they're fascists. Given that,  it is illegal to de-platform them on the basis of their beliefs. All quite straightforward.

 

 

My question isn't twisted.

 

It has you openly arguing - that if I owned a venue that I hired out, then I should be forced to hire it out to fascists - or face prosecution for discrimination if I rejected them because they were fascists.

 

Now that's crazy.

 

 


2523 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 970

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2074136 15-Aug-2018 18:27
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

It's not crazy. It's the law. You are twisting it by saying "forced to offer". You are not. You are not however, allowed to discriminate. There's the bigger issue to deal with here but I've explained it so many times I'm not going to again.

 

 

 

 

 

 


7393 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3863


  Reply # 2074140 15-Aug-2018 18:31
Send private message quote this post

kryptonjohn:

 

It's not crazy. It's the law. You are twisting it by saying "forced to offer". You are not. You are not however, allowed to discriminate. There's the bigger issue to deal with here but I've explained it so many times I'm not going to again.

 

 

Well you're technically wrong - you are "forced to offer" - without prohibited discrimination - if you offer at all.

 

If you've explained some "bigger issue" and failed to get your message across - try again.


1 | ... | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26
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.