Seventh along bottom row, from under the table.
which I'm reading as "disturbed enlightenment"
(also from under the table, given another drink or two)
Why would you buy guns back off legal owners, but not off the owners of illegal weapons? It makes no sense
Well, if those are illegal e.g. by having been stolen, why would you want to provide a way to profit from that crime, or be less inclined to prosecute such offenders?
All together now:
“When an eel swimming by
Bites a chunk from your thigh
That’s a moray…”
But what is included in the overall death or homicide figures? The Australian law wasn’t (and the NZ one isn’t) really intended to reduce the overall death rate significantly – there’s no way it can reduce the number of hunting accidents or suicides, for example. They’re specifically intended to reduce the massacre rate. So … are you seriously suggesting we wait until we have a large enough sample of massacres to permit a statistically valid before-and-after comparison?
Once someone is explicitly inciting specific acts of mass violence, how much time should be spent in text analysis or (far less reliably) psychological profiling? (Let alone unhelpful speculation about mental disorders.)
There is also a limit to predictive linguistic analysis imposed by the algorithms of social media platforms (the language of hate groups gets adapted until no longer automatically banned; the algorithm gets adapted to cope).
NZ’s death penalty for treason was abolished in 1989 (Abolition of the Death Penalty Act 1989). The Cook Islands abolished capital punishment only in 2007, but had never actually used it. There are currently only two nations in Oceania with capital punishment still on the books, namely Papua New Guinea (where the relevant crimes include murder through sorcery), and Tonga (where it was last used in 1982).
the form was mainly in Hindi but with the odd english word
Language use in India always deserves a footnote! The language spoken in the station office was most likely Hindustani, a colloquial dialect of Northern India used as a lingua franca throughout the Indian rail system, and also used in Bollywood film dialogue. Hindustani is related to the standard varieties of both Hindi and Urdu: the three names were historically used interchangeably, and “Hindustani” has (less often) been used as a cover term for the entire Hindi-to-Urdu dialect chain. Hence the forms written in Hindi. (Though it’s also true that Modi has promoted Hindi as the preferred standard over all other languages throughout the past decade, so it’s possible even the spoken variety has been shifting more towards Hindi.)
Aside from academic research, one other sort of exception where access would be beneficial would be for the purpose of informing security of potential targets.
Just as god sitting, as he apparently does, up there above us looking down wouldnt be offended
Exactly. My interpretation of Arafat's use of the story was: (i) women's hair is not intrinsically offensive (and the Prophet is explicit about that); therefore (ii) the law is instead about minimizing reactions of less perfectly holy men (something that obvs. isn't in play concerning the Prophet).
Making that explicit was never going to be an acceptable answer for the questioner, though — because why should the law act primarily to restrict the actions of potential victims?
Faced with something unimaginably horrific and outside our immediate control, it's a very human response to attempt to control something, ANYTHING, in our surroundings, regardless of its level of impact or relevance. Hence we reliably get arguments about names, tone policing, nitpicking over intended/received meanings of phrases. I'm not saying it's unproductive (symbols do have some relevance, how we conceive of a concerted future together is important) ... but sometimes you have to ask, is it actually worth expending so much effort on the symbol rather than the substance? Rather than, say, trusting that others are genuinely empathetic, genuinely trying to communicate in good faith, and being willing to overlook perceived missteps?