Hard News: Swine flu, terror and Susan Boyle
613 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 25 Newer→ Last
-
Oh come on. Actual working lawyers have responded to your point in this thread. You've simply ignored them.
I don't expect you to change your view on it, but I'd also be grateful if you weren't to sulk because other people disagree with you.
Did I ignore them? I thought I kept refining my point and answering their arguments. If it seems as if I'm ignoring them then that probably means the point truly, as said quite a while ago, can't be taken any further.
Your argument, Russell, seems to be "Yeah sure, but the colloquial usage is just fine". My point is that it isn't. It's lazy, inaccurate and incendiary. So there isn't much further to take it.
But you don't seem to be discussing the issues. You seem more determined to have a debate about the meaning of "is".
Have you ever watched Clinton's testimony? It's incredible. He forced them to define sexual relations and then argued that it never happened. They had a list of 12 things. And the definition of "is" mattered. It's awesome. He's a ninja.
Anyway, I really boiled my points down in the last point. I think there is a difference between "terrorism" as previously defined and "terrorist act" as now defined. I think it is siginficant that Parliament repealed the earlier defintion. That was really all I was saying.
-
Your argument, Russell, seems to be "Yeah sure, but the colloquial usage is just fine". My point is that it isn't. It's lazy, inaccurate and incendiary. So there isn't much further to take it.
Thank God.
-
Perhaps we could let this go now, because it really is pointless.
Ok.
-
yes, and its a distinction you'll have to make very clear,
Noted.
but you can't tell me there is absolutely no element of point scoring against the opposing side on the abortion issue when one of em acts like a evangelical mad man. Grant appears to be sensitive to that and I can understand that, if not his position on the overall issue.
Sure there'll be some degree of point-scoring, but I certainly haven't seen worse than what Grant himself has engaged in elsewhere on other issues. I understand Grant's desire not to be tarred with the same brush et cetera, but he saw a broad attack which as far as I can tell wasn't there, and I'm not sure why he's due an apology for that.
-
Best way to talk about it would be to call it a "killing"
Why?
Let's assume a suspect wasn't in custody and the police didn't know who they were looking for. They turned up at the church and there was a body there with multiple bullet holes in it, all obviously fired from some distance (i.e. he clearly didn't do it himself).
Just because we don't have a murderer immediately available to cuff and charge, does not mean that the act itself is not a murder and can be called such.
The cops aren't standing around going 'hmm whaddaya think, Bob?' 'ohh, I dunno Bill, better wait for the coroners report, but I'll put $10 on 'unlawful killing' 'ohh, really? I was thinking it was a haert attack'.
A murder has taken place. A murdurous act has been committed. Someone has committed murder.
I do realise that you're arguing in good faith, but this doesn't to me seem to be a particularly difficult point to grasp, and I don't really understand why you're on it like a dog on a bone. Why not let it go?
-
Is it my imagination, or it's not the first time somebody has spent pages insisting that a certain word not be used except as defined by the statutes? And it still makes no sense: the idea that I might not be allowed to say that a person who's gunned down in front of a room full of witnesses was murdered, or to argue that the murder was an act of terrorism, is ludicrous. It's not as if the world is a court of law.
-
Grant wasn't a newbie.
behaving as a newbie
you could consider that your work is done here and either go away or stay and discuss the topic.
gee thanks, that's sounds like a bundle of fun, but, no thanks, abortion isn't really a topic one can 'discuss'. Next you'll be inviting me to a "discussion" on religion.
classic troll behaviour,
the trolling comment is bandied about on here regularly, quite often it's merely against people that voice opinions opposed to the mass, at least that's what it looks like to me.
i don't really care one way or the other but you could easily deal with these situations differently, understand their point, acknowledged it and moved on, ignore them also works.
I've asked that you leave me out of this one, that was my point of stepping in,
You could easily say, "fair call, leave it out chumps", but you have to get in there and duck and dive, I'm sure its as much for the debating exercise as anything....haha, susan boyle though. you went on record as being moved by a manipulative idol style program. That's going to be hard to live down the next time you delve into music style-meister territory.
speaking of backlash I remember one to ladyhawk in these's here pages somewhere very close to hyping her, remarkably quick it was.
one more critique, yes I think we can fit it in.
Travelling lonely from one hotel room to another will take its toll on a person
cliche!!! I almost choked on the loving spoonfuls of syrup you coated that in. you've been watching too many made for tv movies mate.
You'll remember when I first met you was on tour with a band and that was the furthermost thing from lonely hotel rooms I've ever been. It was an absolute fun filled fiesta.
If Boyle's going to be raking in the dosh she can take an entourage and insist on long stop overs in beautiful locations. Hardly a life of pain, but her choice how it plays. -
Jake, that is seriously scary.
Of course they work on a basis of spectacle and disfunction that make the zombie TV sports shows from Shawn of the Dead seem legit. -
we're waaayyy too apathetic for that sort of carry-on.
I'd be offended by that if I could be bothered
-
Is it my imagination, or it's not the first time somebody has spent pages insisting that a certain word not be used except as defined by the statutes? And it still makes no sense: the idea that I might not be allowed to say that a person who's gunned down in front of a room full of witnesses was murdered, or to argue that the murder was an act of terrorism, is ludicrous. It's not as if the world is a court of law.
I would have made a similar point, but I have been busy in the Public Library re-titling the books in the Crime section: Unlawful Killing on the Orient Express; Murder, She Alleged; and so on.
-
haha, susan boyle though. you went on record as being moved by a manipulative idol style program. That's going to be hard to live down the next time you delve into music style-meister territory.
Really?
speaking of backlash I remember one to ladyhawk in these's here pages somewhere very close to hyping her, remarkably quick it was.
Huh? I loved 'Paris is Burning'; still do. But I was disappointed in her live show. The night itself was good fun (instant Ladyhawke lookalikes!) but her band was badly clunky. I think I ventured that Modular was going to have to work on it.
-
you went on record as being moved by a manipulative idol style program. That's going to be hard to live down the next time you delve into music style-meister territory.
Coolier-than-thou douchewaddery. Great, that's just what this thread needed after the influx of concern trolling.
I'm writing up a PAS-Thread Death Spiral Bingo Card.
-
I would have made a similar point, but I have been busy in the Public Library re-titling the books in the Crime section: Unlawful Killing on the Orient Express; Murder, She Alleged; and so on.
LOL.
-
I'd be offended by that if I could be bothered
Here, let me help.
I'll say again that I have no problem with people disagreeing - just with bad faith, crap arguing and refusal to pay attention to what others are saying. If you're that crap at a conversation then why should the rest of us have to put up with it? Plenty of other places that will welcome with open arms the traffic of ignorant blathering fucktards.
And why is it at all contentious that people are labelled as terrorists when they kill doctors who provide abortions - as part of an organised movement with documented shared beliefs and a long history of acting violently and murderously to deliberately intimidate people who they politically oppose.
Despite the stereotypes about swarthy turban wearers, that's what terrorism is. Full stop. There's been plenty of evidence provided about both the history and current resurgence of armed and organised redneck Americans. I don't give a flying fuck if the term is not defined in some NZ statute to the satisfaction of someone who would clearly rather avoid the implications. People you are trying to defend are nasty thugs. That does not reflect well on you. Deal with it elsewhere.
-
We shall also have to rewrite all of the Classics:
Ghost: Revenge his foul and most unnatural unlawful killing.
Hamlet: Culpable Homicide!
Ghost Unlawful killing most foul, as in the best it is;
But this most foul, strange and unnatural. -
more of a Gen X love-in than a forum for honest debate.
Enough of the caricatures! PA discussions are amongst the most honest I have encountered in my life, in terms of correcting you if you are wrong, and in thwarting attempts to use the discussion to personalise or intimidate.
There may be some sort of agreement or consensus about a number of things ie the world could be a better place than it currently is; we have a duty to counter mis-information and manipulation; technology and science is generally a good thing etc . If you don't believe in these things, there are plenty of other places on the Web.. -
I'm writing up a PAS-Thread Death Spiral Bingo Card.
Want.
-
I would have made a similar point, but I have been busy in the Public Library re-titling the books in the Crime section: Unlawful Killing on the Orient Express; Murder, She Alleged; and so on.
Excellent! There could be more: An Untimely Demise Wish; Passed Away and the Maiden; Dail M for a Criminal Proceedings
-
Also, from now when you see several crows flying together you've got to refer to it as "an unlawful killing of crows".
-
We shall also have to rewrite all of the Classics.
No, we won't. Polonius said "My God, I'm slain". Not murdered. Even a bumbling idiot like Polonius understood the difference. Neither a killer nor a slayer be.
Wait, does that mean I'm the idiot because Polonoius said it? Were his words sagacious or idiotic? Curse the Bard of Avon and his trickery!
That was quite funny, Paul, but you now have to change the Ice-T classic to "Cop Murderer" from "Cop Killer" as well.
-
sofie - got to say, I expect more of you,
Yep, heard that all my life so far. How foolish of me Robbery cos I should have known, you don't use a pseudonym.Once again I'll throw in a :)
-
"an unlawful killing of crows"
Classic.
-
or it's not the first time somebody has spent pages insisting that a certain word not be used except as defined by the statutes?
Unfortunately mark had a point, and his point was - discussion is unnecessarily blown in one direction by use of inaccurate words.
I don't think mark proved his point in that case, and he certainly took it to arsehole proportions without any intervention from mr god controller which unveils a disturbing level of bias.All you've got to do is say I see your technical point, its not murder until its proven in a court of law, yay, move on.
personally I found the stuff on terrorism and nz law really interesting. I can't even fathom the implications of the deletion of the term but thank Brickley for pointing it out. And he's right, terrorism is a matter of perspective, its an inflammatory term made popular by mission accomplished monkey boy, it doesn't help in viewing what happened in this instance. this was straight up ugly evil violence,
And it still makes no sense: the idea that I might not be allowed to say that a person who's gunned down in front of a room full of witnesses was murdered, or to argue that the murder was an act of terrorism, is ludicrous. It's not as if the world is a court of law.
I don't think Brickley cares about common use of it so much as journalistic use. He's arguing for non inflammatory language in journalism, Russell appears to be arguing (or defending) the opposite - a drop in journalistic standards?
personally I like my journalism as close to fact as possible, but maybe what russell does isn't journalism, its opinion piece, and if so it should be acknowledged as such.
If that's the case then there should be far less resistance to discussion cos we're all amateurs here. (apart from graeme's and the likes comments which enjoy the most and I find most interesting cos they're seriously grounded in fact of law).And by banning people are you criminalising your fans?
wrong thread? -
I'll get together a post about this at some point soon, I think, but the short version is that moderation isn't actually easy. It's a matter of feel, taste and tone, and it's more or less full-time.
My inclination is to always allow (and where necessary wade in and defend) unpopular opinions and those who air them.
For example: I'm always happy to have James Bremmer in the house, even if only to catch up on the latest Republican talking points, and I've asked people to desist from personal abuse and name-calling to him a few times. Although his arguments often seem outrageous to me, he conducts them well.
I won't stop people criticising each other's arguments, but I try and head off personal attacks (OTOH, I'm prepared to wear personal attacks on me more than on others. It's just a discussion thread. It doesn't really hurt.).
But I do need to pay heed to the overall health of the discussion, where the forum itself is being respected and whether other people are being wound up by an individual, whether things have descended to trolling.
Grant ran out of credit yesterday. With lil' p, it was his inane prose style, complaints from other users, and a final flush of trollish behaviour. I might let him back if he can promise to write properly. Or I might not. Hundreds of people use these forums, and thousands read them. I can't perennially sacrifice everyone else's interests to the feelings of a handful of individuals.
FWIW, I think I've banned fewer than 10 individuals in all the time PAS has been running, and that includes Palm Oil Guy and dad4justice (but only after his late-night drunken posts).
-
Although his arguments often seem outrageous to me, he conducts them well.
He tends to be bludgeoning, actually, but at least not ad hominem. More like ad bleeding heart liberalem, as a group thing. That can be easier to take. And he doesn't quibble endlessly and wilfully equivocate.
Rachel Maddow was talking earlier in the eyar to Jon Stewart of his pleasure in debating Pat Buchanan (which is essentially how she got her notoriety) and it was all based on the fact that they both debated honestly. After years of Usenet and now communities such as this I've become convinced it's really the only prerequisite.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.