Hi viz

[c4.]

So, I guess devonport wharf wasn't wearing its Hi Viz.
Those cops who detained me (only bikes, no cars) for 7 minutes on Sunday for a lecture (shake down, license check, wof, tyre rego, breath test) should have been down at devonport making sure the wharf was clearly not pissing off Ferries......... Aye?
Yes, I felt targeted/victimised.
Not good for police/biker relations
Rant over

[Mom]

Perhaps you are one of the mental wankers that fly through from Devonport down Lake Road, pissing off motorists? I don't have a great deal of sympathy for anyone pulled up down Lake Road. I sit here every day and watch some of the MOST inconsiderate, wanking riding I have ever witnessed. I used to think people joked about riding behaviour down here. Nope. Some of it is out of this world.

Good on the cops! Removing fuckwits, whether on 2 wheels or 4, from our roads get a big :2thumbsup from me.

If I was riding that road and got pulled up I would thank them for taking the time to make our roads safer. Doubt I would be pulled over twice.

I just wish they did more to remove the TC element from this community.

TC= Temporary Citizen

[JimO]

bet he didnt expect that

[caseye]

bet he didnt expect that

Ought to have, our Mom doesn't take kindly to people who ride stupid enough to attract attention!

[Headbanger]

I'm an inconsiderate wanker at the best of times, I need to be riding on that road, pissing off those people.

[Dogboy900]

They do the same thing here in Wellington. Randomly set up check points only pulling over bikes and scooters. ALL bikes and scooters, no matter how they are riding. Nothing to do with how you are behaving on the road, everything to do with discrimination against bikes.

[Murray]

And unpaid rego - bastards

[Swoop]

The road into and out of Devonport has always been a colossal cock up (I should know since I spent 8yrs commuting there). Since the locals refused to have an alternative around the edge of the water (western side) as it might "upset some mangroves" they are now stuck with a single bottleneck. Fuck them.

Riders filtering past traffic = good shit! Let the peasants sit in their BMW's & Audis.

[nosebleed]

Not seeing where the OP said he was detained anywhere near Devonport.

[Akzle]

anyone that stops for the jew cunts deserves what they VOLUNTARILY receive.

[skippa1]

Wow:shit::shit::shit::corn:

[oldrider]

They do the same thing here in Wellington. Randomly set up check points only pulling over bikes and scooters. ALL bikes and scooters, no matter how they are riding. Nothing to do with how you are behaving on the road, everything to do with discrimination against bikes.

OK - what are the stats? - whats the ?% of infringers they been been catching to justify their action? - does anybody know that? - has anybody asked the :Police: ?

[5150]

Out of interest. If you get stopped randomly for reg, wof license check, can you refuse to cooperate? What are your rights? Especially if it was a targeted stop, and not as a result of you doing something naughty? Anyone can shed some light?

[Akzle]

Out of interest. If you get stopped randomly for reg, wof license check, can you refuse to cooperate? What are your rights? Especially if it was a targeted stop, and not as a result of you doing something naughty? Anyone can shed some light?

you can refuse to cooperate when "legitimately" stopped.

your rights were given you by god. any man trying to impose his will over yours, not authorised by yourself, or god, has NO LAWFUL AUTHORITY.

true fucking story.

better believe you don't need a license either, and that in fact you never own one and that, in fact it's not you "on it" anyway.

[Banditbandit]

you can refuse to cooperate when "legitimately" stopped.

your rights were given you by god. any man trying to impose his will over yours, not authorised by yourself, or god, has NO LAWFUL AUTHORITY.

true fucking story.

better believe you don't need a license either, and that in fact you never own one and that, in fact it's not you "on it" anyway.



You're joking right ???

[Ulsterkiwi]

No I don't think he is.

I actually see the stand Akzle is trying to make with the approach he describes. What he does not mention is the average police officer will not take too kindly to said approach and one would have to be prepared to accept the consequences of taking that line.
We can argue the legitimacy of it all until the sun turns to cheese, the reality is, once committed to checking you out the average plod is not going to let it go just because you say "yeah, nah"

[oldrider]

GOD - Akzle? ......... What have I missed here? :confused:

[Akzle]

No I don't think he is.

I actually see the stand Akzle is trying to make with the approach he describes. What he does not mention is the average police officer will not take too kindly to said approach and one would have to be prepared to accept the consequences of taking that line.
We can argue the legitimacy of it all until the sun turns to cheese, the reality is, once committed to checking you out the average plod is not going to let it go just because you say "yeah, nah"

pretty much.

[Banditbandit]

pretty much.

Yeah .. but you're approach has no consistency ...

'Rights' depends on a legitimate authority to grant these ... they are a legal fiction and so rely on an executive authority to grant them .. (don't give me that God shit)

So you can't use 'rights' to challenge the legislative authority embodied in police officers by standing on "rights" ..

[Akzle]

Yeah .. but you're approach has no consistency ...

'Rights' depends on a legitimate authority to grant these ... they are a legal fiction and so rely on an executive authority to grant them .. (don't give me that God shit)

So you can't use 'rights' to challenge the legislative authority embodied in police officers by standing on "rights" ..

interesting misuse of language.

god is a pretty legitimate authority.
The Crown, is not.
god given (given, not granted) rights dont come with Ts and Cs.
The Crowns, (granted, not given) do.
The only authority any of them have is CONsent. The only authority policx enforcement officers have is legislated.
Company rules only apply to company employees...

[Banditbandit]

interesting misuse of language.

Yeah - it was a bit messy.


god is a pretty legitimate authority.
The Crown, is not.
god given (given, not granted) rights dont come with Ts and Cs.
The Crowns, (granted, not given) do.
The only authority any of them have is CONsent. The only authority policx enforcement officers have is legislated.
Company rules only apply to company employees...

No, I'm sorry God does not exist. So s/he cannot provide legitimate executive authority ...

Legitimation of any Government is through the will of the people ...

And 'rights' only exist as a legal fiction, recognized by the people-legitimated Government. The whole of human history shows that 'rights' have to be fought for. There is nothing self-evident about 'rights'. It's a socially constructed fiction.

Try telling a man drowning at sea 10 miles off the coast that he has a "right to life". The cause and effect universe will never recognize those 'rights'.

[mashman]

No, I'm sorry God does not exist. So s/he cannot provide legitimate executive authority ...

Legitimation of any Government is through the will of the people ...

"Archbishop. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?

Queen. All this I promise to do" (http://www.royal.gov.uk/ImagesandBroadcasts/Historic%20speeches%20and%20broadcasts/CoronationOath2June1953.aspx)

or perhaps

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/1in_god_we_trust.jpg

or perhaps


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4RzFiF3z78

One rule, pun intended, for them, no defense for us?

[Banditbandit]

"Some watery tart distributing swords is no mandate for executive authority" (Monty Python .. )

See, in France in 1789, there was a king, Appointed by the Pope and supposedly with the power of your "God".

However, the people rebelled and killed the king .. either with the blessing of the God who appointed the King OR while the God stood by and did nothing OR proof that God did not appoint that King OR evidence that God does not exist .. (and a few combinations to youtr taste)

The subsequent Government (after about 10 years) eventually ruled by the will of the people ..

The British Constitutional Monarchy comes from a line of Kings appointed by the Pope (and by inference the God) until 'enry - who defied the pope and broke the power of the church over the Government. Now the constitutional monarch is powerless but remains as a figurehead because of the will of the people (which us republicans would be quite happy to change ..) If we boot her out as Queen do you really think God is going to step in a stop us???

It can be arued that the change from FPP election system in Godzone to MMP was a withdrawal of legitimation for a Government out of control (the neo-liberal so-called Labour Government of the 1980s) and a relegitimation as a proportional representative Government. No God involved in that one either ..

People legitimate Governments . sometimes Governments claim God as their legitimation - but it's a false move based on a non-existent being, and a population control technique (do what I say or God will punish you ... )

[Ulsterkiwi]

the conflict between ideals and reality becomes very circular innit?

I really do have time for and understand what Mashman and Akzle are making a stand on. In the ideal world, power or authority should only be legitimised by our informed consent.
Where that falls down is when people wish to exist in a society. Here it gets awkward for Akzle because he wants to opt out of said society. Thats understandable, because society determines the rules which he must live by and refuses him the option to not recognise rules which he has not consented to. (correct me if I am wrong here)
The other problem is a rule which is aiming to protect individuals, such as, do not kill people or do not steal their shit or whatever. Some unscrupulous shit wants my stuff, he steals it and then says he cannot be held to account for that because he did not give his consent to be ruled by the laws now being enforced. Just an example but hopefully you get the idea. Its called "cherry picking" in the vernacular.
The ideal scenario I absolutely buy into but at best its a reductionist outlook on how life happens. Societal living will require compromise and accepting some things which you neither like or agree with.
Have had this out with Akzle before, can't see either winning as its unwinnable. The reality is the circumstances for the ideal to happen will never happen, purely and simply because they involve people and people are essentially non-perfect beings.

[Scuba_Steve]

But also why should anyone abide but crown rules when they themselves ignore them?

[Akzle]

The other problem is a rule which is aiming to protect individuals, such as, do not kill people or do not steal their shit or whatever. Some unscrupulous shit wants my stuff, he steals it and then says he cannot be held to account for that because he did not give his consent to be ruled by the laws now being enforced. Just an example but hopefully you get the idea. Its called "cherry picking" in the vernacular.
dealt with below
The ideal scenario I absolutely buy into but at best its a reductionist outlook on how life happens. Societal living will require compromise and accepting some things which you neither like or agree with.
Have had this out with Akzle before, can't see either winning as its unwinnable. The reality is the circumstances for the ideal to happen will never happen, purely and simply because they involve people and people are essentially non-perfect beings.
what a sad view of your fellow man. the reality is you've been indoctrinated into a "the matrix" like society - the world as you've been told it is, is a lie, to blind you from the truth.
every single one of us has the capacity to change this, today and all days forward. i somehow, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, belive that humans are sentient, intelligent beings capable of great things. there's just some jew fuckery holding them all back.

Yeah - it was a bit messy.



No, I'm sorry God does not exist. So s/he cannot provide legitimate executive authority ...

Legitimation of any Government is through the will of the people ...

And 'rights' only exist as a legal fiction, recognized by the people-legitimated Government. The whole of human history shows that 'rights' have to be fought for. There is nothing self-evident about 'rights'. It's a socially constructed fiction.

Try telling a man drowning at sea 10 miles off the coast that he has a "right to life". The cause and effect universe will never recognize those 'rights'.

>80% of the planets human population believe in some form of god.

are your balls that big that you can say the majority of people are wrong?
(mine are, but not about the god thing.)

dafuqs a nigga doing 10 miles to sea? the ocean gives no fucks. that's one of those "laws of god"
see the maxim "no man is above the law" is the simplest form - you go 10 miles into the fucken ocean and can't get home, you gonna die - it doesn't matter the size of your bank account, your social status, your employment, the color of you skin or your ancestry... that applies to every man, woman and child on the planet - it's a law.

whereas, under legislation, you're a black teenager and rob a dairy of 400$ worth of smokes - that's 4 years jail.
you're a white guy who defrauds millions of people out of more millions of dollars - you're bailed to your second yacht in the bahamas.

that's not law. it doesn't apply equally.

rights, as a legal fiction, exist with responsibilities, ie, the "right" to drive comes with the "responsibility" to not travel in excess of the posted limit. the "right" to free speech comes with the responsibility to accept history as written, and to not offend any cunt (unless they're muslim, in which case offending them is a-ok)

as someone who reserves the right to self determination, i accept - i have the right to do whatever the fuck i want, but i have the responsibility not to fuck up anyone elses day.

while there may be some less scrupulous, the "rights" and responsibilities imposed by society have no fucking effect on them. your shit's still getting robbed. despite the policy, and despite the gang of policy enforcers.

[Banditbandit]

d


>80% of the planets human population believe in some form of god.

are your balls that big that you can say the majority of people are wrong?
(mine are, but not about the god thing.)


Yes. The majority of people are wrong. Deluded by the system that needs a "higher authority" to appeal to o enforce their own wishes. There is no God.



dafuqs a nigga doing 10 miles to sea? the ocean gives no fucks. that's one of those "laws of god"
see the maxim "no man is above the law" is the simplest form - you go 10 miles into the fucken ocean and can't get home, you gonna die - it doesn't matter the size of your bank account, your social status, your employment, the color of you skin or your ancestry... that applies to every man, woman and child on the planet - it's a law.

whereas, under legislation, you're a black teenager and rob a dairy of 400$ worth of smokes - that's 4 years jail.
you're a white guy who defrauds millions of people out of more millions of dollars - you're bailed to your second yacht in the bahamas.

that's not law. it doesn't apply equally.

rights, as a legal fiction, exist with responsibilities, ie, the "right" to drive comes with the "responsibility" to not travel in excess of the posted limit. the "right" to free speech comes with the responsibility to accept history as written, and to not offend any cunt (unless they're muslim, in which case offending them is a-ok)

as someone who reserves the right to self determination, i accept - i have the right to do whatever the fuck i want, but i have the responsibility not to fuck up anyone elses day.

while there may be some less scrupulous, the "rights" and responsibilities imposed by society have no fucking effect on them. your shit's still getting robbed. despite the policy, and despite the gang of policy enforcers.

I do get most of what you are saying ...

I disagree that you have the 'right' to do whatever you feel like. You are free to do whatever you feel like (subtle but important difference) but you also must accept responsibility for, and the consequences of, your actions.

[mashman]

the conflict between ideals and reality becomes very circular innit?

I really do have time for and understand what Mashman and Akzle are making a stand on. In the ideal world, power or authority should only be legitimised by our informed consent.
Where that falls down is when people wish to exist in a society. Here it gets awkward for Akzle because he wants to opt out of said society. Thats understandable, because society determines the rules which he must live by and refuses him the option to not recognise rules which he has not consented to. (correct me if I am wrong here)
The other problem is a rule which is aiming to protect individuals, such as, do not kill people or do not steal their shit or whatever. Some unscrupulous shit wants my stuff, he steals it and then says he cannot be held to account for that because he did not give his consent to be ruled by the laws now being enforced. Just an example but hopefully you get the idea. Its called "cherry picking" in the vernacular.
The ideal scenario I absolutely buy into but at best its a reductionist outlook on how life happens. Societal living will require compromise and accepting some things which you neither like or agree with.
Have had this out with Akzle before, can't see either winning as its unwinnable. The reality is the circumstances for the ideal to happen will never happen, purely and simply because they involve people and people are essentially non-perfect beings.

The cycle is counted in millennia. History repeating etc...

I accept that I am morally obliged to be a responsible member towards all members of what is commonly referred to as society. If I commit a morally questionable act, then by all means try me for it. However, until the vast majority of the public have individually voted on laws that have absolutely nothing to do with morality, why should I recognise those laws? How can you claim that they are the laws of society, when everyone has not been asked whether they agree with it becoming a law? I'm keen to see that happen.

The ideal scenario is a single decision away and is much closer than you can possibly imagine (in the grand scale of things). Give people a chance to not be a cunt and they won't be.

[Akzle]

There is no God.
bold claim. not one that can be proved either way.

(the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence)



I disagree that you have the 'right' to do whatever you feel like. You are free to do whatever you feel like (subtle but important difference) but you also must accept responsibility for, and the consequences of, your actions.

again. that's lawyer-jewing words, which i'm all in favor of.

and i do accept responsibility. 100%.


just not by legislated measures.
is the "harm" i do travellling at 140km/h equivalent to $120 to "society"
(but actually, to the consolidated fund for a new fleet of 7 series BMWs and shit. while most niggaz have to get they ass on a fuckin bus if they can't afford a car.)
i submit that it is not!

[Ulsterkiwi]

what a sad view of your fellow man. the reality is you've been indoctrinated into a "the matrix" like society - the world as you've been told it is, is a lie, to blind you from the truth.
every single one of us has the capacity to change this, today and all days forward. i somehow, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, belive that humans are sentient, intelligent beings capable of great things. there's just some jew fuckery holding them all back.

Yes it is sad, I do think however that its a pragmatic view.
Like you I reckon humanity to be capable of great things. What you aspire to is honourable, I would say even possible. What I think is sad is that if achieved, it would only take one bad bugger to ruin it all. The Judeo-Christian story tells us that is exactly what happened. Humanity was created and existed without all the things you have identified as objectionable. In fact, things were perfect. Someone decided that wasn't enough, they wanted more and since then humanity has been caught in the cycle of screwed-upness. I don't care what your religion is, that seems to me a pretty plausible explanation for what has happened to us as a species. I see no reason why it should not happen again, as Mashy explains, the cycle has occurred over millennia.

[Ulsterkiwi]

is the "harm" i do travellling at 140km/h equivalent to $120 to "society"
(but actually, to the consolidated fund for a new fleet of 7 series BMWs and shit. while most niggaz have to get they ass on a fuckin bus if they can't afford a car.)
i submit that it is not!

ok, you do no harm travelling at that speed. However you say you will accept responsibility for any harm you may cause. Who therefore can say if harm will happen or not? If you accept responsibility ahead of anything happening, you accept the possibility harm can happen. You saying you do no harm is therefore unreliable and effectively meaningless.

I agree an arbitrary limit enforced by threat of monetary loss is not the smartest way to do things. When you explain it like that, it makes no sense. I am really keen to hear what you reckon should be the case? If I were to in the course of minding my own business seriously harm someone, kill them even, what should happen to me? Is there ANY way we can convince people not to engage in behaviours that affect others?

[Akzle]

Is there ANY way we can convince people not to engage in behaviours that affect others?

yes.
A box of hand grenades in my passenger seat.
And i have a theory about wrecking balls at intersections.

Living by 'what if' is equally meaningless.
How can you do harm, minding your own business.
Takes a bit to accidentally kill things...

[Scuba_Steve]

And i have a theory about wrecking balls at intersections.


I like where this is going, go on...
I presume you mean "hi vis" ones too, you know for safety & shit :laugh:

[R650R]

So, I guess devonport wharf wasn't wearing its Hi Viz.
Those cops who detained me (only bikes, no cars) for 7 minutes on Sunday for a lecture (shake down, license check, wof, tyre rego, breath test) should have been down at devonport making sure the wharf was clearly not pissing off Ferries......... Aye?
Yes, I felt targeted/victimised.
Not good for police/biker relations
Rant over

Jesus some truckers put up with that on a weekly/monthly basis or daily if your working for real rogues. The CVIU has that many checkpoints they actually put orange stickers on windscreens now so the next cops don't waste time checking someones rig that's already been recently checked.
Bikers have it easy.

[Banditbandit]

bold claim. not one that can be proved either way.



No, I'm sorry - but God does not exist. It is up to people who postulate the existence of such a being to show the evidence that that actually does exist.



(the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence)

mainly true - but you need to be clear that it also applies to anything that you can postulate exists - such as the Chocolate Blanc Mange that Ate New York ...

I can postulate its existence, but I can supply no evidence for its existence .. but with your statement, there is an absence of evidence for its existence ... but this is not evidence of its absence ... So the Chocolate Blanc Mange may, or may not, exist ..

(Just in case - The Chocolate Blanc Mange that Ate New York does not exist ...)



again. that's lawyer-jewing words, which i'm all in favor of.

If you can not see the difference in the concepts, and just write it of as lawyer-jew words then I can't be bothered ... because you are basing your political philosophy/actions on a fiction .. that's not my problem ... that's yours ... the inconsistency in your approach allows people with power/system to impact on your lifeworld, even if you can't recognise that ...