Free speech.

[Katman]

I watched, with interest, the article on TV last night regarding the widespread effort to shut down opinions that go against the populist viewpoint - and I thought of Kiwibiker.

For as long as I can remember this place has been a perfect example of how society is gradually being transformed into an environment where asking questions and thinking outside the box is becoming frowned upon and openly ridiculed.

Should anyone dare to voice an opinion outside the norm they're instantly deemed to be a conspiracy theorist, a peddler of hate speech or any other form of social pariah that is the current flavour of the month.

There's a particularly vocal band on here, who with the complete complicity of the moderators, will work their little socks off to get topics they don't want discussed moved from the view of the wider public.

[caspernz]

There's likely a better forum for personal soapbox speeches and discussions following on from them.

I can see where you're coming from though. Not sure how the saying goes, something along the lines of I may hate what you have to say, but will defend your right to have your say. This goes well with my open minded upbringing in The Netherlands, yet even I find myself shrinking my tolerance for stuff outside the norm. Maybe another saying which suggests fools are afraid of things they can't comprehend applies there? :innocent:

[nzspokes]

Probably time for you to move on then.

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk

[Katman]

And before anyone trots out the age-old "this place isn't a democracy" - I'm well aware of that.

It does, however, happen to be a convenient way of shutting down discussion.

[Jeff Sichoe]

But this is a private forum and 'they' don't have to host any view 'they' don't agree with.

Nothing stopping you saying what you really think in real life, or on face book, or on your own forum...

I'm not saying I think this is a cool and good thing, but that's the way she goes.

[Katman]

But this is a private forum and 'they' don't have to host any view 'they' don't agree with.

Nothing stopping you saying what you really think in real life, or on face book, or on your own forum...

I'm not saying I think this is a cool and good thing, but that's the way she goes.

Yes, I've already addressed that point in the post above yours.

And I assume you mean 'privately owned' forum - as I imagine the vast majority of internet forums are.

If it was actually a 'private' forum you would need to be a member in order to view any of the content.

[Akzle]

fucken jews .

[Katman]

To give a bit of context to the thread.....

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/91132233/prominent-kiwis-pen-open-letter-saying-free-speech-is-under-threat-in-nz-universities

[oldrider]

Motorcyclists generally seek out new alternative roads/routes to explore and test their validity as best for bike options. :ride: (different? it's what we do!)

Compare that then to KB "normalcy brigade" - they run contrary to natural motorcyclist values/behaviours! :wacko:

Their constant lambasting of those who express thinking outside "their square" as conspiracy theorists clearly demonstrates their own conditioning! :bash:

[YellowDog]

fucken jews .

Never mid the Yids, it's those Japs, Chinks, Spiks, Niggas, & Pakis that get on my nerves. And don't get me started on those white cunts, they're the worst - lol

Yip, become a transexual and vote Green, then we can all be dumb tossers and stop people debating real issues. You know it makes sense :no:

I hear the River W(h)anganui will be standing for parliament at the next election. She has my vote :facepalm:

[Akzle]

Never mid the Yids, it's those Japs, Chinks, Spiks, Niggas, & Pakis that get on my nerves. And don't get me started on those white cunts, they're the worst - lol

Yip, become a transexual and vote Green, then we can all be dumb tossers and stop people debating real issues. You know it makes sense :no:

I hear the River W(h)anganui will be standing for parliament at the next election. She has my vote :facepalm:

you left out the irish:angry2:

vote akzle, fuckya.

[Woodman]

Is calling someone a "conspiracy theorist" not exercising free speech?

[Blackbird]

There's a particularly vocal band on here, who with the complete complicity of the moderators, will work their little socks off to get topics they don't want discussed moved from the view of the wider public.

I don't think that's the issue at all Steve. I'm totally for great, reasoned debate and totally agree with Caspernz. What gets my goat is the name-calling, threats and generally immature responses. That's not what constitutes a discussion and is why I can't be arsed on KB.

[Ocean1]

Should anyone dare to voice an opinion outside the norm they're instantly deemed to be a conspiracy theorist, a peddler of hate speech or any other form of social pariah that is the current flavour of the month.

Said the conspiracy theorist.

[pritch]

Should anyone dare to voice an opinion outside the norm they're instantly deemed to be a conspiracy theorist,

I haven't noticed. Having said that, I have used the phrase more than once. What follows seems to be a generally accepted list of characteristics common to conspiracy theorists. There are definitely people here who display these tendencies. If someone is called a conspiracy theorist it may be that in itself is a problem, or it may be that the person in question is exhibiting the behaviours of a conspiracy theorist?

http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html

[Katman]

And therein lies the problem.

You can't mention the words Geo-Engineering without being told you're a fucking moron who doesn't know what a contrail is.

You can't question the events of 9/11 without being told you're a fucking moron who thinks everyone's out to get you.

You can't criticise Israel without being accused of being a fucking Anti-Semite.

You can't question our Defense Force without being called a unpatriotic terrorist lover.

You can't question deep sea oil drilling without being accused of wanting to fuck dolphins.

The list is seemingly endless.

[Katman]

Oh, and I forgot......

You can't mention the chance that a significant number of motorcycle crashes might occur due to the pressure of keeping up with others without being accused of being ...(insert insult of your choice).

[Woodman]

And therein lies the problem.

You can't mention the words Geo-Engineering without being told you're a fucking moron who doesn't know what a contrail is.

You can't question the events of 9/11 without being told you're a fucking moron who thinks everyone's out to get you.

You can't criticise Israel without being accused of being a fucking Anti-Semite.

You can't question our Defense Force without being called a unpatriotic terrorist lover.

You can't question deep sea oil drilling without being accused of wanting to fuck dolphins.

The list is seemingly endless.

If its any consolation katman, I whole heartedly agree with the open letter thing, but if you do put forward an opinion then be prepared for someone to disagree with it.

[Katman]

If its any consolation katman, I whole heartedly agree with the open letter thing, but if you do put forward an opinion then be prepared for someone to disagree with it.

I have no problem with someone disagreeing with my opinion and I'm quite happy to strongly defend my opinion.

But if someone's rebuttal consists of little more than 'conspiracy theorist', 'anti-semite', 'sandle wearing tree hugger', 'white supremacist', 'narcissistic P dealer' etc. that's usually when things start to go downhill.

[pritch]

You can't question the events of 9/11 without being told you're a fucking moron who thinks everyone's out to get you.



That's a bad example. The claims of the conspiracy theorists were completely loopy with no possible justification in fact. Anyone believing any of that rubbish has a problem.



You can't question our Defense Force without being called a unpatriotic terrorist lover


Funny, but I have just partaken in a too long discussion of a Defence related matter here, and I don't recall anybody being referred to as an "unpatriotic terrorist lover".
I did however note symptoms 1, 2, and 3 of the aforementioned 10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists in full display. As well as the mandatory reference to sheep.

The first step in problem solving is to admit a problem exists. Second step is to correctly identify the problem. I think that's where we are going wrong at the moment.

[Katman]

Funny, but I have just partaken in a too long discussion of a Defence related matter here, and I don't recall anybody being referred to as an "unpatriotic terrorist lover".


If the search function worked in PD I'd go back and find it for you.

[Akzle]

That's a bad example. The claims of the conspiracy theorists were completely loopy with no possible justification in fact. Anyone believing any of that rubbish has a problem.


i know right? like, on what planet can 2 aircraft bring down 5 buildings?? fucking nutbars.


...(insert insult of your choice).

a c*ssina

[Woodman]

I have no problem with someone disagreeing with my opinion and I'm quite happy to strongly defend my opinion.

But if someone's rebuttal consists of little more than 'conspiracy theorist', 'anti-semite', 'sandle wearing tree hugger', 'white supremacist', 'narcissistic P dealer' etc. that's usually when things start to go downhill.

That's just a technique to derail the argument, the problem is you never seem to be able to rise above it, and quite often you start the name calling when their is actually a reasoned debate going on.

[Katman]

That's just a technique to derail the argument.

Why would someone choose to go with the option of trying to derail an argument instead of rationally discussing it?

Could it possibly be because they've run out of ideas - but still love the sound of their own voice?

[Katman]

That's a bad example. The claims of the conspiracy theorists were completely loopy with no possible justification in fact. Anyone believing any of that rubbish has a problem.

See, I find that interesting.

You seem unable to cope with the idea that there are people who are vastly more intelligent than you (and I'm not meaning me, by the way) who very strongly question the events of 9/11.

[Woodman]

Why would someone choose to go with the option of trying to derail an argument

To shut it down?
Discredit the opposition?
Entertainment?
It's just KB?
Nothing on telly?
Personal challenge to see how long it takes before the opposition start calling you a fucking moron, shit for brains, autistic..........

[Katman]

To shut it down?


Yes, that's what this thread is about.

[Woodman]

Yes, that's what this thread is about.

I thought this thread was about susan devoy and people who can't handle being offended wanting to make laws so arguments don't even start in the first place.

[pritch]

See, I find that interesting.
You seem unable to cope with the idea that there are people who are vastly more intelligent than you (and I'm not meaning me, by the way) who very strongly question the events of 9/11.

Nobody with all their marbles, and I've told you that before. Anybody who gives credence to that rubbish is by definition a conspiracy theorist. "Normal"* people just don't get sucked in by that stuff. Also I tried to show you that there were people who had actually anticipated a second attack on the WTC by Al Qaeda, specifically even an attack by aircraft, although they did not foresee the scale of the attack that brought it down. All you could see was Mills and Boon. But I tried.

Conspiracy theorists generally are people who are not happy with their circumstances and they get caught up in all the nonsense because they believe it gives their life meaning. That's why I referred to them as "sad bastards" previously. And no, that's not aimed at you specifically, it's just part of the pattern. It isn't a crime to be a conspiracy theorist and there normally aren't any victims. They don't need guys in white coats to come and take them away. It can sometimes get rather tedious though.



* Whatever that is.

[yokel]

Nobody with all their marbles, and I've told you that before. Anybody who gives credence to that rubbish is by definition a conspiracy theorist. "Normal"* people just don't get sucked in by that stuff. Also I tried to show you that there were people who had actually anticipated a second attack on the WTC by Al Qaeda, specifically even an attack by aircraft, although they did not foresee the scale of the attack that brought it down. All you could see was Mills and Boon. But I tried.

Conspiracy theorists generally are people who are not happy with their circumstances and they get caught up in all the nonsense because they believe it gives their life meaning. That's why I referred to them as "sad bastards" previously. And no, that's not aimed at you specifically, it's just part of the pattern. It isn't a crime to be a conspiracy theorist and there normally aren't any victims. They don't need guys in white coats to come and take them away. It can sometimes get rather tedious though.



* Whatever that is.

You do realise that not a single thing you have siad has adressed the facts , inconsistencies, lies and otherwise around the event that is 9/11.

Your rationale is flawed.

[pritch]

Your rationale is flawed.

Thank you. If you had agreed with me I would have been worried.

[Gremlin]

Free speech. Spouting crap.

Not the same and shouldn't be confused with each other.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Should anyone dare to voice an opinion outside the norm they're instantly deemed to be a conspiracy theorist, a peddler of hate speech or any other form of social pariah that is the current flavour of the month.

There's a particularly vocal band on here, who with the complete complicity of the moderators, will work their little socks off to get topics they don't want discussed moved from the view of the wider public.

The corollary of your free speech is my free speech. and my ability, some might say duty. to call bullshit, or debate or ridicule things. You can't have it both ways: You can't be free to say whatever the fuck you want, even if in my opinion it is retarded, and me not be free to voice my opinion.

So, your premise doesnt work.

Also, to address your final paragraph, at what point did you begin to mistake this for a democracy? It isn't, The internet isn't. Its actually a theocracy or maybe an oligarchy. So, the powers that be, i.e. the people who OWN IT and RUN IT, don't have to do other than whatever pleases them. and if it pleases them to PD stuff or delete it entirely, then that's the way it is. It is literally a case of if you dont like it and they wont change it, your remaining choice is to leave.

Sorry to have to break it to you like that.

[Katman]

All you could see was Mills and Boon.

I was being polite.

[Katman]

The corollary of your free speech is my free speech. and my ability, some might say duty. to call bullshit, or debate or ridicule things. You can't have it both ways: You can't be free to say whatever the fuck you want, even if in my opinion it is retarded, and me not be free to voice my opinion.

And I have no problem with that - as long as people are happy that ridicule can go both ways.



Also, to address your final paragraph, at what point did you begin to mistake this for a democracy?

I didn't.

You should probably try reading the thread.

[Mike.Gayner]

Oh look another one of these threads.

I enjoy my freeze peach for dessert.

[Ulsterkiwi]

Democracy at its most basic means that everyone gets to express their opinion but whatever option gets the majority of support gets to call the shots. One might argue that the majority of the members on here do not share your opinions Katman, in fact they tend to the opposite view and that is what holds sway. Democracy of sorts?

Limitations on academic freedom and curtailing of the freedom of speech are not new ideas. In fact as well as not being new, the debate never went away. Free speech always seems to be a problem to those who find themselves in disagreement or the wrong side of what is being expressed. For example, it would not be the first time the Vice Chancellor of a University takes steps to control what the academics at their University say in the public domain. Its all about power and control.

That aspiration to power and control does not exclude those trying to persuade others to the legitimacy of the theories (conspiracy or otherwise) they are espousing. I do not actually know you as a person but the vast majority of the posts I have read which come from your account could justifiably make me think you are an intolerant individual who struggles with those who disagree with or denigrate your position. I have no doubt you will correct me if I am wrong, as is your right. I appreciate the language is directed at a special few but name calling and keyboard abuse is not actually a way to persuade others of the validity of your argument. I couldn't give a fig that you use colourful language, its the sentiment behind the words which counts.

I agree with you, it is right and proper that we do not accept things at face value. Government should not be trusted absolutely. There are individuals who do NOT seek the public interest yet are in positions of power. The Israelis are not blameless. The NZDF is not without flaws.
That all said we should not accept without question anything that brings these or other institutions or individuals into question. Rightly or wrongly conspiracy theorists do seem to accept without question anything which challenges the establishment. That does not help their position and adds to the cry-wolf tendencies associated with those theories.

Something I try to remember (and often fail to implement) is a great piece of advice attributed to William Howard Taft: "Do not write so that you can be understood, write so that you cannot be misunderstood" Maybe if we all tried to do that when making our point, then others will not have to be called cunts, fuckwits, retards, morons and silly people.

[Mike.Gayner]

LOL, this guy.

[Katman]

Democracy at its most basic means that everyone gets to express their opinion but whatever option gets the majority of support gets to call the shots. One might argue that the majority of the members on here do not share your opinions Katman, in fact they tend to the opposite view and that is what holds sway. Democracy of sorts?

So if the majority get to shout down the minority, who are the intolerant ones?

[Ulsterkiwi]

So if the majority get to shout down the minority, who are the intolerant ones?

Well my point there was about what defines an environment as democratic. If everyone gets to state their view and then decide on what option to take I am not sure what that has to do with tolerance necessarily. Intolerance I would have thought, is more about refusing to accept that there is more than one position or indeed reality. That is an issue if we are to have free speech (that was your original thought was it not?). An environment which is intolerant is not the same as one where majority decisions take place. How do any of those enjoying suffrage get to make their choice? If they cannot hear all view points (as might happen in an intolerant environment) then democracy is being compromised.
If the majority decision is in favour of something you want changed then it is your responsibility to persuade the majority of the validity of your position and get the majority to decide otherwise.
A style of argument which runs along the lines of "you fucking sheeple are all morons, can't you understand what I am trying to explain to you? fuckwits!" is not the most effective way to achieve that change of position.

[Katman]

Well my point there was about what defines an environment as democratic. If everyone gets to state their view and then decide on what option to take I am not sure what that has to do with tolerance necessarily. Intolerance I would have thought, is more about refusing to accept that there is more than one position or indeed reality. That is an issue if we are to have free speech (that was your original thought was it not?).

And I've made no mention of the idea of democracy - other than to say I'm well aware that KB isn't run as one.

My point is that we're seeing more and more instances of the majority thinking it is ok to shut down the free speech of the minority.

I think that's fundamentally wrong.

[Ulsterkiwi]

And I've made no mention of the idea of democracy - other than to say I'm well aware that KB isn't run as one.

Which sort of qualifies as mention of democracy...
In any event, you chose to pick up on my mention of the idea of democracy, so why not include it in the discussion? After all, free speech is often considered a hallmark of democracy. Others specifically address the idea of KB being/not being a democracy, I was contributing to the discussion with another angle. (A discussion by the way, I would consider worthwhile)


My point is that we're seeing more and more instances of the majority thinking it is ok to shut down the free speech of the minority.

I think that's fundamentally wrong.


And I think fundamentally that you are correct.

There is a double edge however to allowing freedom of speech. I will hazard a guess that you might just agree with me. Here is one scenario:
For many years, homosexual relationships were illegal. Marriage or union between same sex couples was illegal, or at best not possible.
Those laws were in place because of the morality of the time. Campaigning, debate and a shift in public opinion led to that being changed. The majority were persuaded that the previous position was untenable, not one for progressive right thinking societies. The argument for change won over.
Now, does that mean those who are in opposition to that change should be quiet? Does it mean they should not be allowed to hold their position? Does it mean their value set has no place in society and should not be heard? Should they be barred from protest against liberalisation of the laws around same sex relationships and marriage? I would say absolutely not in every case. They have the right to free speech, the right to express their view and the right to try and persuade others of that view.
I do not believe we can ever say, right, the law is now correct, she should not allow for any deviation or change from that, we KNOW we have things the way it should be.
If that were the case then slavery, rape within marriage, limited suffrage, discrimination due to gender, race and sexuality as a few examples would all still be very much part of our society from a legal standing.
If the change which free speech brought about is correct, then it should stand the test of counter argument by itself, without the help of others determining what can and cannot be thought or said.

Another way to look at it. Jim Jeffries discusses gun control in the US. He talks about the assertion of 2nd amendment rights. That the statement is often made: "you cannot change my 2nd amendment rights" or "you cannot change the constitution and what it gives me". He (very cleverly) points out the element of the constitution which asserts those rights is THE SECOND AMENDMENT. It only happened because of change to the original. At some point it was determined that things needed updating or changing. So why not again?

Its with respect to this point that I think the issue lies. Noone has the right to determine their way of thinking is the right one, no matter how populist or politically correct that thinking may be. In a democracy (sorry, that word again) we exercise freedom of speech and get to make our own minds up, rightly or wrongly, for better or for worse. I happen to believe we can expect to NOT be called a fucktard in the process.

[Swoop]

What gets my goat is the name-calling, threats and generally immature responses. That's not what constitutes a discussion and is why I can't be arsed on KB.
I presume you are referring to steve's automatic "Pavlovian" response to criticism against some of his attention-seeking threads? Have you received any of his vitriolic red-rep that confirms his psychological dispositions?


Free speech. Spouting crap. Not the same and shouldn't be confused with each other.
Spot on!


My point is that we're seeing more and more instances of the majority thinking it is ok to shut down the free speech of the minority.
Perhaps you might see it as people not tolerating or enabling your simple, attention seeking disorder? I doubt it though. You refuse to accept any position apart from your own and diverging to another positional viewpoint is as likely as a religious fanatic swapping sides. So "free speech" is a straw man argument you put up to defend your own issues.

You could elect to leave the site, if people "annoy" you so much.
Or simply commence your threads in Pointless Drivel and permit them to be repositioned into R&R if/when a discussion becomes sensible? Food for thought?

[HenryDorsetCase]

You should probably try reading the thread.

As if! why would I start that now?!??!

[HenryDorsetCase]

it is right and proper that we do not accept things at face value. Government should not be trusted absolutely. There are individuals who do NOT seek the public interest yet are in positions of power. The Israelis are not blameless. The NZDF is not without flaws.


Hippie! Commie! hippie-commie!!

[Katman]

I happen to believe we can expect to NOT be called a fucktard in the process.

I trust you're aware that the insults are thrown both ways.

A case in point.....

I've lost count of the number of times bogan has called oldrider a 'bigoted old cunt'.

Now oldrider actually comes across as one of the more respectful posters on the site.

Bogan on the other hand is one of the masters of turning a thread into an insult hurling contest until it ends up in PD.

Is that acceptable?

[Ulsterkiwi]

Hippie! Commie! hippie-commie!!

maybe :msn-wink:

[HenryDorsetCase]

Its with respect to this point that I think the issue lies. Noone has the right to determine their way of thinking is the right one, no matter how populist or politically correct that thinking may be. In a democracy (sorry, that word again) we exercise freedom of speech and get to make our own minds up, rightly or wrongly, for better or for worse. I happen to believe we can expect to NOT be called a fucktard in the process.

OK, what about fuckwit anti-vaxxers?

Anyone who does not vaccinate is a fuckwit. They can have their "freedom of speech" but the state should step in and take their children away becuse they are clearly unfit to be parents. They can have their freedom of speech to bleat about it.

[Ulsterkiwi]

I trust you're aware that the insults are thrown both ways.

I am very aware and its useless and self defeating no matter the source.

[Woodman]

So if the majority get to shout down the minority, who are the intolerant ones?

Either/or. Why can't a minority be intolerant?

[yokel]

OK, what about fuckwit anti-vaxxers?

Anyone who does not vaccinate is a fuckwit. They can have their "freedom of speech" but the state should step in and take their children away becuse they are clearly unfit to be parents. They can have their freedom of speech to bleat about it.

Fuck off cunt, the state is not touching my child.
Who the fuck do you think you are?

[Ulsterkiwi]

OK, what about fuckwit anti-vaxxers?

Anyone who does not vaccinate is a fuckwit. They can have their "freedom of speech" but the state should step in and take their children away becuse they are clearly unfit to be parents. They can have their freedom of speech to bleat about it.

A parent refusing to vaccinate is flying in the face of the overwhelming evidence, absolutely.

I think the state would be more justified in stepping in on more pressing matters than vaccinating or not. Taking a misinformed viewpoint does not an unfit parent make. I would prefer to see a process where the parents have an opportunity to provide evidence as to the risk/harm involved with their child being vaccinated. This is a tough one because in many cases the potential is to impact significantly on public health. I would rather educate and persuade than enforce.

[Katman]

OK, what about fuckwit anti-vaxxers?

Yeah, I forgot about that one.

Just let anyone dare question the safety of some vaccines and watch the vitriol fly.

[Blackbird]

I presume you are referring to steve's automatic "Pavlovian" response to criticism against some of his attention-seeking threads? Have you received any of his vitriolic red-rep that confirms his psychological dispositions?


In fairness to Steve, no I haven't! I have seen plenty of his invective heaped on other's heads though. Much as I'm sorely tempted to occasionally let fly at the usual band of suspects, it's ineffective and generally unsatisfying as Ulsterkiwi has pointed out. For me, it's ultimately more satisfying to respond with a bit of courtesy or just stick someone on ignore. KB is just fine for discussing bikes but for a decent debate, there are better places. Having said all that, Cassina has come the closest to testing my self-control. Over it now though :whistle:

[Katman]

In fairness to Steve, no I haven't! I have seen plenty of his invective heaped on other's heads though.

Only a select few though.

They're the ones who tend to follow me around.

It's almost like they want it.

[R650R]

OK, what about fuckwit anti-vaxxers?

Anyone who does not vaccinate is a fuckwit.

Your ancestors are fuckwits then. Vaccinnes are a fairly recent invention on the human timeline of evolution/creation (take your pic).....
Your ancestors managed to reproduce without getting cervical cancer from HPV, die of malaria/polia/tetnus.bird flu/pig flu/tyransaurus rex flu/SARS/Reubella/Measles/Chickenpox..........
One might think there natural immune systems were quite effective having not been tainted by sometimes badly made and destructive modern vaccinnes......

If vaccinnes worked like they supposed to why the hell is the hysteria from parents of vaccinated kids saying their kids will be infected by the unvaccinated kids....
BTW some vaccinnes administered properaly (eg orally where the immunse system starts inbstead of injected) lime polio are effective non destructive tools and I support them....

[R650R]

Back to topic, the real problem is with the internet people have unrestricted access to information and data that was previously censored or withheld via strong controls on media outlets.
This threatens the stability of modern govts so they in conjunction with the media have created emotional terms like conspiracy theorist and deniers etc.....
Throw in a bit of political correctness and you cant say anything without pissign someone off....

I wonder if the hater style posters in here that denounce anything non mainstream are the same when sitting in a bar or pub and overhear somemthing they don't like. that's the problems with forums, you have to hear everything and some people feel the need to respond to everything thinking they are right, meanwhile hundreds of lurkers in the background read and nod quietly in agreement on both sides.....

[husaberg]

Free speech. Spouting crap.

Not the same and shouldn't be confused with each other.

I think that’s a bit unfair.
Yokel and Katman are free to speak their collective mind, it’s just a pity they are echo chambers full of empty arguments.

[Woodman]

Yeah, I forgot about that one.

Just let anyone dare question the safety of some vaccines and watch the vitriol fly.

yeah, that's free speech in action. Good stuff.

[yokel]

So universities are being over run by leftyies.
That explains the source of that weak minded dribble they come up with.


https://youtu.be/kaQ-ZF9S3uk

[bogan]

Is calling someone a "conspiracy theorist" not exercising free speech?

That's the heart of it right there. Some people seem to think free speech is a one way street in which their idiocy, hatred, and bigotry should be promoted without challenge. The notion that free speech can be shut down by free speech is fucking absurd...



... just like all the conspiracy theory notions we shoot down :laugh:

[yokel]

That's the heart of it right there. Some people seem to think free speech is a one way street in which their idiocy, hatred, and bigotry should be promoted without challenge. The notion that free speech can be shut down by free speech is fucking absurd...



... just like all the conspiracy theory notions we shoot down :laugh:

You in your dogmatic little mind think you're shooting down the evil conspiracy theorists.

That's some funny shit right there.

If you had any brains you'd realise you're shooting blanks.

[bogan]

You can't question deep sea oil drilling without being accused of wanting to fuck dolphins.

What if I just want to fuck dolphins but have no objection to deep sea drilling? shits not always black and white, KM.


You in your dogmatic little mind think you're shooting down the evil conspiracy theorists.

That's some funny shit right there.

If you had any brains you'd realise you're shooting blanks.

Evil?

Perhaps if we were shooting blanks, this thread would be blank also (have no reason to exist) :laugh: as would the myriad of other KM whinge threads that have popped up recently, where did they go again :innocent:

[Drew]

http://deadstate.org/study-people-who-believe-in-mass-scale-conspiracy-theories-simply-suck-at-math/

You're a fucking idiot. But that's your right also.

[yokel]

What if I just want to fuck dolphins but have no objection to deep sea drilling? shits not always black and white, KM.



Evil?

Perhaps if we were shooting blanks, this thread would be blank also (have no reason to exist) :laugh: as would the myriad of other KM whinge threads that have popped up recently, where did they go again :innocent:

The word "conspiracy" has come up 18 times in this thread.

It's not Katma's fault threads end up in pink land.

[Katman]

http://deadstate.org/study-people-who-believe-in-mass-scale-conspiracy-theories-simply-suck-at-math/

You're a fucking idiot. But that's your right also.

My 94 for U.E. maths must have been a fluke then.

[bogan]

My 94 for U.E. maths must have been a fluke then.

U.E. maths? U. to the fucking E. maths??? jesus titty fucking christ katman, you may as well post a fucking fingerpainting as credentials if that is all you have :facepalm:

[husaberg]

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

[yokel]

My 94 for U.E. maths must have been a fluke then.

That link supports his belief, that's all that really matters.

[husaberg]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C_5q2IOlL8

[mossy1200]

I used to speak freely on here but now I do not. Its not because I cant. Its more because I woke up one day and realised most of what I was saying was crap.

[Akzle]

What if I just want to fuck dolphins but have no objection to deep sea drilling? shits not always black and white, KM.

:whistle: (http://www.sexwork.com/family/dolphins1.html)
. .

[husaberg]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SN5pfxsspnI

[Katman]

And in case anyone hasn't noticed, here's a prime example of one of them at work.

[bogan]

And in case anyone hasn't noticed, here's a prime example of one of them at work.

So report the posts and do not engage with him; it's not fucking rocket science, I would have said it was a level below U.E. tbh, but I guess not...

[Katman]

So report the posts

I leave that sort of crying to you.

[husaberg]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XjTpm9coJA

[bogan]

I leave that sort of crying to you.

Right, you just do the 'look at me' crying as per this thread and the last few that ended up in PD as well, instead of actually dealing with your issues. Good luck with that.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Fuck off cunt, the state is not touching my child.
Who the fuck do you think you are?

In which case you clearly are an unfit parent. Please hand your children into the nearest CYF office to be vaccinated. They will then be taken to an appropriate facility where they will be properly educated, washed and will eventually become productive members of society. There is no hope for you so you should just kill yourself.

[HenryDorsetCase]

So if the majority get to shout down the minority, who are the intolerant ones?

minorities can be and are far less tolerant (whatever that means in this context). Let me give you an example: hijabs and burkas.

[Katman]

There is no hope for you so you should just kill yourself.

For a lawyer you sometimes surprise me.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Just let anyone dare question the safety of some vaccines and watch the vitriol fly.

sensible people don't need to question the safety of vaccines because they have been proven (from a public health perspective) to be safe. Rubella, Polio, Smallpox. Measles.

[Katman]

sensible people don't need to question the safety of vaccines

Tell that to the people who have suffered debilitating side effects.

[husaberg]

What if I just want to fuck dolphins but have no objection to deep sea drilling? shits not always black and white, KM.
:

I'd suggest maybe you stick to Orcas;)

[HenryDorsetCase]

So universities are being over run by leftyies.
That explains the source of that weak minded dribble they come up with.

have you been to university motherfucker?

apart from, like, delivering the mail or a pizza or some shit.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Tell that to the people who have suffered debilitating side effects.

what part of "from a public health perspective" is unclear?

[HenryDorsetCase]

For a lawyer you sometimes surprise me.

I am quite drunk and enjoying myself immensely. Pray, continue.

[husaberg]

I am quite drunk and enjoying myself immensely. Pray, continue.
Strap yourself in because it looks like Cabin boy Steve’s going to take you on a voyage on the SS Paranoia.


have you been to university motherfucker?

apart from, like, delivering the mail or a pizza or some shit.

He went to Trump university.

[nzspokes]

In which case you clearly are an unfit parent. Please hand your children into the nearest CYF office to be vaccinated.

Point of order, didnt they change CYFs name last week to Do beat your kids to death or some such thing?

[TheDemonLord]

So, as one of the so-called Nomalcy group - I think it is time for me to weigh in (like the Fat Cunt I am).

To start with a premise - Free Speech to me is as close to an unquestionable value that it is possible for me to hold, In so-far that I believe it to be pretty much a self-evident truth.

That said - to hold that position means I MUST accept critique of Free Speech as part of that Value. It is my position however that the historical, social and logical evidence in support of the necessity for Free Speech is strong enough to withstand any Critique on it.

Katman et al:

I have never once asked the Moderators to censure or move any of your Threads. Whilst I vehemently disagree with many of the things you believe to be true (and on the basis of those beliefs, judge you to be a raving loony) it is your right to express them.

In fact, I welcome that you express them - and as long as you continue to do so, I will be there to provide Rebuttal, critique and Ridicule.

Part of the reason I spend so much time doing this is for 2 main reasons:

1: So that any unbiased person who happens upon those threads can read both the argument and counter-argument to any of the views expressed, then make up their own damn mind.
2: To challenge myself - it would be very easy for me to ignore you and create an Echo Chamber, yet I continually wade into threads where I hold a contrary opinion, precisely to challenge myself and my ideas.

I don't call you a Conspiracy Theorist to shut down any conversation, only to describe you exactly as you are. All too often you will accept any form of 'evidence' if it conforms to your world view, whilst requesting impossibly high standards of Evidence for anything that contradicts your world view. This is actually a common trait amongst conspiracy theorists - across a few threads I've posted several studies where they show this and also show that people who believe in existing Conspiracies are much more likely to adopt a conspiratorial position on any given issue. And those studies describe your actions to a T.

You may not like it, but the reality is, you are predictable:

If there was an issue that came out tomorrow where an allegation was made against a group or institution that you perceived to have Power and Influence, I would bet that you would pick the side that was against that group or institution regardless of the quality of the evidence 90+% of the time.

and before you retort, in the same Manner - I am somewhat predictable - I see a thread where you are spouting your usual Cui Bono, Corrupt establishment, can't trust TPTB etc. Rhetoric - I'm going to post to call you out on your usual BS.

The issue is that you confuse a laudable and reasonable position with your own.

Probably the best example of this is look at the times when you have had to claim that Evidence was manufactured in order to support your theories, then using the theory as justification to believe that the Evidence was manufactured.

The reasonable person asks questions, assess all viewpoints (and this may come as a surprise, but that DOES include yours), reviews the evidence and back-checks it where required then makes a decision. Time and Time again, you show that you see a hint of something that gives you reason to justify your dislike of someone or a group higher up the food chain make your decision and then go looking for evidence to confirm your biases.

What you perceive as people attempting to limit your Free Speech, is just people expressing theirs.

For the record - I don't agree with the Mods decisions around PD (although I do like to have a laugh about it when it happens) - but I see their reasoning and accept it.

Back to Free Speech and the curtailing of it however

The closest I probably come is on the subject of Vaccinations - one of the few limits on Free Speech is when it causes harm - the classic example being yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre. In this instance the Misinformation spread by certain people has caused needless Death and suffering.

And without getting back into that debate (we have a whole thread for that if you are so inclined to get your ass handed to you... again...) that is where I draw some form of line, but I try and draw it as thinly and as narrowly as possible.

To end this - I'm going to post Dr Jordan B Peterson - a Canadian Professor who regardless which side of any fence you sit on - I highly encourage you to listen to - he has several things to say on Free Speech (and other issues) and IMO drops some major Truth Bombs whilst doing so.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFcn775CqAg

[Drew]

Tell that to the people who have suffered debilitating side effects.

Some people have an adverse reaction to vaccines. That's why they are spread out so as to be detected early as unable to have them.

The number of those unfortunate people is a tiny fraction of a percent of the number of people saved by the vaccines.

The freedom of speech you and others have exercised has negatively impacted on society and the practice of being vaccinated.

Outbreaks of diseases are now happening around the world, because fucktards like you are spreading bullshit.

[pritch]

Point of order, didnt they change CYFs name last week

Oranga Tamariki

[Virago]

Gordon Bennett, where to start...


Should anyone dare to voice an opinion outside the norm they're instantly deemed to be a conspiracy theorist, a peddler of hate speech or any other form of social pariah that is the current flavour of the month.

There's a particularly vocal band on here, who with the complete complicity of the moderators, will work their little socks off to get topics they don't want discussed moved from the view of the wider public.

Under the circumstances, I won't suggest that above statement is a conspiracy theory, but your suggestion that the mods are complicit with other groups to shut you down is no doubt paranoiac.


And therein lies the problem.

You can't mention the words Geo-Engineering without being told you're a fucking moron who doesn't know what a contrail is.

You can't question the events of 9/11 without being told you're a fucking moron who thinks everyone's out to get you.

You can't criticise Israel without being accused of being a fucking Anti-Semite.

You can't question our Defense Force without being called a unpatriotic terrorist lover.

You can't question deep sea oil drilling without being accused of wanting to fuck dolphins.

The list is seemingly endless.

And yet your own response to valid debate is often to hurl non-stop insults - retard, shitforbrains, autistic, blah, blah. Are you not being a little hypocritical here?


I have no problem with someone disagreeing with my opinion and I'm quite happy to strongly defend my opinion.

Yes, the very essence of the free speech you speak of. Noting of course that free speech is a two-way process in any debate.


And I've made no mention of the idea of democracy - other than to say I'm well aware that KB isn't run as one.

My point is that we're seeing more and more instances of the majority thinking it is ok to shut down the free speech of the minority.

I think that's fundamentally wrong.

We may have to agree to disagree on this, but I don't believe that threads are relegated to pink solely on the efforts of your debate opponents. Once threads degenerate into a downward spiral of abuse and insults (including from the thread starter), it is the likely outcome. I think that as well as pointing the finger, you may need to accept responsibility for your own actions.

[husaberg]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMzd40i8TfA

[Katman]

Under the circumstances, I won't suggest that above statement is a conspiracy theory, but your suggestion that the mods are complicit with other groups to shut you down is no doubt paranoiac.

Then you're not very observant.

[Drew]

Then you're not very observant.

Or perhaps you are as big a fuckwit as everyone tells you, and a large majority know it.

[Katman]

Or perhaps you are as big a fuckwit as everyone tells you, and a large majority know it.

You're doing a great job of proving my point Drew.

[Virago]

Your ancestors are fuckwits then. Vaccinnes are a fairly recent invention on the human timeline of evolution/creation (take your pic).....
Your ancestors managed to reproduce without getting cervical cancer from HPV, die of malaria/polia/tetnus.bird flu/pig flu/tyransaurus rex flu/SARS/Reubella/Measles/Chickenpox..........
One might think there natural immune systems were quite effective having not been tainted by sometimes badly made and destructive modern vaccinnes...

Smallpox is estimated to have caused 300 to 500 million deaths in the 20th century alone, before being eradicated in the 1970s by those dreadful vaccines. Perhaps it should have been left in the safe hands of natural immunity, rather than taint immune systems?

[Woodman]

You're doing a great job of proving my point Drew.

Would you rather he said nothing?

[TheDemonLord]

Or perhaps you are as big a fuckwit as everyone tells you, and a large majority know it.

I forsee an addition to the "According to Drew" Thread....

[Katman]

Would you rather he said nothing?

Fuck no, not when he's doing such a good job of it.

[Drew]

You're doing a great job of proving my point Drew.

I think I presented some stuff that you refuse to see.

So unless your point is that you're a screaming hypocrite, I'm not sure you should use this exchange as an example.

[Katman]

I think I presented some stuff that you refuse to see.

Sorry Drew, you might have to repeat yourself.

I must have missed it.

[Ulsterkiwi]

So universities are being over run by leftyies.
That explains the source of that weak minded dribble they come up with.


https://youtu.be/kaQ-ZF9S3uk

Actually, if you look at the make up of the spectrum of political parties in many countries there is a pretty even spread of left and right wing politicians who are university graduates.
Politicians aside its ironic that as well as the accusation you make here we often hear that university is elitist, only serving the wealthy and the powerful conservative element of society. Not the image of a hairy unwashed leftie really is it?
I think what we have is the something akin to the protest about immigrants bludging the welfare system while simultaneously accusing them of stealing jobs from locals. Which is it? It certainly cannot be both!

[TheDemonLord]

Actually, if you look at the make up of the spectrum of political parties in many countries there is a pretty even spread of left and right wing politicians who are university graduates.
Politicians aside its ironic that as well as the accusation you make here we often hear that university is elitist, only serving the wealthy and the powerful conservative element of society. Not the image of a hairy unwashed leftie really is it?
I think what we have is the something akin to the protest about immigrants bludging the welfare system while simultaneously accusing them of stealing jobs from locals. Which is it? It certainly cannot be both!

It's the Social Sciences, the HR departments and the Administrative departments that appear to have a very strong left Bias.

[Ulsterkiwi]

It's the Social Sciences, the HR departments and the Administrative departments that appear to have a very strong left Bias.

HR and admin? Ok, I will bite, what evidence do you have to substantiate this claim?

[Katman]

Katman et al:

I have never once asked the Moderators to censure or move any of your Threads.

And I'll give you some small credit for that.

I have it on good authority though that both bogan and husaberk are prolific whingers to the moderators.

[Akzle]

Smallpox is estimated to have caused 300 to 500 million deaths in the 20th century alone, before being eradicated in the 1970s by those dreadful vaccines. Perhaps it should have been left in the safe hands of natural immunity, rather than taint immune systems?

fuck yes. have you seen how many white townie cunts there are now?? WAY too fucken many.

[TheDemonLord]

HR and admin? Ok, I will bite, what evidence do you have to substantiate this claim?

There are 2 studies that I'm thinking of (which for the life of me I can't find - so I may edit this later when I get them)

However - as a small bit of Proof:

http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/

I should note - the site doesn't link to the source for their data - but if you look down at the Left wing dominated fields:

Teaching, Social Science, Academic Admin, Academia in general.

[pritch]

fuck yes. have you seen how many white townie cunts there are now?? WAY too fucken many.

Where do you see these, there's none in Queen Street. I'm only guessing, but I think they're a bit sparse around Otara too. You been hanging around Remuera?
You'll get bloody arrested.

[Ulsterkiwi]

There are 2 studies that I'm thinking of (which for the life of me I can't find - so I may edit this later when I get them)

However - as a small bit of Proof:

http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/

I should note - the site doesn't link to the source for their data - but if you look down at the Left wing dominated fields:

Teaching, Social Science, Academic Admin, Academia in general.

And you are correct to note they do not source their data. This website is not a study.
Full disclosure, I am an academic, so I have this annoying habit of wanting to see how the data leading to the results being presented have been obtained, I want to see what analysis has been applied to the raw data, I want to see the results presented in a meaningful manner, I want to see a plausible explanation for the results which have been presented, I want to see how these results compare to other (actual) studies and I want to see how the authors of the study have identified and addressed the limitations of said study (because there will be limitations)
But I guess I am just funny that way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TheDemonLord]

And you are correct to note they do not source their data. This website is not a study.
Full disclosure, I am an academic, so I have this annoying habit of wanting to see how the data leading to the results being presented have been obtained, I want to see what analysis has been applied to the raw data, I want to see the results presented in a meaningful manner, I want to see a plausible explanation for the results which have been presented, I want to see how these results compare to other (actual) studies and I want to see how the authors of the study have identified and addressed the limitations of said study (because there will be limitations)
But I guess I am just funny that way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hairy Muff - I'll keep digging for the study I'm thinking of.

[Gremlin]

Full disclosure, I am an academic, so I have this annoying habit of wanting to see how the data leading to the results being presented have been obtained, I want to see what analysis has been applied to the raw data, I want to see the results presented in a meaningful manner, I want to see a plausible explanation for the results which have been presented, I want to see how these results compare to other (actual) studies and I want to see how the authors of the study have identified and addressed the limitations of said study (because there will be limitations)
But I guess I am just funny that way.
Probably better you set your sights a little lower, like whole sentences and gud speeling.

[Ulsterkiwi]

Probably better you set your sights a little lower, like whole sentences and gud speeling.

I know, can't blame me for trying though!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Berries]

Oranga Tamariki
Sounds good, does it come by the pint?

[bogan]

And I'll give you some small credit for that.

I have it on good authority though that both bogan and husaberk are prolific whingers to the moderators.

One must question how good that authority is, given that only the mods see this information, and you started the thread accusing them of being in cahoots to stifle your free drivel :innocent:

One may also question if you know what prolific means, given that my reporting of about 10-20 posts in total, over 8 years, falls into such a category. Then again, it's just be more conspiracy theory illogic isn't it; make up shit, but ensure the source is obfuscated so it is not easily fact checked.

Also worth noting, that right now, you're taking this thread off 'topic' by making things personal, only hastening its justified migration to PD. Perhaps the PEBKAC at your end is also in cahoots :laugh:

[yokel]

And you are correct to note they do not source their data. This website is not a study.
Full disclosure, I am an academic, so I have this annoying habit of wanting to see how the data leading to the results being presented have been obtained, I want to see what analysis has been applied to the raw data, I want to see the results presented in a meaningful manner, I want to see a plausible explanation for the results which have been presented, I want to see how these results compare to other (actual) studies and I want to see how the authors of the study have identified and addressed the limitations of said study (because there will be limitations)
But I guess I am just funny that way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're academic? Well that explains it.
Sometimes things are self evident.

Clearly the kinds people that go for the social sciences have a different mind set than those that go for real science.

[Katman]

However - as a small bit of Proof:

You're very selective with what you deem to be 'proof' aren't you?

[Ulsterkiwi]

You're academic? Well that explains it.
Sometimes things are self evident.

Clearly the kinds people that go for the social sciences have a different mind set than those that go for real science.

Explains what?
Illuminate me what is self evident, please!
Different mind set? Perhaps, a good social scientist is no less of a scientist, they are simply interested in understanding different things. Science is not a particular discipline, science is a way to gain understanding of the world around us so I am not sure what you mean by "real" science in this context.

[Katman]

Also worth noting, that right now, you're taking this thread off 'topic' by making things personal, only hastening its justified migration to PD.

That's an interesting observation right there.

And I'm sure that if it's at all within your powers, you'll try to make it happen.

After all, that's pretty much what this thread is about.

[pritch]

those that go for real science.

Sometimes LOL just doesn't cover it. That is fucking hilarious coming from a guy who posts links to Alex Jones. Pure gold.

[Blackbird]

Explains what?
Illuminate me what is self evident, please!
Different mind set? Perhaps, a good social scientist is no less of a scientist, they are simply interested in understanding different things. Science is not a particular discipline, science is a way to gain understanding of the world around us so I am not sure what you mean by "real" science in this context.

True Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Kiwi Biker opinion: a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge

[Ocean1]

HR and admin? Ok, I will bite, what evidence do you have to substantiate this claim?

Ah come on now, how can you be unaware that academia has been largely socialist/liberal leaning for generations? And continues to head further in that direction wrt the gen pop all the time.

I notice this the other day: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/90945799/universities-should-be-places-of-intellectual-diversity-not-just-cultural-diversity

But you're presumably capable of a little research yourself...

[Ulsterkiwi]

For those who persist with the idea that Universities are the seat of leftist-nanny state-protectionism just a wee note about a work email I have just received.

Its interesting that the vaccination issue has been brought up in this thread. Andrew Wakefield was former doctor who published a study in the Lancet a few years ago presenting evidence that the MMR vaccine was linked to the incidence of autism. The publication of the study in a high impact journal like The Lancet, was in itself testament to the principles of free speech which science, medicine and academia aspire to; as what was presented in the study clearly went contrary to accepted knowledge at that time, i.e. vaccines or at least the MMR vaccine was not safe.
Subsequent to the publication of the study and the huge controversy it created, it was discovered that Mr Wakefield had in fact fabricated the data which were presented in his published paper and there was actually no substance to the claims made in it. Mr Wakefield was struck off the medical register as a consequence and his paper was withdrawn. I am the Deputy Editor of a small scientific journal and I can tell you that is not an action which is taken lightly.

Fast forward to 2017 and Mr Wakefield has made a movie called "Vaxxed" which continues to uphold the idea that MMR vaccine leads to autism. Remember the study has been debunked and no new data has emerged to support Mr Wakefield's assertions.

A room has been booked at the University of Otago in Dunedin to screen the movie and there has been some concern expressed about this indicating the University endorses Mr Wakefield's assertions.
My PVC has written to explain that is not the case, in fact there are both scientific and moral objections to the content of the movie.
BUT and its a big BUT, the University:

"..... firmly upholds the right to free speech as one of its core values.

The screening here is able to go ahead simply to uphold the principle of free speech, but the University does not condone the movie or its contents. Therefore, the screening should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the views and opinions expressed in the movie."

I am not sure how that sits with those who think the perceived erosion of free speech is the responsibility of Universities but I hope before perpetuating that myth you consider what I am relating above as a piece of actual evidence rather than "something I heard at the pub"
Freedom of speech is giving space and voice to views that you neither agree with nor can support because its evidence not vitriol and hearsay which should persuade individuals what they determine to be correct.

[Katman]

A room has been booked at the University of Otago in Dunedin to screen the movie

I'm pleased to hear it.

One can only hope that other universities around the country will be equally obliging.

[Ulsterkiwi]

Ah come on now, how can you be unaware that academia has been largely socialist/liberal leaning for generations? And continues to head further in that direction wrt the gen pop all the time.

I notice this the other day: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/90945799/universities-should-be-places-of-intellectual-diversity-not-just-cultural-diversity

But you're presumably capable of a little research yourself...

That was an interesting read, written by an academic.

I am not unaware that academia is about pushing the boundaries, change, expansion of knowledge and trying to improve the lot of humanity, be that through developing new medicine or technology, rethinking how we live in our societies or writing new literature or producing other works of art. It so happens that in the context of politics those aspirations are categorised as leftist or liberal while those who want things to remain as they are, without change or challenge are right leaning or conservative. The article you linked to alludes to just that.

Academia is neither right nor wrong, it is what it is, questioning why things are the way they are. To bring the judgment of something's value or place in society back to whether it is left or right is a bit reductionist for my liking.

I guess the thing which sets academia apart is the constant call for critique, argue for whatever you want but does the evidence support it? Stereotypically (and again the article alludes to that idea) conservatives want things to remain as they are because "that's how its always been done". Where does that get us? Someone on here had the story of the five monkeys in their signature. While a bit of a giggle, the story also has a very real point to make.

As I referred to earlier in the thread without "leftie" thinking/freedom of speech, we would still have slavery, women could not vote, there would be no birth control, rape within marriage would be ok, education would only ever be available to the wealthy and government agencies would have no accountability to the public/taxpayers who make their existence possible, to name but a few things.

Also remember that its not academia or even a conservative line of thinking that is at fault here. These are ideas and ideas are held by people and people are flawed so any system of thinking will be limited by the people who operationalise that thinking. Communism has its pluses. Under communist thinking we are all equal. I like that idea. Certainly in terms of our worth to society. We all have our roles, skills, talents and abilities so in that respect we are of course all different but noone is more important than the other. The USSR however clearly demonstrated that some were more equal than others and the limits of any equality were very constrained. So the fault was not in the idea but with the people who were in power.
The counter to that is of course the good ol US of A, the land of the free, defender of liberty. Ever been to Jackson? Queens? LA? Lots of people there who would say the right has not done too much good for them. Does that make all conservative ideology "bad", I don't think so.

So yes, lots of academics have ideas that are classed as being leftist. So what?

[swbarnett]

To me free speech is the ability to put ones views without fear of ridicule or being otherwise abused. Don't expect everyone to agree with you or indeed even listen.

One thing that enables free speech to exist is healthy debate - the act of airing ones views with the aim of having them questioned. The expectation is that they are analysed by the other parties with an open mind; while at the same time maintaining an open mind yourself to any counter views that return. In this way the actual truth is arrived at; likely not identical to either party's view but somewhere in the middle. This is the mark of a great scientist or philosopher - one that is only after the truth and cares little if their initial hypothesis is right or not.

[Woodman]

I'm pleased to hear it.

One can only hope that other universities around the country will be equally obliging.


Would you be happy to host a filmwatching at your motorbike shop promoting the practice of riding with worn tyres?
A lot of people ride with worn tyres to save money etc so there will be a captive audience.

[Katman]

Would you be happy to host a filmwatching at your motorbike shop promoting the practice of riding with worn tyres?
A lot of people ride with worn tyres to save money etc so there will be a captive audience.

Sure.

Send me a copy.

[pritch]

A lot of people ride with worn tyres to save money etc so there will be a captive audience.

Problem is those dim enough to ride on worn tyres would likely be too dim to attend. A someone alse pointed out in a long forgotten thread, if you look at the commuters parked down town you will see a lot of sub standard rubber.

One of the tyre manufactureres went to Sturgis and offered free tyre checks, a huge percentage, almost all, were under inflated.

Most of which might tend to suggest the "average" rider doesn't think overmuch about tyres.

[HenryDorsetCase]

For those who persist with the idea that Universities are the seat of leftist-nanny state-protectionism just a wee note about a work email I have just received.

Its interesting that the vaccination issue has been brought up in this thread. Andrew Wakefield was former doctor who published a study in the Lancet a few years ago presenting evidence that the MMR vaccine was linked to the incidence of autism. The publication of the study in a high impact journal like The Lancet, was in itself testament to the principles of free speech which science, medicine and academia aspire to; as what was presented in the study clearly went contrary to accepted knowledge at that time, i.e. vaccines or at least the MMR vaccine was not safe.
Subsequent to the publication of the study and the huge controversy it created, it was discovered that Mr Wakefield had in fact fabricated the data which were presented in his published paper and there was actually no substance to the claims made in it. Mr Wakefield was struck off the medical register as a consequence and his paper was withdrawn. I am the Deputy Editor of a small scientific journal and I can tell you that is not an action which is taken lightly.

Fast forward to 2017 and Mr Wakefield has made a movie called "Vaxxed" which continues to uphold the idea that MMR vaccine leads to autism. Remember the study has been debunked and no new data has emerged to support Mr Wakefield's assertions.

A room has been booked at the University of Otago in Dunedin to screen the movie and there has been some concern expressed about this indicating the University endorses Mr Wakefield's assertions.
My PVC has written to explain that is not the case, in fact there are both scientific and moral objections to the content of the movie.
BUT and its a big BUT, the University:

"..... firmly upholds the right to free speech as one of its core values.

The screening here is able to go ahead simply to uphold the principle of free speech, but the University does not condone the movie or its contents. Therefore, the screening should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the views and opinions expressed in the movie."

I am not sure how that sits with those who think the perceived erosion of free speech is the responsibility of Universities but I hope before perpetuating that myth you consider what I am relating above as a piece of actual evidence rather than "something I heard at the pub"
Freedom of speech is giving space and voice to views that you neither agree with nor can support because its evidence not vitriol and hearsay which should persuade individuals what they determine to be correct.

Thanks. seriously.

By the way, I was lying in bed last night and I have invented a newish device.

I am going to take existing drone technology, and I am going to get some vaccines and I am going to fly the drone into fuckwith anti-vaxxers houses and basically cropdust vaccines over the sleeping children. I will also cropdust contraception over the sleeping adults who are clearly unfit to breed.

When I rule you all (and I will) shit's gonna change, yo.

[pritch]

Gotta share the love. And I'm assuming you are sober now?:devil2:

[Ulsterkiwi]

Thanks. seriously.

By the way, I was lying in bed last night and I have invented a newish device.

I am going to take existing drone technology, and I am going to get some vaccines and I am going to fly the drone into fuckwith anti-vaxxers houses and basically cropdust vaccines over the sleeping children. I will also cropdust contraception over the sleeping adults who are clearly unfit to breed.

When I rule you all (and I will) shit's gonna change, yo.

I thought they already did that? ;-)

You might like to read the bit of the email that came after the bit I quoted.....

"The group organising the screening does not represent the University or the views of its health experts in any way, shape or form. The messages and "information" in the movie are condemned by me and many other health experts at the University of Otago who have strong moral and scientific objections to the content of the movie. We believe the makers and distributors of this movie are scare-mongering, and behaving in an anti-child manner, showing no regard for the health and well-being of children.

We will, at every possible opportunity, seek to provide the public with relevant scientific evidence showing the benefits of vaccination that are not presented in the movie."

That's free speech right there.

[Swoop]

I am going to take existing drone technology, and I am going to get some vaccines and I am going to fly the drone into fuckwith anti-vaxxers houses and basically cropdust vaccines over the sleeping children. I will also cropdust contraception over the sleeping adults who are clearly unfit to breed.
Surely there is already a chemtrail for that?

[Katman]

I find it interesting that the same people who will happily ridicule the idea that a group of lawyers might represent some villagers in Afghanistan for anything other than the money they can make from it, won't for a second countenance the idea that the pharmaceutical industry is producing an ever increasing array of vaccines for anything other than the good of society.

The naivety of that belief is staggering.

[Ulsterkiwi]

I find it interesting that the same people who will happily ridicule the idea that a group of lawyers might represent some villagers in Afghanistan for anything other than the money they can make from it, won't for a second countenance the idea that the pharmaceutical industry is producing an ever increasing array of vaccines for anything other than the good of society.

The naivety of that belief is staggering.

My experience of lawyers is not one that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy, in miserable circumstances they have been the only ones to derive any benefit but that's kind of an occupational hazard when you get involved in the law. Laws are generally drawn up because there is a problem and society sees a need to address the problem. The outcomes are rarely if ever good for all concerned. I can tell my fair share of "lawyers are scum" jokes but I can easily accept there are many who genuinely want to do a good job.
I guess the pharmaceutical industry and the medical world is not that different. The intent is that people can lead healthier lives, free from the ravages of disease. The sad fact is, not everyone can be saved, life is after all a fatal disease and the solutions that emerge are not flawless and do not work for everyone.
On the whole, polio, smallpox, TB, measles and the like do not wipe out entire populations like they used to. Now people live long enough to develop heart disease, cancer, diabetes and have strokes. Quite a scam big pharma has going there.

[Katman]

The intent is that people can lead healthier lives, free from the ravages of disease.

Well that may be one intent.

Making a staggering amount of money may be another.

[Ulsterkiwi]

Well that may be one intent.

Making a staggering amount of money may be another.

you could level that accusation at any number of organisations offering a service, including those lawyers.

(Thanks to ACC we are spared the ambulance chasing lawyers who promise to work hard in your interests to get that personal injury claim through the courts.)

Real Estate agents? Funeral Directors? Training and Education Providers? Insurance companies? Energy Providers? Car and motorcycle manufacturers? Oil Companies? Banks? Any number of others I haven't thought of that provide a service intended to be "just to meet your need"

Which of these do you want to do without? What do you propose replaces them? Perhaps we don't need a pharmaceutical industry?

[Katman]

Which of these do you want to do without? What do you propose replaces them? Perhaps we don't need a pharmaceutical industry?

I suspect you've missed my point.

It was the double standard some people show when dismissing the actions of one group as nothing more than an exercise in chasing money while totaling ignoring the possibility that the same pursuit is being carried out by a different group that they laud as honourable.

[SPman]

You're academic? Well that explains it.
Sometimes things are self evident.

Clearly the kinds people that go for the social sciences have a different mind set than those that go for real science.

Not really - for starters they all have to think and critically evaluate - factors missing in a large sector of the population it would seem.....

[Laava]

Thanks. seriously.

By the way, I was lying in bed last night and I have invented a newish device.

I am going to take existing drone technology, and I am going to get some vaccines and I am going to fly the drone into fuckwith anti-vaxxers houses and basically cropdust vaccines over the sleeping children. I will also cropdust contraception over the sleeping adults who are clearly unfit to breed.

When I rule you all (and I will) shit's gonna change, yo.

Your transmorph into Axehole is nearly complete!

[Ulsterkiwi]

I suspect you've missed my point.

It was the double standard some people show when dismissing the actions of one group as nothing more than an exercise in chasing money while totaling ignoring the possibility that the same pursuit is being carried out by a different group that they laud as honourable.

hmmmm that is vexing

Akzle aside, I guess we all chase the $ to some extent or other (and I suspect even Akzle has to use currency of some sort other than weed.)

There is money to be made in pharma, no doubt. I wonder how we would manage without them. Lawyers? I think I would be prepared to try harder to manage without :shifty:

[Mike.Gayner]

This thread has so much AIDS.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Gotta share the love. And I'm assuming you are sober now?:devil2:

sober-ish.....

[Ulsterkiwi]

This thread has so much AIDS.

best to take Jacob Zuma's advice then and go have a shower, that way you won't get infected.

[Moi]

This thread has so much AIDS.

What are you trying to say?

[yokel]

Sometimes LOL just doesn't cover it. That is fucking hilarious coming from a guy who posts links to Alex Jones. Pure gold.

Is Alex Jones a scientist? Nope he's just a journalist.
And seen as the mainstream media has gone full retard PC leftist that leaves it up to other alternative information streams.



Ah come on now, how can you be unaware that academia has been largely socialist/liberal leaning for generations? And continues to head further in that direction wrt the gen pop all the time.

I notice this the other day: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/90945799/universities-should-be-places-of-intellectual-diversity-not-just-cultural-diversity

But you're presumably capable of a little research yourself...

Haha

"We don't need more right-wing professors. What we need is lecturers with the intellectual integrity to openly present a true diversity of arguments and beliefs – ideas and opinions that may challenge their own deeply held convictions and, more importantly, that challenge their students to think."

Looks like this muppet wants to remain in his echo chamber.

"By contrast, we wouldn't want or expect over many conservative lecturers – after all, the very definition of "conservative" is someone who rejects change or innovation, and this is the antithesis of what education should be about."

So is having a man competing against women in weightlifting a matter of "innovation"?

This clown has no clue as to a conservative is, but by championing the "archaic" idea of free speech he's turning to the dark side.

Anyone that supports free speech is moving to the right.




For those who persist with the idea that Universities are the seat of leftist-nanny state-protectionism just a wee note about a work email I have just received.

Its interesting that the vaccination issue has been brought up in this thread. Andrew Wakefield was former doctor who published a study in the Lancet a few years ago presenting evidence that the MMR vaccine was linked to the incidence of autism. The publication of the study in a high impact journal like The Lancet, was in itself testament to the principles of free speech which science, medicine and academia aspire to; as what was presented in the study clearly went contrary to accepted knowledge at that time, i.e. vaccines or at least the MMR vaccine was not safe.
Subsequent to the publication of the study and the huge controversy it created, it was discovered that Mr Wakefield had in fact fabricated the data which were presented in his published paper and there was actually no substance to the claims made in it. Mr Wakefield was struck off the medical register as a consequence and his paper was withdrawn. I am the Deputy Editor of a small scientific journal and I can tell you that is not an action which is taken lightly.

Fast forward to 2017 and Mr Wakefield has made a movie called "Vaxxed" which continues to uphold the idea that MMR vaccine leads to autism. Remember the study has been debunked and no new data has emerged to support Mr Wakefield's assertions.

A room has been booked at the University of Otago in Dunedin to screen the movie and there has been some concern expressed about this indicating the University endorses Mr Wakefield's assertions.
My PVC has written to explain that is not the case, in fact there are both scientific and moral objections to the content of the movie.
BUT and its a big BUT, the University:

"..... firmly upholds the right to free speech as one of its core values.

The screening here is able to go ahead simply to uphold the principle of free speech, but the University does not condone the movie or its contents. Therefore, the screening should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the views and opinions expressed in the movie."

I am not sure how that sits with those who think the perceived erosion of free speech is the responsibility of Universities but I hope before perpetuating that myth you consider what I am relating above as a piece of actual evidence rather than "something I heard at the pub"
Freedom of speech is giving space and voice to views that you neither agree with nor can support because its evidence not vitriol and hearsay which should persuade individuals what they determine to be correct.

Whoops, looks like you misted something during your "fast forwarding".

Yes it's a pain in the arse having principles, but there's good reason why something should be a principle.

https://www.ebcala.org/areas-of-law/vaccine-law/co-author-of-lancet-mmr-autism-study-exonerated-on-all-charges-of-professional-misconduct

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/u55MNglDkos" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Woodman]

I suspect you've missed my point.

It was the double standard some people show when dismissing the actions of one group as nothing more than an exercise in chasing money while totaling ignoring the possibility that the same pursuit is being carried out by a different group that they laud as honourable.

Mate, everyone is in it for the money, you, me, mother Teresa, everyone. Get over it and move on.:brick:

[HenryDorsetCase]

Your transmorph into Axehole is nearly complete!

Aw thanks. You know he is my lesbian lover, right?

[Woodman]

Aw thanks. You know he is my lesbian lover, right?

Eeeew Goat licking, that's just sick.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Anyone that supports free speech is moving to the right.



Thank you so much for that.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Lawyers? I think I would be prepared to try harder to manage without :shifty:

I am disappoint.

[Ulsterkiwi]

Anyone that supports free speech is moving to the right.

Really?




Whoops, looks like you misted something during your "fast forwarding".

Yes it's a pain in the arse having principles, but there's good reason why something should be a principle.

https://www.ebcala.org/areas-of-law/vaccine-law/co-author-of-lancet-mmr-autism-study-exonerated-on-all-charges-of-professional-misconduct

Do you mean "missed"?
I didn't mention Walker-Smith, only Wakefield.
If you read the actual ruling from that hearing you will see in what are stated as undisputed facts that: "There is now no respectable body of opinion which supports his [Wakefield's] hypothesis, that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked. "
Much of the case in Walker-Smith's defence was that he was reluctant to make the connections Wakefield asserted, was not happy with the press briefings Wakefield conducted and the evidence was not conclusive for Wakefield's assertions.
There was also some mileage for the defence of Walker-Smith that what he thought he was doing was not the same as Wakefield was trying to do.

None of this changes the fact that data was fabricated and nothing has been produced since to substantiate Wakefield's claims

Does that mean it never will? How would I know? Its possible. Until then "because I say so" (on the part of Wakefield) is not sufficient evidence to make a decision.

Absolutely, principles can be challenging to uphold. For one I firmly believe Otago made the right decision to allow the showing of Wakefield's film. There is nothing to be feared in getting to the truth.

By the way, you still have not answered my questions.

[Ulsterkiwi]

I am disappoint.

awww, everybody has to hate somebody right? :innocent:

[Katman]

Mate, everyone is in it for the money, you, me, mother Teresa, everyone. Get over it and move on.:brick:

Do me a favour - don't speak for me.

[Woodman]

Do me a favour - don't speak for me.

Do yourself a favour-be honest with yourself.

[Katman]

Do yourself a favour-be honest with yourself.

'In it for the money' suggests that money is the number 1 priority.

It's not for me - so do yourself a favour and don't speak for me.

[Woodman]

'In it for the money' suggests that money is the number 1 priority.

It's not for me - so do yourself a favour and don't speak for me.

Then do it for free.

[Katman]

Then do it for free.

I have to eat too.

But money is not what I focus on in life.

[Woodman]

I have to eat too.

But money is not what I focus on in life.

And what do you buy your food with?

Every customer who walks in your door supplies you with money. That money pays for food, mortgage, concubines etcetcetc.

Unless you are a trustfund baby and your business is a front then you are in it for the money.

[Katman]

Unless you are a trustfund baby and your business is a front then you are in it for the money.

Seriously, don't speak for me.

How about instead you just accept the fact that your definition of 'in it for the money' appears to be different to mine.

[FJRider]

The first step in problem solving is to admit a problem exists. Second step is to correctly identify the problem. I think that's where we are going wrong at the moment.

The more important third step is coming up with the correct solution ... which is not as easy as it sounds.

If the problem is motorcyclists crashing at the end of straight pieces of road ... current thinking seems to be straightening the corners as the solution.

Some may say a logical solution to a common problem.

What could possibly be wrong with this theory ..??

Free speech is commonly lauded as being one of your basic human rights in a free country ... many believing it applies anywhere and anytime. These people also believe that freedom to speak your mind will (should ??) have no repercussions (financially, physically, or verbally/written) on or about themselves ... for anything they have stated.

Free speech is fine ... but to be totally free ... there must be the free right to reply.

And be able to accept ... that others may not agree with their stupid conspiracy theories.

[R650R]

Thanks. seriously.

By the way, I was lying in bed last night and I have invented a newish device.

I am going to take existing drone technology, and I am going to get some vaccines and I am going to fly the drone into fuckwith anti-vaxxers houses and basically cropdust vaccines over the sleeping children. I will also cropdust contraception over the sleeping adults who are clearly unfit to breed.

When I rule you all (and I will) shit's gonna change, yo.

Well thats putting out fires with gasoline right there....

So you propose terrorist action (this is the worst as you are proving people like alex jones right that the next wave of terrorists will be right wing white nutters) with misuse of drones and violation of CAA guidelines to assault sleeping toddlers and parents.
Just because they choose not to take an expensive corporate controlled medication that may or may not work.....

I do like that you choose to administer it proeprly though. Being exposed through the mucus membranes of the throat and sinus is where the key receptor cells are that identify invading pathigens and trigger the bodies repsonse systems in the right way. This is way better than injecting a toxic syrup containign additives and preservatives straight into the blood stream which shocks the body.

[Woodman]

Seriously, don't speak for me.

How about instead you just accept the fact that your definition of 'in it for the money' appears to be different to mine.

My guess is that our definitions are pretty similar.

[R650R]

Is Alex Jones a scientist? Nope he's just a journalist.
And seen as the mainstream media has gone full retard PC leftist that leaves it up to other alternative information streams.





Hate to break it to you but Alex is mainstream and controlled just like the rest. Maybe he will be better now his jewish wife has left him... But I gave up listening to him about 7 years ago. Whenever someone is going to break some new vital info he cuts them off and goes to an ad break and then changes topic if they still on air.
There are way better sources of alternative news and info...

https://alexjonesexposed.info/

http://adventofdeception.com/deception-alex-jones/

[Katman]

My guess is that our definitions are pretty similar.

Keep guessing.

[Zedder]

Well thats putting out fires with gasoline right there....

So you propose terrorist action (this is the worst as you are proving people like alex jones right that the next wave of terrorists will be right wing white nutters) with misuse of drones and violation of CAA guidelines to assault sleeping toddlers and parents.
Just because they choose not to take an expensive corporate controlled medication that may or may not work.....

I do like that you choose to administer it proeprly though. Being exposed through the mucus membranes of the throat and sinus is where the key receptor cells are that identify invading pathigens and trigger the bodies repsonse systems in the right way. This is way better than injecting a toxic syrup containign additives and preservatives straight into the blood stream which shocks the body.


Pretty sure HDC was joking.

[R650R]

Free speech is fine ... but to be totally free ... there must be the free right to reply.

And be able to accept ... that others may not agree with their stupid conspiracy theories.

Whast even better is if people can engage in rational debate without emotional terms and name calling, classic attack the messenger instantly expooses that people have no counter argument.

[husaberg]

Thanks. seriously.

By the way, I was lying in bed last night and I have invented a newish device.

I am going to take existing drone technology, and I am going to get some vaccines and I am going to fly the drone into fuckwith anti-vaxxers houses and basically cropdust vaccines over the sleeping children. I will also cropdust contraception over the sleeping adults who are clearly unfit to breed.

When I rule you all (and I will) shit's gonna change, yo.

Shirley, we can use put it in the water with the Flouride or in the salt with the iodine.

[Woodman]

Keep guessing.

Na, bored now.....

[Ulsterkiwi]

Well thats putting out fires with gasoline right there....

So you propose terrorist action (this is the worst as you are proving people like alex jones right that the next wave of terrorists will be right wing white nutters) with misuse of drones and violation of CAA guidelines to assault sleeping toddlers and parents.
Just because they choose not to take an expensive corporate controlled medication that may or may not work.....

I do like that you choose to administer it proeprly though. Being exposed through the mucus membranes of the throat and sinus is where the key receptor cells are that identify invading pathigens and trigger the bodies repsonse systems in the right way. This is way better than injecting a toxic syrup containign additives and preservatives straight into the blood stream which shocks the body.

Point of order.
Mucous membranes do not contain receptor cells for the immune system. There are distinct areas of lymphatic tissue which are the site of immune response you refer to. The tonsils would be an example. Peyers patches in the gut. Langerhans cells in the skin and MALTs in the lung.
Also, vaccines are rarely if ever injected IV. They are either subcutaneous or intramuscular. In that environment they would encounter macrophages and dendritic cells, part of the immune system, long before a mucous membrane, probably a series of lymph nodes as well with their white cell population.
Even if they were introduced IV the bloodstream is responsible for the rapid transport of white blood cells, you know, the ones that mount immune response. So T and B lymphocytes, Natural Killer cells and a pretty potent monocyte population can acquire the immunity from there in the right circumstances.
Where you are correct is that passing through the Liver more quickly will allow the other stuff to be processed and excreted more rapidly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ocean1]

That was an interesting read, written by an academic.

I am not unaware that academia is about pushing the boundaries, change, expansion of knowledge and trying to improve the lot of humanity, be that through developing new medicine or technology, rethinking how we live in our societies or writing new literature or producing other works of art. It so happens that in the context of politics those aspirations are categorised as leftist or liberal while those who want things to remain as they are, without change or challenge are right leaning or conservative. The article you linked to alludes to just that.

Academia is neither right nor wrong, it is what it is, questioning why things are the way they are. To bring the judgment of something's value or place in society back to whether it is left or right is a bit reductionist for my liking.

I guess the thing which sets academia apart is the constant call for critique, argue for whatever you want but does the evidence support it? Stereotypically (and again the article alludes to that idea) conservatives want things to remain as they are because "that's how its always been done". Where does that get us? Someone on here had the story of the five monkeys in their signature. While a bit of a giggle, the story also has a very real point to make.

As I referred to earlier in the thread without "leftie" thinking/freedom of speech, we would still have slavery, women could not vote, there would be no birth control, rape within marriage would be ok, education would only ever be available to the wealthy and government agencies would have no accountability to the public/taxpayers who make their existence possible, to name but a few things.

Also remember that its not academia or even a conservative line of thinking that is at fault here. These are ideas and ideas are held by people and people are flawed so any system of thinking will be limited by the people who operationalise that thinking. Communism has its pluses. Under communist thinking we are all equal. I like that idea. Certainly in terms of our worth to society. We all have our roles, skills, talents and abilities so in that respect we are of course all different but noone is more important than the other. The USSR however clearly demonstrated that some were more equal than others and the limits of any equality were very constrained. So the fault was not in the idea but with the people who were in power.
The counter to that is of course the good ol US of A, the land of the free, defender of liberty. Ever been to Jackson? Queens? LA? Lots of people there who would say the right has not done too much good for them. Does that make all conservative ideology "bad", I don't think so.

So yes, lots of academics have ideas that are classed as being leftist. So what?

Needless to say I find "leftie" thinking to be exactly the opposite, constrained by contortions just like yours, required to prove everyone is equal and full of castigation for a "right" they think are cheating them of their "share".

A "right" by the way, that has nothing to do with your interpretation of "conservitive".

So your whole premise is somewhat fraught. As is most socialist dogma, having retreated to the few last bastions where the benefits of actual production remain divorced from it's cause.

[HenryDorsetCase]

awww, everybody has to hate somebody right? :innocent:

lawyers hate everybody. Its the rule

[HenryDorsetCase]

Well thats putting out fires with gasoline right there....

So you propose terrorist action (this is the worst as you are proving people like alex jones right that the next wave of terrorists will be right wing white nutters) with misuse of drones and violation of CAA guidelines to assault sleeping toddlers and parents.
Just because they choose not to take an expensive corporate controlled medication that may or may not work.....

I do like that you choose to administer it proeprly though. Being exposed through the mucus membranes of the throat and sinus is where the key receptor cells are that identify invading pathigens and trigger the bodies repsonse systems in the right way. This is way better than injecting a toxic syrup containign additives and preservatives straight into the blood stream which shocks the body.

I dont know who Alex Jones is and am too lazy to google. But, like Richard M Nixon and Donald J Trump, if the President does it, its not illegal. and I will be your President for life in this scenario.

I put it to you that right wing white nutters are the biggest threat to civil society. They've taken over America for starters. Dont forget that until the World Trade Centre the biggest body count in Mrka was the Oklahoma City bombing carried out by Timothy McVeigh - the quintessential right wing white nutbar.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Point of order.
Mucous membranes do not contain receptor cells for the immune system. There are distinct areas of lymphatic tissue which are the site of immune response you refer to. The tonsils would be an example. Peyers patches in the gut. Langerhans cells in the skin and MALTs in the lung.
Also, vaccines are rarely if ever injected IV. They are either subcutaneous or intramuscular. In that environment they would encounter macrophages and dendritic cells, part of the immune system, long before a mucous membrane, probably a series of lymph nodes as well with their white cell population.
Even if they were introduced IV the bloodstream is responsible for the rapid transport of white blood cells, you know, the ones that mount immune response. So T and B lymphocytes, Natural Killer cells and a pretty potent monocyte population can acquire the immunity from there in the right circumstances.
Where you are correct is that passing through the Liver more quickly will allow the other stuff to be processed and excreted more rapidly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDSOIspSTP4

[Ulsterkiwi]

Needless to say I find "leftie" thinking to be exactly the opposite, constrained by contortions just like yours, required to prove everyone is equal and full of castigation for a "right" they think are cheating them of their "share".

A "right" by the way, that has nothing to do with your interpretation of "conservitive".

So your whole premise is somewhat fraught. As is most socialist dogma, having retreated to the few last bastions where the benefits of actual production remain divorced from it's cause.

I am finding it hard to follow your thinking. I wasn't feeling obliged to prove everyone is equal, I said I liked the idea that all members of society while being different were of equal value.
I am also a bit confused as to your meaning when you talk of "right". In one sentence it seems you mean the political right in another it seems to be about rights such as human rights. I didn't enter into any discussion of rights so am not sure what you want to say there.
I do not believe I was coming from a perspective of socialist dogma. A) because I am not a socialist B) I was trying to say that neither side of the spectrum has things absolutely sorted. I prefer a pragmatic approach taking the best of what each has to offer and depending on the time and the context what will work best for a society will change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FJRider]

Whast even better is if people can engage in rational debate without emotional terms and name calling, classic attack the messenger instantly expooses that people have no counter argument.

But ...but ... free speech is saying what you like ... emotions,feelings, and beliefs ...are all mixed in.

And some just have a passion for debate ... regardless of the topic.

Isn't that the basis of free speech ...???

You can learn from debates ... if actual facts are divulged. Not just theories, beliefs, and opinions.

[Ulsterkiwi]

But ...but ... free speech is saying what you like ... emotions,feelings, and beliefs ...are all mixed in.

And some just have a passion for debate ... regardless of the topic.

Isn't that the basis of free speech ...???

You can learn from debates ... if actual facts are divulged. Not just theories, beliefs, and opinions.

You have a point. In debate, passion for the point you are making can be useful. It's a limitation if that passion means you cannot see when the argument is lost.

Debate for its own sake is i believe healthy. My old dad always told me not to believe something just because someone told me it was so. He encouraged me to work things out for myself. To know WHY I held something to be the case. I would suggest it's a good discipline to have. Convince yourself and then if it's important to you, you can convince others, or at least make your case.

I guess that is why I like what I do. My job is to teach others in such a way that they question and critique as well. My aspiration is when I am done, my students are more skilled and knowledgeable than me. inherently that means what I hold to be true may have to change if new knowledge and evidence changes the scene.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ocean1]

I am finding it hard to follow your thinking. I wasn't feeling obliged to prove everyone is equal, I said I liked the idea that all members of society while being different were of equal value.
I am also a bit confused as to your meaning when you talk of "right". In one sentence it seems you mean the political right in another it seems to be about rights such as human rights. I didn't enter into any discussion of rights so am not sure what you want to say there.
I do not believe I was coming from a perspective of socialist dogma. A) because I am not a socialist B) I was trying to say that neither side of the spectrum has things absolutely sorted. I prefer a pragmatic approach taking the best of what each has to offer and depending on the time and the context what will work best for a society will change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I also made no mention of human rights, as you discussed the political left so I referred to the political right.

And of course you didn't believe your comments were socialist dogma, if you recognised that you may asked to recognise the failures such polity entails.

Pragmatic for who? The left want the benefits produced by the right, the right tend to be pretty much self sufficient.

[Katman]

I'm reminded of the saying that the left and the right are just two sides of the same being.

Maybe we need to start focusing on the middle.

[bogan]

I'm reminded of the saying that the left and the right are just to sides of the same being.

Maybe we need to start focusing on the middle.

Quite right...that'swheretheblowholeis,afterall

[TheDemonLord]

And you are correct to note they do not source their data. This website is not a study.
Full disclosure, I am an academic, so I have this annoying habit of wanting to see how the data leading to the results being presented have been obtained, I want to see what analysis has been applied to the raw data, I want to see the results presented in a meaningful manner, I want to see a plausible explanation for the results which have been presented, I want to see how these results compare to other (actual) studies and I want to see how the authors of the study have identified and addressed the limitations of said study (because there will be limitations)
But I guess I am just funny that way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, I've got to issue a partial retraction - the Studies I was thinking of were for Social Psychology - not HR specifically.

In case you are interested - they are these ones:

http://yoelinbar.net/papers/political_diversity.pdf
and
https://journals.cambridge.org/images/fileUpload/documents/Duarte-Haidt_BBS-D-14-00108_preprint.pdf

Now, I state a partial retraction - since I've seen a lot of HR departments strongly align with far-left principles (equality of Outcome, Diversity quotas, Unconscious Bias training etc.) and these are principles that are accepted in Leftist circles but mostly dismissed in right-wing circles.

To add to the discussion about Left Wing vs Right Wing - for me - sometimes the Left is right, sometimes the Right is Right.

And once again - Dropping Dr Peterson for some more Truth Bombs:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83DuicAJX9E

[Daffyd]

To those critics of parents who don't want to vaccinate their kids, check out this link.

And no, I'm not anti vax per se, but I would like to be sure this couldn't have happened to my kids. Gardasil, on the other hand, is a whole 'nother story.

https://steemit.com/vaccines/@canadian-coconut/triplets-regress-into-autism-all-on-the-same-day-genetics-could-not-do-this-vaxxed-story

[yokel]

Really?





Do you mean "missed"?
I didn't mention Walker-Smith, only Wakefield.
If you read the actual ruling from that hearing you will see in what are stated as undisputed facts that: "There is now no respectable body of opinion which supports his [Wakefield's] hypothesis, that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked. "
Much of the case in Walker-Smith's defence was that he was reluctant to make the connections Wakefield asserted, was not happy with the press briefings Wakefield conducted and the evidence was not conclusive for Wakefield's assertions.
There was also some mileage for the defence of Walker-Smith that what he thought he was doing was not the same as Wakefield was trying to do.

None of this changes the fact that data was fabricated and nothing has been produced since to substantiate Wakefield's claims

Does that mean it never will? How would I know? Its possible. Until then "because I say so" (on the part of Wakefield) is not sufficient evidence to make a decision.

Absolutely, principles can be challenging to uphold. For one I firmly believe Otago made the right decision to allow the showing of Wakefield's film. There is nothing to be feared in getting to the truth.

By the way, you still have not answered my questions.

Free speech is about an individuals right to speak his mind vs the rights of minorities, the rights of individuals is very much a rightwing thing.

I thought your questions where reasonably well answered by others.



I am finding it hard to follow your thinking. I wasn't feeling obliged to prove everyone is equal, I said I liked the idea that all members of society while being different were of equal value.
I am also a bit confused as to your meaning when you talk of "right". In one sentence it seems you mean the political right in another it seems to be about rights such as human rights. I didn't enter into any discussion of rights so am not sure what you want to say there.
I do not believe I was coming from a perspective of socialist dogma. A) because I am not a socialist B) I was trying to say that neither side of the spectrum has things absolutely sorted. I prefer a pragmatic approach taking the best of what each has to offer and depending on the time and the context what will work best for a society will change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you get warm fuzzy feeling in the bottom of your stomach whenever you say "equality"?
If we're all equally valued then how come we all don't get paid the same? e.g the gender pay gap.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fYMkl2H55Mw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



Hate to break it to you but Alex is mainstream and controlled just like the rest. Maybe he will be better now his jewish wife has left him... But I gave up listening to him about 7 years ago. Whenever someone is going to break some new vital info he cuts them off and goes to an ad break and then changes topic if they still on air.
There are way better sources of alternative news and info...

https://alexjonesexposed.info/

http://adventofdeception.com/deception-alex-jones/

Yes I'm aware that Alex is or might be controlled but still more credible than the PC media.

[R650R]

I put it to you that right wing white nutters are the biggest threat to civil society. They've taken over America for starters. Dont forget that until the World Trade Centre the biggest body count in Mrka was the Oklahoma City bombing carried out by Timothy McVeigh - the quintessential right wing white nutbar.

That summary of facts presented by the media is debateable too.... A very well documented flase flag that one....

America has actually been taken over by far left radical neo liberals, the type of people who voted for Obama over their own hipster white priveldge guilt (in their eyes). That's why so many people rebelled and voted in trump for old school no nonsense straight talking business action.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/ok.php#axzz4dSSGP7Kl

[R650R]

But ...but ... free speech is saying what you like ... emotions,feelings, and beliefs ...are all mixed in.

And some just have a passion for debate ... regardless of the topic.

Isn't that the basis of free speech ...???

You can learn from debates ... if actual facts are divulged. Not just theories, beliefs, and opinions.

Yes but for some its just the emotions and beliefs part without presenting any factrual data to back up their argument.

[Ulsterkiwi]

I also made no mention of human rights, as you discussed the political left so I referred to the political right.

And of course you didn't believe your comments were socialist dogma, if you recognised that you may asked to recognise the failures such polity entails.

Pragmatic for who? The left want the benefits produced by the right, the right tend to be pretty much self sufficient.

Fair enough, I appreciate the clarification and your comments make more sense now.

Again, no, I do not come from a perspective of socialist dogma. Seeing value in some of the ideas which are categorised as socialist does not make me a socialist. Of course I recognise the failures of socialist thinking, I actually referred to some. I was saying that no political ideology has everything worked out, but you know, if it makes you feel better to tell me how I think then fill your boots.

Pragmatism in so far as if society has an issue that needs a solution then some solutions sit better with me from the right, some from the left. You paint with a very broad brush. Absolutely some left wing ideas create a sense of entitlement or dependence which I do not think is right or healthy. Some right wing ideas encourage independence, certainly smaller government and the creation of wealth and that has many positives. They can however broaden the gap between the haves and the have nots. I would like to see everyone get a fair crack of the whip to change that, that means opportunities, not hand outs in my mind.

Anyway this is getting onto a tangent, the thread was about the erosion of free speech. From different perspectives we all seem keen to preserve it. There is disagreement about the source of the erosion and clearly the way to resolve it, but we have to start somewhere eh?

[Ocean1]

Fair enough, I appreciate the clarification and your comments make more sense now.

Again, no, I do not come from a perspective of socialist dogma. Seeing value in some of the ideas which are categorised as socialist does not make me a socialist. Of course I recognise the failures of socialist thinking, I actually referred to some. I was saying that no political ideology has everything worked out, but you know, if it makes you feel better to tell me how I think then fill your boots.

Pragmatism in so far as if society has an issue that needs a solution then some solutions sit better with me from the right, some from the left. You paint with a very broad brush. Absolutely some left wing ideas create a sense of entitlement or dependence which I do not think is right or healthy. Some right wing ideas encourage independence, certainly smaller government and the creation of wealth and that has many positives. They can however broaden the gap between the haves and the have nots. I would like to see everyone get a fair crack of the whip to change that, that means opportunities, not hand outs in my mind.

Anyway this is getting onto a tangent, the thread was about the erosion of free speech. From different perspectives we all seem keen to preserve it. There is disagreement about the source of the erosion and clearly the way to resolve it, but we have to start somewhere eh?

OK. If you relate to the general concept of equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcomes then perhaps you should think of yourself as somewhat more to the right than you may have thought. More: smaller government is probably into libertarian country.

Oh, and any broadening of the gap between haves and have nots might be a natural consequence of the fact that we none of us are actually equal in terms of productive value, a fact that has little to do with personal opportunities or individual hurdles. Might be, that is if there was actually any such broadening.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Shirley, we can use put it in the water with the Flouride or in the salt with the iodine.

Well we could, but where's the fun in that? And don't call me Shirley.

[HenryDorsetCase]

That summary of facts presented by the media is debateable too.... A very well documented flase flag that one....

America has actually been taken over by far left radical neo liberals, the type of people who voted for Obama over their own hipster white priveldge guilt (in their eyes). That's why so many people rebelled and voted in trump for old school no nonsense straight talking business action.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/ok.php#axzz4dSSGP7Kl

This is the thread that keeps on giving. That link is my "risky click of the day" TM

[Ulsterkiwi]

So, I've got to issue a partial retraction - the Studies I was thinking of were for Social Psychology - not HR specifically.

In case you are interested - they are these ones:

http://yoelinbar.net/papers/political_diversity.pdf
and
https://journals.cambridge.org/images/fileUpload/documents/Duarte-Haidt_BBS-D-14-00108_preprint.pdf

Now, I state a partial retraction - since I've seen a lot of HR departments strongly align with far-left principles (equality of Outcome, Diversity quotas, Unconscious Bias training etc.) and these are principles that are accepted in Leftist circles but mostly dismissed in right-wing circles.

To add to the discussion about Left Wing vs Right Wing - for me - sometimes the Left is right, sometimes the Right is Right.

And once again - Dropping Dr Peterson for some more Truth Bombs:

Thank you, yes I am interested. When I asked for evidence, it was because of curiosity. In one of my replies (to Ocean1 I think) I accepted that many academics held views that would be classed as left wing. What I fail to see is why that is a problem, certainly in the context of preserving free speech. Academics are often the first to defend the concept so it should be no surprise.
What really surprised me was the idea that admin and HR people are predominantly left wing. You have been gracious enough to retract (if only in part) that notion because it cannot be supported by actual evidence. An HR department aligning with far left principles because of the policies it conducts does not actually mean those working there hold to those principles. That is like saying everyone who works in MacDonalds thinks the only way to make a burger is to have a BigMac. Those policies will be set by others higher up, not the staff who operationalise them. How often did Rastuscat bemoan some of the laws he was expected to enforce?

Now, to the studies you linked to. One is an original piece of research the other is what I would call a review, an overview of what the current standing is around a topic of interest. No surprises, social psychologists are predominantly liberal/left wing. I enjoyed reading the papers. I don't read that many in this branch of psych. In the first some of the stats lay out what is classed as a correlation but the numbers do not indicate what I understand to be a strong correlation. Correlation is not an absolute or binary state. The numbers however are presented as being of statistical significance. In other words their evidence makes a pretty good case. What is ironic is that both are trying to address the issue of under-representation of conservative viewpoints in the discipline. Both sets of authors see this as a problem. Does this not speak for the value of constant critique and questioning? Anybody can read them now you have the links up there but here is one quote which to me sums up what both papers are arguing for:
"Even those who fundamentally disagree with conservatism will agree that silencing political opponents will not convert them. By excluding those who
disagree with (most of) us politically, we treat them unfairly, do ourselves a disservice, and ultimately damage the scientific credibility of our field."
I would suggest that is an argument in favour of freedom of speech.

Anyway, cheers, its refreshing to see something other that some random website being presented as supportive evidence to make a point.

[Ulsterkiwi]

Free speech is about an individuals right to speak his mind vs the rights of minorities, the rights of individuals is very much a rightwing thing.

Well I think its evident that there are different definitions being proposed as to what free speech is. Why do minorities have to be the enemy of free speech?
I would say there are quite a few left wing thinkers who would lay claim to ownership of the idea of individual rights. Plenty of right wing regimes have put the squeeze on individual rights.



I thought your questions where reasonably well answered by others.

well not really, you said this:


You're academic? Well that explains it.
Sometimes things are self evident.

Clearly the kinds people that go for the social sciences have a different mind set than those that go for real science.

I want to know what you mean by all that? What exactly is it you think you know about me and what I do?



Do you get warm fuzzy feeling in the bottom of your stomach whenever you say "equality"?
If we're all equally valued then how come we all don't get paid the same? e.g the gender pay gap.

You say that like being equally valued is a bad thing and then identify a negative symptom of the lack of that equality in society. So does that mean you can see a problem with some not being given a status they have earned?
No we are not equal, not everyone has exactly the same abilities, skills, opportunities etc I do think its a noble enough aspiration that we can expect the law and society to afford us equal value irrespective of our occupation, gender, race or ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, upbringing, education or political opinion. That value is not always demonstrated in financial reward for whatever work it is we do.
Knowledge, skillset, qualifications, level of responsibility and market demands are all reasonable ways to establish how much we are paid. However if I need assistance from the police or the justice system or the healthcare system, I do not believe the size of my pay packet should determine the service I receive is what I mean.
If I were a gay women performing a role often fulfilled by straight men, those factors should not be the determinant of my pay packet. Can I do the job as well? Then give me the same pay and conditions as anyone else.
Do I get the job because I am a gay women looking for a job normally done by straight men? Definitely not. Give me the job if I am qualified and have the necessary skills irrespective of those other things.

Warm and fuzzy? No, more like frustration that in the 21st century we are still having these arguments.

[Ulsterkiwi]

OK. If you relate to the general concept of equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcomes then perhaps you should think of yourself as somewhat more to the right than you may have thought. More: smaller government is probably into libertarian country.

Oh, and any broadening of the gap between haves and have nots might be a natural consequence of the fact that we none of us are actually equal in terms of productive value, a fact that has little to do with personal opportunities or individual hurdles. Might be, that is if there was actually any such broadening.

Yes I do. And its amusing to me that you persist in thinking I think of myself as being left wing. Not that its anybody's business but my own but my voting patterns would say quite the opposite.

That may be the case yes, but you do concede its not absolutely clear there is no relationship?
A nurse brings productive value yes? Give her a 1% payrise on her $60k salary. That's an extra $600 a year, less tax. It doesn't even match inflation.
The chief executive of a council will also bring productive value. They earn say $360k. When is the last time you heard of a CEO getting 1%? Usually its more like 10% so that's a rise of $36k, over half the nurses total salary as a rise!
The nurse will likely work the same number of hours, might have to buy their own uniform has a workload that might compromise their physicality in years to come and have the responsibility of an individuals life on a regular basis.
Am I saying nurses should be paid $360k per year, absolutely not. Not everyone has a to drive a Mercedes. I am saying they should not have to worry about paying the rent and the power bill. The gap between the haves and have nots could be as simple as that.

[Voltaire]

I think the OP was really concerned about free speech he would change his User Name to his real name and with a passport photo as an avatar.:rolleyes:

[OddDuck]

Late to the thread...

A couple of thoughts:

People instinctively entrench whenever challenged. They have to. The alternative is to spend a lifetime being bossed around, by everybody.

Arguments are not really about the facts. Not for normal people. Arguments are primarily about egos, who's most sure of themselves, who's going to get angriest and who's going to back down first, etc etc... arguments are about sorting out who's in charge. This is why it is so important to not listen to the other guy. If you start agreeing with what he's saying then you look weak. *

* unless the audience to the argument are informed experts. Then the facts actually do matter and anyone throwing an ego around just looks like an idiot.

Free speech, in a western democracy, depends on being repeated, transmitted, broadcast and passed on. We don't have time to question every single person for their experience or opinion on every single issue, plus it doesn't tend to make for good copy. Midfield is boring. Extreme viewpoints, though... these make for news that sells. This is why every debate (in the West at least) rapidly devolves into polarised camps at opposed ends of the spectrum.

If you talked to everyone, you'd get a gaussian bell curve, with most people in the middle somewhere. If you believe the media, it's either one extreme or the other. The issue doesn't matter, this is what always happens and it gets worse the longer it runs. Just look at politics in the USA, it's incredibly binary - it's either one, or the other. Never the twain shall meet. Fight, fight, fight. Etc etc...

(this is purely my opinion here) Free speech works brilliantly, if everyone speaks, and if everyone has the same air time. There are extremists, there are always extremists, but if they're 1% of the population and they get 1% of the air time, then they're highly unlikely to have serious clout in a debate. If they get 50% of the airtime then suddenly a tiny group wields disproportionate power. Problems follow.

[Katman]

People instinctively entrench whenever challenged. They have to. The alternative is to spend a lifetime being bossed around, by everybody.

Arguments are not really about the facts. Not for normal people. Arguments are primarily about egos, who's most sure of themselves, who's going to get angriest and who's going to back down first, etc etc... arguments are about sorting out who's in charge. This is why it is so important to not listen to the other guy. If you start agreeing with what he's saying then you look weak.

And it goes beyond that too.

When people's contributions to an argument are validly rebutted they will often give up on the argument and simply fall back on the option of trying to besmirch their opponent's name in order to silence them.

For example (and I use this example simply as an example - not as any means to direct this thread onto another subject).....

The claim that I'm a 'holocaust denier' is not true. I simply question the scale and accuracy of the 'holocaust' story we have been told. But by labeling me a 'holocaust denier' others hope that the weight of public indignation will silence me.

It's an exceedingly poor method of trying to win an argument.

[Katman]

And before any moderator sees my previous post as an excuse to move this thread to PD, I'm simply pointing out the method many people will use in order to try silencing free speech.

[Katman]

And in the same manner, the term 'conspiracy theorist' is thrown around as nothing more than a pathetic attempt to win an argument by ridicule.

[TheDemonLord]

The claim that I'm a 'holocaust denier' is not true. I simply question the scale and accuracy of the 'holocaust' story we have been told. But by labeling me a 'holocaust denier' others hope that the weight of public indignation will silence me.



Holocaust denial is the act of denying the genocide of Jews and other groups in the Holocaust during World War II.[1] Holocaust denial often includes the following claims: that Nazi Germany's Final Solution was aimed only at deporting Jews from the Reich, but that it did not include the extermination of Jews; that Nazi authorities did not use extermination camps and gas chambers to mass murder Jews; and/or that the actual number of Jews killed was significantly lower than the historically accepted figure of 5 to 6 million, typically around a tenth of that figure.[2][3][4]

your 'questioning' is to deny that the evidence used to support the historically accurate account is valid.


Most Holocaust denial claims imply, or openly state, that the Holocaust is an exaggeration and/or a hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other peoples

So Tell me about the Zionist greater plan one more time Katman? Or what about the attempts at global control by the Jews (such as the IMF)?

Edit: I'm sure Husaberg will be along shortly with a highlight reel of Katman's greatest Anti-Semitic Hits.

I think the problem here is you don't like that your shit stinks and sticks to the bowl.

[Katman]

So Tell me about the Zionist greater plan one more time Katman? Or what about the attempts at global control by the Jews (such as the IMF)?

Like I said, I didn't raise the point in order to take the thread off on a tangent.

If you want to further discuss something we can easily do so in the appropriate thread.

[TheDemonLord]

Like I said, I didn't raise the point in order to take the thread off on a tangent.

If you want to further discuss something we can easily do so in the appropriate thread.

https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/176336-Short-amp-sweet-summary-of-the-hypocrisy-of-Syrian-situation?p=1130910092#post1130910092

And I raised the point to show that what you think you do, and what you actually do are two non-overlapping magisteria.

The fact you claim not to be a Holocaust Denier whilst in the same post giving a textbook example of Holocaust Denial.....

[Ulsterkiwi]

so this thread has now gone to shit
I should know better than to look to KB to stretch my frontal cortex.....

[yokel]

https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/176336-Short-amp-sweet-summary-of-the-hypocrisy-of-Syrian-situation?p=1130910092#post1130910092

And I raised the point to show that what you think you do, and what you actually do are two non-overlapping magisteria.

The fact you claim not to be a Holocaust Denier whilst in the same post giving a textbook example of Holocaust Denial.....

You can't be a "denire" of something that never happened.
It's more of a case of be a non believer in the holocaust conspiracy.

[yokel]

I think the OP was really concerned about free speech he would change his User Name to his real name and with a passport photo as an avatar.:rolleyes:

The reason why someone may choose to be anonymous is because we don't currently have free speech.

[Katman]

so this thread has now gone to shit


Are you really suggesting you can't see the relevance in my explanation of one of the ways free speech is being stifled?

I could have used the example, from a number of years ago, of me trying to suggest that motorcyclists take a good hard look at themselves and threads disappearing off into PD land due to the weight of mass Kiwibiker indignation.

Would that have kept you happier?

[Zedder]

so this thread has now gone to shit
I should know better than to look to KB to stretch my frontal cortex.....


Yep, I'd suggest it's a good time for a motorcycle ride about now, I'm going.

[TheDemonLord]

Are you really suggesting you can't see the relevance in my explanation of one of the ways free speech is being stifled?

I could have used the example, from a number of years ago, of me trying to suggest that motorcyclists take a good hard look at themselves and threads disappearing off into PD land due to the weight of mass Kiwibiker indignation.

Would that have kept you happier?

Except it isn't being Stifled, Is it?

You've posted exactly what you wanted to Post.

I've interpreted what you've posted, disagreed with it, and Posted a Rebuttal.

You don't like the rebuttal because it shows you in a negative light.

You also don't like the concept that maybe it's your actions that result in threads going to PD....

[Ulsterkiwi]

Are you really suggesting you can't see the relevance in my explanation of one of the ways free speech is being stifled?

I could have used the example, from a number of years ago, of me trying to suggest that motorcyclists take a good hard look at themselves and threads disappearing off into PD land due to the weight of mass Kiwibiker indignation.

Would that have kept you happier?

grow up Katman. If you want to question the veracity of the holocaust at whatever level that is your perogative. Asking for evidence to support the historical accuracy of how it is recorded is fine by me, in fact I wish people would do this more often.
From my perspective, based on eye witness accounts, photographic and film evidence and the minor detail of millions of people gone missing there is no doubt it happened and was on a scale that can only be referred to as attempted genocide. Does it matter how many million people died in the camps? (plenty of people other than jews) The tragedy is that it happened. The truly sad thing is humanity has allowed it (attempted genocide) to happen again, look at the African continent for examples.

Why does my comment have to be about you anyway? I was referring to TDL giving in to the temptation to being drawn into yet another personal sparring match.

Sending me a message that I am thin skinned and questioning what I do was petty.

The discussion was supposed to be about the erosion of free speech, you are so caught up with being a victim you seem to have failed to notice that I will defend anyone's right to speak their mind and express their ideas. The weight of evidence should decide the matter not vitriol, ad hominem, hearsay and scare mongering.

[Katman]

Why does my comment have to be about you anyway? I was referring to TDL giving in to the temptation to being drawn into yet another personal sparring match.

Then, with respect, perhaps being a little more specific may have helped.

[Ulsterkiwi]

Then, with respect, perhaps being a little more specific may have helped.

True.

I posted after TDL's reaction to your example. Not after your example. A use of the reply-with-quote tool would have been better.

[Banditbandit]

Nothing new here ... go read Gramsci ... he explained it all way back in the last century ..

[TheDemonLord]

Why does my comment have to be about you anyway? I was referring to TDL giving in to the temptation to being drawn into yet another personal sparring match.

What can I say, I'm an argumentative Sod...

But back on topic - I'm still waiting for Katman to demonstrate how me naming him exactly what he is a limitation on his free speech.

[Ulsterkiwi]

What can I say, I'm an argumentative Sod...

can't be having that.....

[TheDemonLord]

can't be having that.....

Don't you be telling me what I can and can't do you Fascist!


:laugh::laugh:

[Katman]

But back on topic - I'm still waiting for Katman to demonstrate how me naming him exactly what he is a limitation on his free speech.

Once again, as with Woodman, yours and my definitions are clearly different.

[TheDemonLord]

Once again, as with Woodman, yours and my definitions are clearly different.

Clearly...

[Katman]

Another explanation of how to stifle free speech.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/D0kWAqZxJVE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[TheDemonLord]

Another explanation of how to stifle free speech.

Except you still have to demonstrate how me (or anyone else) calling the views that you have expressed Anti-Semitic is a limitation on your freedom of Speech

Especially since it occurs AFTER you have exorcised that Freedom.

Me calling you an Anti-Semite is not an attempt to Censure you, It's describing what you are.

Or perhaps a way that you might understand:

You call me 'Shitforbrains' - yet I'm not here having a whinge and a sook that you are trying to limit my Freedom of Speech....


Also - Bonus Irony points: in a Thread about Free Speech after you complained that others are trying to derail it, are repeatedly bringing up Israel, the Jews and the Holocaust.....

It's almost like you can't help yourself

[Katman]

Also - Bonus Irony points: in a Thread about Free Speech after you complained that others are trying to derail it, are repeatedly bringing up Israel, the Jews and the Holocaust.....

It's almost like you can't help yourself

The thread's about free speech and the attempts to stifle it.

My posts are entirely applicable.

[trufflebutter]

''and I thought of Kiwibiker''.

It is with certainty that I say ''you obviously think of little else''. Signs of complete devotion @ almost 20,000 posts.

[Katman]

''and I thought of Kiwibiker''.

It is with certainty that I say ''you obviously think of little else''. Signs of complete devotion @ almost 20,000 posts.

Is that you Maha?

[TheDemonLord]

The thread's about my attempts to play a Victim.

My posts are entirely predictable.

Fixed for accuracy.

[Scubbo]

governments definitely turning the screws to silence opinions and making huge efforts to stop the internet from being a soapbox to stand on for freedom of speech -- germany is fast destroying their own inhabitants rights for those of others, such a joke in europe / middle east population creep changing their everyday lives and germans have to stand by while their government gives them more rights than those born there -- https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/07/german_social_media_hate_speech_takedown_law/

I fear NZ is going down the same path with china investment in infrastructure and supply, soon us common nz'ers will know what the maori have been bitching about for so long :shifty:

[Voltaire]

The reason why someone may choose to be anonymous is because we don't currently have free speech.

Oh and here I was thinking it was to hide behind and say daft things :msn-wink:

Winning an argument on KB is like two bald men fighting over a comb.

[HenryDorsetCase]

The reason why someone may choose to be anonymous is because we don't currently have free speech.

don't confuse "free speech" and "hate speech" there champ. Hint: one is OK, one is not.

[Scubbo]

hate speech is just a tool for censorship... words havent harmed anyone --- they're just vibrations from your vocal cords passed through your mouth afterall ---- when a person goes and then phsycailly assaults someone then yes that should be illegal, not the talking smack part........................ :girlfight:

[TheDemonLord]

hate speech is just a tool for censorship... words havent harmed anyone --- they're just vibrations from your vocal cords passed through your mouth afterall ---- when a person goes and then phsycailly assaults someone then yes that should be illegal, not the talking smack part........................ :girlfight:

What about the person standing upon a palpit commanding people to go and Physically Assault people?

[Scubbo]

people have the freedom not to do as he says.... its when he gives them no ultimatum... usually through dictatorial force, that it needs to be dealt with --- but then again, is that not what the government / law enforcement do now? -- which brings me back to, the government IS trying to reduce your freedom of speech to have more control over you.

[TheDemonLord]

people have the freedom not to do as he says.... its when he gives them no ultimatum... usually through dictatorial force, that it needs to be dealt with --- but then again, is that not what the government / law enforcement do now? -- which brings me back to, the government IS trying to reduce your freedom of speech to have more control over you.

So this is quite interesting (at least to me) I can think of a few instances where the persuasion to commit violence has come without (or before) dictatorial force.

but to put that aside for a minute:

What is your thoughts on the classic limitation on Free Speech of yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre?

(government and tyranny aside)

[Voltaire]

What about the person standing upon a palpit commanding people to go and Physically Assault people?

Like that ever happens...

" ___________* is a peaceful religion

* insert invisible friend cult name here.

[Scubbo]

would be ostracized from the community if he carried on that way....

[Woodman]

The thread's about me shooting myself in the foot.

My posts are entirely applicable.

fixed as well.......

[husaberg]

hate speech is just a tool for censorship... words havent harmed anyone --- they're just vibrations from your vocal cords passed through your mouth afterall ---- when a person goes and then phsycailly assaults someone then yes that should be illegal, not the talking smack part........................ :girlfight:

What about people ordering other to do things is that just vibrations as well.
Words don't harm anyone really? So psychological damage is just a theory then?
How well do you think you would you have turned out if daily you were the subject of constant verbal abuse.
Hate speech is a tool of oppression.

[scumdog]

I'm off to see the Dixie Chicks tomorrow.
THEY could tell you something about 'free speech'

[husaberg]

fixed as well.......

No it should be more like this

The thread's about to strokng my ego.
My posts are entirely predicable.
LOOK at me..........

[BuzzardNZ]

No it should be more like this

You two are kinda carrying on like Bogan and Ed, but the retard versions! :yawn:

[husaberg]

You two are kinda carrying on like Bogan and Ed, but the retard versions! :yawn:

Coolstorybro......................

[yokel]

don't confuse "free speech" and "hate speech" there champ. Hint: one is OK, one is not.

And one is a good idea the other is a stupid leftist idea, hence why all the Marxists like the human rights commission is calling for more speech controlling powers, which is pretty much why this current debate is in the public sphere.

"Hate speech" was implemented by the soviets, seen as they were the one's that liberated the jews from forced labour camps like Auschwitz and come up with or went along holocaust narrative.

FYI, the people of Germany were completely unaware that the alleged "Holocaust" was going on.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hBATlxWuW5U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Zedder]

I'm off to see the Dixie Chicks tomorrow.
THEY could tell you something about 'free speech'


The land of the free..........TUI!

[pritch]

And in the same manner, the term 'conspiracy theorist' is thrown around as nothing more than a pathetic attempt to win an argument by ridicule.

I'm not aware of the holocaust denier situation. I've seen reference to it but must have missed the origins.

The term conspiracy theorist is not always "thrown around". More than once I've posted the list of symptoms common to conspiracy theorists. I'd assume, perhaps wrongly, that you didn't read it. You should, it will be like looking in a mirror.

If somebody is exhibiting a number of the behaviours listed they should expect to get called on it.

[Drew]

This whole thread is just you having a whinge that everyone thinks you're a cock with dumb as fuck ideas.

Nobody is denying your right to free speach ya fuckwit, your threads go to PD because the shit you talk IS pointless dribble.

So toughen up princess, you'll get fuck all support by wanking on that it's political.

Cunt.

[Drew]

I'm not aware of the holocaust denier situation. I've seen reference to it but must have missed the origins.

The term conspiracy theorist is not always "thrown around". More than once I've posted the list of symptoms common to conspiracy theorists. I'd assume, perhaps wrongly, that you didn't read it. You should, it will be like looking in a mirror.

If somebody is exhibiting a number of the behaviours listed they should expect to get called on it.

The fuckwit says that millions of Jews weren't gassed. Now he's playing on semantics to back pedal.

[Katman]

I trust people are paying attention to the way this thread's playing out.

[Woodman]

I trust people are paying attention to the way this thread's playing out.

Well you started it..............

[Drew]

I trust people are paying attention to the way this thread's playing out.

No one says you're not free to be as big a fucktard as you are. Quite the opposite.

That you feel it to be oppression because no one agrees with you suggests an actual psychosis.

[pritch]

seen as they were the one's that liberated the jews from forced labour camps like Auschwitz and come up with or went along holocaust narrative.


You really haven't got a fucking clue have you. British troops liberated concentration camps too. Depending on the geographic location I guess.


FYI, the people of Germany were completely unaware that the alleged "Holocaust" was going on.


Yeah, I'd say that if I was a German then too. Never mind the train loads of people just vanishing into a camp that never started to overflow, and ignoring the strange smells.

Freedom of speech is a fine idea, but you are an example of the down side.

[Katman]

No one says you're not free to be as big a fucktard as you are. Quite the opposite.

That you feel it to be oppression because no one agrees with you suggests an actual psychosis.

You don't actually understand the first post in the thread, do you Drew?

[bogan]

The thread's about free speech and the attempts to stifle it.

My posts are entirely applicable.

Shirley, by that logic then the 'attempts to stifle' it are also applicable.

I mean FFS, you still don't get it do you? free speech means one person doesn't get to decide what is applicable or not for everyone else.


You two are kinda carrying on like Bogan and Ed, but the more retarderhead versions! :yawn:

FTFY


I trust people are paying attention to the way this thread's playing out.

Exactly the way they predicted it to, and apart from yourself and other conspiracy theorists, exactly the way they wanted it to ;)

[Woodman]

You don't actually understand the first post in the thread, do you Drew?

I think Drew probarbly understands it better than you. In fact I think every participant* in this thread understands it better than you.


*except yokel, he is 9.

[husaberg]

I trust people are paying attention to the way this thread's playing out.

The threads playing out as all the threads you are involved with do.

You are just a hypocrite troll. Perpetually posting stuff merely for attention.
As for the allegations that there is some sort of conspiracy involving the mods against you. What does your sibling who actually is a forum mod say about it.
Surely she has the inside scoop. Or is she in on it as well?

Ps i really enjoyed the post where you accused others of using your own tired out lame put downs Ie retard, fucking moron, moron etc..
That was a stroke of utter brilliance ,narcissism level Katman.