|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Mar 27, 2023 15:04:41 GMT 12
Your reading way to much into it, they just had enough of your shit. harrytom was unable to handle it when I responded to his behavior in kind and to resort to blocking is a sign of weak character. He seems to think that it's OK to call me a DuckFucker, but then he can't handle it when he was called a dumb cunt. He seems to think it's OK to spread misinformation and then can't handle it when he is corrected not once, but multiple times on different topics. |
|
|
|
Post by sabre on Mar 27, 2023 15:15:12 GMT 12
Its always healthy to hear differing views and opinions but dilusional unhinged rantings not so much.
|
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Mar 27, 2023 16:46:02 GMT 12
Its always healthy to hear differing views and opinions but dilusional unhinged rantings not so much. I completely agree with you that it is important to hear differing views and opinions. Exposing oneself to different perspectives and ideas can broaden one's horizons and help in developing a better understanding of the world around us. It can also help us to challenge our own biases and preconceived notions. However, there is a difference between a well-reasoned argument and a delusional unhinged ranting. While the former can be thought-provoking and constructive, the latter can be disruptive and counterproductive. Delusional unhinged rantings can often be characterized by irrationality, lack of coherence, and an unwillingness to engage with evidence or logic. They can also be accompanied with profanity, which can be intimidating or offensive to others. It is important to be able to distinguish between legitimate disagreements and unhinged rantings. The former can be valuable and productive, while the latter can be harmful and detrimental to discourse. By maintaining a respectful and constructive approach to discourse, we can create an environment where diverse perspectives can be heard and considered, ultimately leading to greater understanding and progress. harrytom chose to spread misinformation and direct abusive language towards me. It was particularly disappointing to hear his delusional and unhinged rant about the circumstances under which police could enter one's home. Despite being presented with evidence that contradicted his claims, he chose to take a childish approach and block the individual who provided the correct information. |
|
|
|
Post by GO30 on Mar 27, 2023 18:55:19 GMT 12
Its always healthy to hear differing views and opinions but dilusional unhinged rantings not so much. I completely agree with you that it is important to hear differing views and opinions. Exposing oneself to different perspectives and ideas can broaden one's horizons and help in developing a better understanding of the world around us. It can also help us to challenge our own biases and preconceived notions. However, there is a difference between a well-reasoned argument and a delusional unhinged ranting. While the former can be thought-provoking and constructive, the latter can be disruptive and counterproductive. Delusional unhinged rantings can often be characterized by irrationality, lack of coherence, and an unwillingness to engage with evidence or logic. They can also be accompanied with profanity, which can be intimidating or offensive to others. It is important to be able to distinguish between legitimate disagreements and unhinged rantings. The former can be valuable and productive, while the latter can be harmful and detrimental to discourse. By maintaining a respectful and constructive approach to discourse, we can create an environment where diverse perspectives can be heard and considered, ultimately leading to greater understanding and progress. harrytom chose to spread misinformation and direct abusive language towards me. It was particularly disappointing to hear his delusional and unhinged rant about the circumstances under which police could enter one's home. Despite being presented with evidence that contradicted his claims, he chose to take a childish approach and block the individual who provided the correct information. While I'm a bit in there with you on this I'm not sure you're explaining yourself that well.
I believe Harrytom sees you as a unhinged ranter just as you see him as one.
The phrase 'unhinged rantings' is subjective so you can both be right and both also be wrong which leads to no where really.
Also in these days where the term 'misinformation' has been fully weaponised I'm not seeing that grade of it going on here, I just see a miss-understanding.
Strangely enough it wasn't that long ago the only mob who could rock into your house without warning or warrant was Customs. These days even private companies have more access to your property most know.
|
|
|
|
Post by armchairadmiral on Mar 27, 2023 18:58:48 GMT 12
They're slowly peeling away our rights and freedoms .All in our best interests of course. With information gleaned from the census
|
|
|
|
Post by GO30 on Mar 27, 2023 19:02:24 GMT 12
You know when the 3rd most common religion is Jedi, most don't take it that seriously and have little issue fudging responses.
Hell I went out of my way to be as accurate as I could yet I got hounded. That taught me to just put anything that a Govt womble will be OK with.
|
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Mar 27, 2023 19:54:23 GMT 12
I completely agree with you that it is important to hear differing views and opinions. Exposing oneself to different perspectives and ideas can broaden one's horizons and help in developing a better understanding of the world around us. It can also help us to challenge our own biases and preconceived notions. However, there is a difference between a well-reasoned argument and a delusional unhinged ranting. While the former can be thought-provoking and constructive, the latter can be disruptive and counterproductive. Delusional unhinged rantings can often be characterized by irrationality, lack of coherence, and an unwillingness to engage with evidence or logic. They can also be accompanied with profanity, which can be intimidating or offensive to others. It is important to be able to distinguish between legitimate disagreements and unhinged rantings. The former can be valuable and productive, while the latter can be harmful and detrimental to discourse. By maintaining a respectful and constructive approach to discourse, we can create an environment where diverse perspectives can be heard and considered, ultimately leading to greater understanding and progress. harrytom chose to spread misinformation and direct abusive language towards me. It was particularly disappointing to hear his delusional and unhinged rant about the circumstances under which police could enter one's home. Despite being presented with evidence that contradicted his claims, he chose to take a childish approach and block the individual who provided the correct information. While I'm a bit in there with you on this I'm not sure you're explaining yourself that well.
I believe Harrytom sees you as a unhinged ranter just as you see him as one.
The phrase 'unhinged rantings' is subjective so you can both be right and both also be wrong which leads to no where really.
Also in these days where the term 'misinformation' has been fully weaponised I'm not seeing that grade of it going on here, I just see a miss-understanding.
Strangely enough it wasn't that long ago the only mob who could rock into your house without warning or warrant was Customs. These days even private companies have more access to your property most know.
I agree with your term and I like the term mis-understandings :-) I will have to disagree with your "mis-understanding" ;-) (see what I did then)... It was, and, (arguably), still is, the IRD. They have the most absolute power out of any agency in NZ. It is enshrined in legislation and has been since the dawn of tax. Under the Tax Administration Act, IR investigators may enter any properly or building, and take anything they deem is required to enforce tax obligations. The TAA also infers that a subject of investigation is guilty until they prove their innocence. The IRD do require warrants to enter private property, but, and here's the beauty of the system, the attorney general can appoint individuals under the employment of IR to be able to issue those warrants, so while yes technically the IRD still require a warrant, it's not really a warrant with the checks and balances that we generally have come to expect of warrants like the police use. Protection of the tax base is the top priority for government and the legislation is designed to ensure that. Maybe of most relevance to this community, (cause we are all tax abiding citizens), a fishery officer does not need a warrant to search your vehicle, belongings or home if they have reasonable grounds to believe you are hiding illegally caught fish or other sea life. Lots of agencies have warrantless search and enter powers - all supported by the checks and balances AFTER the fact. The theory being that if their powers are abused then the abusing agency risks loosing that power. |
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Mar 27, 2023 20:36:23 GMT 12
This whole discussion about power to enter reminds me of a situation I was personally involved in about 20 years ago.
I got approached by a client to recover money from an ex-business partner. We got a judge to issue an Anton Piller order (if you don't know what that is, it's basically a private search and seize warrant that is approved and signed under secrecy).
The Anton Piller order was extremely clear on what we could and could not take and what we could and could not do with the information. Specifically, we could only take one particular computer from the respondent's study, and we were not allowed to disclose any information we found on the hard drive to anyone except the judge residing over the civil case and he would decide what was relevant.
We arrived with the police and after a brief argument and hustle with the respondent, who was detained to keep him from getting in our way, we got our hands on his computer where we secured the evidence, copying it all under continual video cameras and secured the chain of evidence into three separate evidence bags. The police took one copy and we got two copies. One went in our vault under Queen Street still sealed in its evidence bag, and the other we took back to the lab where we opened it and started doing a full forensic examination. To our surprise, it turned out the guy had child pornography on the drive.
Now, this is a big issue because at this point, we are technically in breach of the law - it's illegal to possess it end of story, it doesn't matter how you came into contact with it. Worse, we had this order from a high court judge telling us that we absolutely were not allowed to share anything on the drive that was unrelated to the specific investigation, or we would find ourselves in contempt of court - which basically means they can throw the key away and lock us up for as long as they want. So this was a pretty shitty place to find ourselves.
Not knowing what to do and panicking quite a bit, I got on the phone and rang a lawyer friend who knew much more than me at the time and asked them some "hypothetical" questions. They explained that a judge can't overrule the law, no court order can go against the legislation. So with that as our guiding principle, I rang another colleague at DIA who we had dealt with before and asked him some "hypothetical" questions about what would happen if we had suddenly discovered we were in possession of child pornography. He cottoned on straight away, assured us we would be fine, and sent over some agents to collect and debrief us.
Needless to say, the judge was SUPER pissed at us. But a DIA lawyer who very kindly rocked up to our next court session set everything straight and actually politely put the judge in his place. Unfortunately, my client never got a dime after spending $10k in proceedings, because the subsequent charges that the DIA bought pretty much bankrupted the defendant. They called it poetic justice and were happy with the outcome.
Those were the good old days before the cloud came along and ruined everything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fogg on Mar 30, 2023 18:09:41 GMT 12
Had a door knocker turn up the other day saying I was “non-compliant”. I gave them an excuse that made them go away. Result = taken off the list.
|
|
|
|
Post by eri on Mar 31, 2023 8:03:21 GMT 12
There have been mounting concerns over labour staffer's abuse of the OIA for years
"Dr Greg Treadwell from AUT said there is “plenty” of evidence to show officials resist releasing information which might damage their MP, while there appeared to be flawed and illogical thinking behind withholding the email, the existence of which Stuff revealed on Tuesday."
|
|
|
|
Post by eri on Apr 3, 2023 20:26:41 GMT 12
so chippy can't define a woman
can he define a man or maori?
if not
you'd think an excellent defence for census non-participation
was that if even the prime minister, effective head of census, couldn't define the terms
how on earth could anyone else!
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Apr 4, 2023 11:50:41 GMT 12
so chippy can't define a woman can he define a man or maori? if not you'd think an excellent defence for census non-participation was that if even the prime minister, effective head of census, couldn't define the terms how on earth could anyone else! Did you see the video of the question? He was just standing there blinking. Then said he wasn't expecting the question. Slip of the tongue on all the other journo's being paid $55m and putting up pre-arranged questions. But he was basically saying he needed to be briefed by his officials on what a woman was. Classic. Can't think for himself, clearly. Then, his next response that it was biology, then started back tracking and referring to the ability to change your gender. All he had to say was "all the bits to have a baby"... |
|
|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Apr 4, 2023 12:00:42 GMT 12
so chippy can't define a woman can he define a man or maori? if not you'd think an excellent defence for census non-participation was that if even the prime minister, effective head of census, couldn't define the terms how on earth could anyone else! Did you see the video of the question? He was just standing there blinking. Then said he wasn't expecting the question. Slip of the tongue on all the other journo's being paid $55m and putting up pre-arranged questions. But he was basically saying he needed to be briefed by his officials on what a woman was. Classic. Can't think for himself, clearly. Then, his next response that it was biology, then started back tracking and referring to the ability to change your gender. All he had to say was "all the bits to have a baby"... Not only Hipkins, remember the USA Senate confirmation hearing for Supreme Court candidate Ketanji Brown Jackson www.politico.com/news/2022/03/22/blackburn-jackson-define-the-word-woman-00019543 |
|
|
|
Post by eri on Apr 4, 2023 15:34:17 GMT 12
chippy was the classic deer in the headlights
wonder if he'll be being briefed even now on the waffle required to duck that question when it comes again
and it should come again
again and again and again
until he can give a sensible answer in accordance with nz law
remove all rights for all genders + races
make us all equal in the eyes of the law and gov.
not this
"i demand all the common rights of everyone!
and the special rights reserved for a special group, which also means i don't have to fulfill all the responsibilities of everyone
|
|
|
|
Post by eri on Apr 4, 2023 16:14:44 GMT 12
rankin on gender vs. sex The objective science of sex is simple, and genetic. Males have a Y-sex-chromosome as well as an X-sex-chromosome; females instead have two X-sex-chromosomes.
Confusion exists because there is a different concept, ‘gender’, which also uses male-female categorisation. When it is necessary to avoid confusion, a person’s sex may be characterised as their ‘genetic sex’ (or ‘reproductive sex’) rather than their biological sex; this is because ‘gender’ may also have a biological basis, and some people whose gender differs from their sex may gave gained this gender variation at conception, in the womb before birth, or even in the birth process itself.The principal issue in today’s culture war, as I see it, is the determination of a small group of people to eradicate the demographic concept of sex – of genetic sex, of XY sex – as an identity marker.
The most poignant moment that I saw in the television coverage of the events in Auckland on Saturday (refer to Bryce Edwards and Chris Trotter above) was of an older (though not elderly) woman – probably dismissed by the cultural radicals as a TERF – with a placard which simply read:
XX = female
XY = male
Completely and incontestably true. The foundation facts of reproductive biology. And not in any way inflammatory.
Yet this placard-holder was crowded out, disrespectfully, by others a generation-and-a-half younger than her. Few people with access to the news media that most people see or hear have spoken-up to support her message. “Bad things happen when good people remain silent.”
And to those who unknowingly or knowingly aggravate the problems which they claim to be addressing, remember the first law of holes: ‘Stop digging’.
Like other wars, culture wars drag on because few protagonists of these conflicts have a vision for what success actually looks like. If you must instigate or perpetuate a culture war, then please at least lay out your vision of your utopia.
In particular, how should your cultural enemies live and behave? Should your cultural enemies live?eveningreport.nz/2023/03/30/keith-rankin-analysis-sex-gender-demography-and-culture-wars/ |
|
