EU proposing new AV rules: More European streaming content, stricter Anti-Hate rules

[N3v3r3nding_N3wb]

18 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

I am not in favor of oppressing civil liberties, just pointing out [1]we have laws that do that and to date they haven't snowballed into chaos.  [2] You should look up scientific consensus. It is the act of considering all the evidence, not just one or two studies.  Also you should check out how the peer review system works.  [3]Even after publication studies are scrutinized and often withdrawn when they are wrong. 

[1]Sure, maybe not all them have, but some have -- one group in particular, the oft-cited hate speech laws. They have made it possible to create the ridiculous and despicable civil rights tribunals in Canada, bill C16, and the blasphemy law (that one hasn't passed yet, but it does have strong support). Also, in lots, even most, of European countries, people are prosecuted or at least harassed by the state for speaking out against Islam and/or mass immigration. In the U.S., while it hasn't been widely introduced into law yet, on college campuses, in schools, etc., there are ridiculous and nebulous anti-hate speech laws that are used to silence the opposition and to threaten people with whole manners of things. Online -- YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Google searches, etc. -- are all actively silencing and handicapping conservatives, right wingers, classical liberals, anyone who disagrees with their policies, all in the name of the hate speech laws. This goes to show that adding more power to the government's ability to censor is an awful idea, even if it's (supposedly) predicated on good intentions (stopping people from being hateful). Another such law set is the anti-terrorism laws. They are aimed at stopping terrorism, but instead are used to invade citizens' privacy and have undeniably infringed on personal liberty. Yet another example is the gun control laws. They're aimed at reducing gun crime, but instead decrease the safety of the non-criminal citizenry. All of these show examples of laws that were supposed to do a very specific thing, and instead have failed spectacularly and now just make the citizenry less vulnerable. That is reason enough to not enact what you suggest -- I'd rather risk a few morons and their children than the rights of most or all citizens.

[2]Concerning the scientific consensus, even if you are forced to read all the available studies before you're allowed to participate in the decision, people will still be biased and argue for what they want to believe. There'll still be corruption, there'll still be massive problems; again, you're looking at this through a very idealistic lens.

[This is an aside about why your "best" comparison is a faulty one; it now quotes your most relevant post, as well]

Spoiler

"Hell, in most countries it is illegal for me to give financial advice when I profit from it (I.E recommending shares in a company I want to sell or own).  So why is it legal to give health advice when you profit the same.  How is giving false medical advice for profit (selling vitamins or affiliate links from a blog site) protected under free speech while giving financial advice isn't?"

Your comparison to the financial advice laws is a faulty parallel because those laws only restrict people from saying certain things that may be detrimental to others (still egregious in my mind, but not as bad as you're proposing), while this would essentially give a small number of people the power to be the sole arbiters of what is deemed scientific fact and truth.

[3]That last sentence also presents another problem: what will happen when a law is made, then our understanding of the issue evolves and we've wrongly imprisoned/fined people? How do you go about compensating them for potentially ruining their entire future? How would we deal with the relative frequency of this compared to other crimes?

 

Spoiler

because you are making points that are not in dispute and leveling arguments that make no sense in context with my propositions. 

Which specific arguments are off-base and/or nonsensical? I'm open to being wrong, but so far you have not provided me with any reason to make me think that I might be.

[Belgarathian]

On 5/25/2017 at 9:47 AM, mr moose said:

 

Science of feelings is pretty accurate in this case, the basic rundown is this:

 

Students (white) were using a computer lab set aside for indigenous students.  A lecturer asked them to move on and one of the students said it was racist to have a computer lab setup only for one race and not another.   Weeks later that lecturer made a complaint to the human rights commission in Australia under 18c and the students were asked to pay  a $5000 fine to the lecturer while the other two fought it (fortunately a lawyer heard about the case and wanted to fight it pro bono due the nature of the case).   IT was eventually thrown out, however it still cost them a lot to defend (time from school, stress and sundry expenses) their right to what everyone would consider a non offensive opinion on a practice that effects them directly.

 

 

To be fair, having a computer lab set aside for the use of one race is literally racist. Doesn't matter if you're white, black, brown, yellow, pink, purple, or blue, racism is racism. 

[N3v3r3nding_N3wb]

39 minutes ago, Belgarathian said:

To be fair, having a computer lab set aside for the use of one race is literally racist. Doesn't matter if you're... blue..

#smurfpower

#smurfmasterrace

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, N3v3r3nding_N3wb said:

Sure, maybe not all them have, but some have -- one group in particular, the oft-cited hate speech laws. They have made it possible to create the ridiculous and despicable civil rights tribunals in Canada, bill C16, and the blasphemy law (that one hasn't passed yet, but it does have strong support). Also, in lots, even most, of European countries, people are prosecuted or at least harassed by the state for speaking out against Islam and/or mass immigration. In the U.S., while it hasn't been widely introduced into law yet, on college campuses, in schools, etc., there are ridiculous and nebulous anti-hate speech laws that are used to silence the opposition and to threaten people with whole manners of things. Online -- YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Google searches, etc. -- are all actively silencing and handicapping conservatives, right wingers, classical liberals, anyone who disagrees with their policies, all in the name of the hate speech laws. This goes to show that adding more power to the government's ability to censor is an awful idea, even if it's predicated on good intentions.

Concerning the scientific consensus, even if you are forced to read all the available studies before you're allowed to participate in the decision, people will still be biased and argue for what they want to believe. There'll still be corruption, there'll still be massive problems; again, you're looking at this though a very idealistic lens. Further, your comparison to the financial advice laws is a faulty parallel because those laws only restrict people from saying certain things that may be detrimental to others (still egregious in my mind, but not as bad as you're proposing), while this would essentially give a small number of people the power to be the sole arbiters of what is deemed scientific fact and truth. That last sentence also presents another problem: what will happen when a law is made, then our understanding of the issue evolves and we've wrongly imprisoned/fined people? How do you go about compensating them for potentially ruining their entire future? How would we deal with the relative frequency of this compared to other crimes?

I think you had better go back and read over my posts again because you are making points that are not in dispute and leveling arguments that make no sense in context with my propositions. 

5 hours ago, Belgarathian said:

To be fair, having a computer lab set aside for the use of one race is literally racist. Doesn't matter if you're white, black, brown, yellow, pink, purple, or blue, racism is racism. 

Exactly why the laws we have have to be changed.

[N3v3r3nding_N3wb]

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

I think you had better go back and read over my posts again because you are making points that are not in dispute and leveling arguments that make no sense in context with my propositions. 

I definitely should've made what I was directing each point at much clearer, and for that I apologize, let me do that now. Soon, my post'll be edited, and that is what I mean to say.

[N3v3r3nding_N3wb]

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

-snip--

I am done.

[mr moose]

21 hours ago, N3v3r3nding_N3wb said:

[1]Sure, maybe not all them have, but some have -- one group in particular, the oft-cited hate speech laws. They have made it possible to create the ridiculous and despicable civil rights tribunals in Canada, bill C16, and the blasphemy law (that one hasn't passed yet, but it does have strong support). Also, in lots, even most, of European countries, people are prosecuted or at least harassed by the state for speaking out against Islam and/or mass immigration. In the U.S., while it hasn't been widely introduced into law yet, on college campuses, in schools, etc., there are ridiculous and nebulous anti-hate speech laws that are used to silence the opposition and to threaten people with whole manners of things. Online -- YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Google searches, etc. -- are all actively silencing and handicapping conservatives, right wingers, classical liberals, anyone who disagrees with their policies, all in the name of the hate speech laws. This goes to show that adding more power to the government's ability to censor is an awful idea, even if it's (supposedly) predicated on good intentions (stopping people from being hateful). Another such law set is the anti-terrorism laws. They are aimed at stopping terrorism, but instead are used to invade citizens' privacy and have undeniably infringed on personal liberty. Yet another example is the gun control laws. They're aimed at reducing gun crime, but instead decrease the safety of the non-criminal citizenry. All of these show examples of laws that were supposed to do a very specific thing, and instead have failed spectacularly and now just make the citizenry less vulnerable. That is reason enough to not enact what you suggest -- I'd rather risk a few morons and their children than the rights of most or all citizens.

[2]Concerning the scientific consensus, even if you are forced to read all the available studies before you're allowed to participate in the decision, people will still be biased and argue for what they want to believe. There'll still be corruption, there'll still be massive problems; again, you're looking at this through a very idealistic lens.

[This is an aside about why your "best" comparison is a faulty one; it now quotes your most relevant post, as well]

  Hide contents

"Hell, in most countries it is illegal for me to give financial advice when I profit from it (I.E recommending shares in a company I want to sell or own).  So why is it legal to give health advice when you profit the same.  How is giving false medical advice for profit (selling vitamins or affiliate links from a blog site) protected under free speech while giving financial advice isn't?"

Your comparison to the financial advice laws is a faulty parallel because those laws only restrict people from saying certain things that may be detrimental to others (still egregious in my mind, but not as bad as you're proposing), while this would essentially give a small number of people the power to be the sole arbiters of what is deemed scientific fact and truth.

[3]That last sentence also presents another problem: what will happen when a law is made, then our understanding of the issue evolves and we've wrongly imprisoned/fined people? How do you go about compensating them for potentially ruining their entire future? How would we deal with the relative frequency of this compared to other crimes?

 

  Hide contents

because you are making points that are not in dispute and leveling arguments that make no sense in context with my propositions. 

Which specific arguments are off-base and/or nonsensical? I'm open to being wrong, but so far you have not provided me with any reason to make me think that I might be.

 

The parallel to financial advice is very apt.  My proposal only effects health advice that is detrimental to others whilst being demonstrably wrong.  How is that different?

What happens when our understanding or the scientific consensus changes? Well, basically like all evidenced based medicine, promoting products or practices that align with the new evidence is fine, continuing to promote products or services shown to be dangerous becomes illegal.  I.E if the scientific consensus is that asbestos causes cancer, then promoting it as a health supplement should be illegal (at the time this is the consensus),  if the consensus changes (because the weight of evidence moves with new research) then the people may start promoting it.  There is no way in which people would be unfairly charged under a law based on outdated science because the law would only apply to current knowledge.   The law would basically hold people responsible for their actions based on the evidence of the time.  I don't think there is a logical way to argue that we should be allowed to promote a product or practice based on a feeling that the evidence will change in the future or that the discredited beliefs past hold any weight. 

 

 

 

[ace_cheaply]

20 hours ago, N3v3r3nding_N3wb said:

#smurfpower

#smurfmasterrace

You people ruin CS:GO for new players.  #AllSmurfs #smurfterrorism

[Eaglerino]

You can't ban hate speech and have free speech, it's rather disturbing to me they seem to be fine with that.

[N3v3r3nding_N3wb]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

The parallel to financial advice is very apt.  My proposal only effects health advice that is detrimental to others whilst being demonstrably wrong.  [1]How is that different?

What happens when our understanding or the scientific consensus changes? [2]Well, basically like all evidenced based medicine, promoting products or practices that align with the new evidence is fine, continuing to promote products or services shown to be dangerous becomes illegal.  I.E if the scientific consensus is that asbestos causes cancer, then promoting it as a health supplement should be illegal (at the time this is the consensus),  if the consensus changes (because the weight of evidence moves with new research) then the people may start promoting it.  There is no way in which people would be unfairly charged under a law based on outdated science because the law would only apply to current knowledge.   The law would basically hold people responsible for their actions based on the evidence of the time.  [3]I don't think there is a logical way to argue that we should be allowed to promote a product or practice based on a feeling that the evidence will change in the future or that the discredited beliefs past hold any weight. 

 

 

 

You are defending yourself on an ever-shrinking foothold. Whether you just haven't had time to respond to the rest or you simply don't have a rebuttal, I don't know, but I think that it's pretty showing as to how weak your position is if it's the latter.

 

[1]I already explained why it's different. It seems that you only read the introduction to my explanation of why it's a false parallel. I will reiterate myself, however. It is different because the financial law doesn't give the government the power to decide what is scientific truth. That is obviously a ridiculous escalation in government powers and will almost definitely be abused because humans are human (it's pretty self-evident that most of us serve ourselves first and give roughly zero fucks about how our actions affect others, as long as that action will be beneficial to us; that observation is especially true with politicians).

 

[2] Obviously, that's how the law would change; I was concerned with the prosecuting method and the fact that it'd be extremely difficult to prosecute effectively and successfully without making the punishment for infraction pretty ridiculous.

 

[3] There really isn't when you look at it from an angle of faith in humanity. When you look at it realistically, however, there are way worse implications that you seem unable to see. I've structured everything that I've said to try to show you that this would only work theoretically. In reality, like socialism, communism, et cetera, this would be corrupted and destroyed by humanity -- give someone or a group of people control over truth and they abuse it, as has been shown in all autocracies that claim to know the answer to any fundamental truth and which has also been shown by most religions (Inquisition, cult of Pythagoras, crusades (on both sides), etc.).

 

Going back to my unnumbered question, why'd you only answer my first question?

[mr moose]

 

1 hour ago, N3v3r3nding_N3wb said:

[1]I already explained why it's different. It seems that you only read the introduction to my explanation of why it's a false parallel. I will reiterate myself, however. It is different because the financial law doesn't give the government the power to decide what is scientific truth. That is obviously a ridiculous escalation in government powers and will almost definitely be abused because humans are human (it's pretty self-evident that most of us serve ourselves first and give roughly zero fucks about how our actions affect others, as long as that action will be beneficial to us; that observation is especially true with politicians).

 

 

 

You are assuming the government gets to decide what a fact is.  As I have already said, science doesn't work that way.  Evidence based medicine is not based on what the government thinks is evidence. Ergo your reasoning is irrelevant. 

 

1 hour ago, N3v3r3nding_N3wb said:

[2] Obviously, that's how the law would change; I was concerned with the prosecuting method and the fact that it'd be extremely difficult to prosecute effectively and successfully without making the punishment for infraction pretty ridiculous.

 

That doesn't address what I said.   I'm not sure why this is hard to grasp,  very rarely If ever are civil laws/accountability applied retrospectively, this would be no different. 

 

1 hour ago, N3v3r3nding_N3wb said:

 

[3] There really isn't when you look at it from an angle of faith in humanity. When you look at it realistically, however, there are way worse implications that you seem unable to see. I've structured everything that I've said to try to show you that this would only work theoretically. In reality, like socialism, communism, et cetera, this would be corrupted and destroyed by humanity -- give someone or a group of people control over truth and they abuse it, as has been shown in all autocracies that claim to know the answer to any fundamental truth and which has also been shown by most religions (Inquisition, cult of Pythagoras, crusades (on both sides), etc.).

 

 

 

Or maybe you just don't understand what I am saying, given you don't seem to understand the difference between an individual study and the scientific consensus, the difference between an indisputable fact and government control.  I am not even sure you know what evidence based medicine is or how the scientific method works.

 

Even when trump tries to mess with vaccine safety and pulls funding from researchers, thousands of scientists and doctors march the streets pointing out the error.  Politicians have no control over science based evidence.   In fact when anything goes to court, lawyers can ask any one of thousands of professional scientists to show why any claim made by the government or the defendant is either factual or wrong.  What you are trying to argue is that somehow democracies like the US, Australia and the UK are already run like communist regimes and therefore will do anything to further their own personal agenda,  including controlling what is already an open and transparent community of science based researchers from all over the world.  

 

 

 

 

[N3v3r3nding_N3wb]

On 5/30/2017 at 1:18 AM, mr moose said:

 

 

You are assuming the government gets to decide what a fact is.  As I have already said, science doesn't work that way.  Evidence based medicine is not based on what the government thinks is evidence. Ergo your reasoning is irrelevant. 

 

That doesn't address what I said.   I'm not sure why this is hard to grasp,  very rarely If ever are civil laws/accountability applied retrospectively, this would be no different. 

 

 

 

Or maybe you just don't understand what I am saying, given you don't seem to understand the difference between an individual study and the scientific consensus, the difference between an indisputable fact and government control.  I am not even sure you know what evidence based medicine is or how the scientific method works.

 

Even when trump tries to mess with vaccine safety and pulls funding from researchers, thousands of scientists and doctors march the streets pointing out the error.  [1]Politicians have no control over science based evidence.   [2]In fact when anything goes to court, lawyers can ask any one of thousands of professional scientists to show why any claim made by the government or the defendant is either factual or wrong.  [3]What you are trying to argue is that somehow democracies like the US, Australia and the UK are already run like communist regimes and therefore will do anything to further their own personal agenda,  including controlling what is already an open and transparent community of science based researchers from all over the world.  

 

 

 

 

Who the fuck would be making the laws, then? It can't just be some rando-pando organization. The government has to give the go-ahead, at the absolute least, and since we live in a republic, well, multitudinous politicians would be involved, which would introduce the aforementioned corruption. That's assuming that the organization is self-sustaining, or at least mostly so (which is unlikely considering they're not making any products); if they're not a completely separate, self-sustaining organization, they're tied to whoever/whatever gives them funding, and serve that person/group above anyone else because they're out of work if they don't. Science in the truest, purest form doesn't work that way, but this wouldn't be the truest, purest form.

 

I'm not saying that it'll be applied retrospectively. I don't know how you could've gotten that from what I said. I'm saying that this law will change relatively often; how do you compensate those who were wrongly imprisoned, and is potentially saving the lives of, by a ridiculous overestimation, roughly 

.00037% of the population (in the U.S.'s case; they were the best numbers I could find in a short timespan, and only including deaths that are preventable by vaccinations, and this law wouldn't help those without the money to get them, etc., although not a whole lot of people die from home remedies, either, so these numbers are probably still an overestimation if those were included) worth adding a new governmental organization and jeopardizing the freedom of speech of the entirety of the population, as well as guaranteedly ruining the lives of a few people who ended up being correct?

 

I know what they are; I'm saying that they'll be corrupted. I'm saying this because there's no way to introduce this without making it political or making the burden of truth so heavy that barely anything gets done, defeating the purpose of the law. Given enough effort and time, anything can become an "indisputable fact (so you don't misunderstand, I'm not saying that it'll necessarily be true, but it can be controlled to the point of expressing a different belief jeopardizes your safety, and is therefore almost entirely unspoken; i.e. the belief that transtrenders don't have to be referred to by their preferred pronoun could be silenced based on psychological health studies ("studies" plural; there are many of them, however biased lots of them may be))."

 

[1] You're right; they don't right now, but any lawmaking body would have to be a governmental organization, and specifically be part of Congress/Parliament/equivalent, which would give them the power to do just that.

 

[2] Right, because our law system is void of corruption. That's definitely proven by the fact that almost all cases against Trump and his policies just happen to land in the hands of judges with previous vendettas or fundamental ideological differences; I'm sure those were just happy accidents (note that I can't speak on Australia's law system, though the safe schools bullshit that is allowed to go through indicates to me that it's about as bad as the U.S.'s; nor can I speak on the UK's, but their bias towards Islamic immigrants indicates to me that they're also about as bad as the U.S.).

 

[3] No, I'm saying that they're well on their way and that this would just be another, very powerful, tool that they'd be able to use. The goal of governments is to increase their power. To have evidence of their willingness to censor, we must look only at hate speech codes, but we can also look at the discussion around Muslim immigration, we can look at the ever-tightening restrictions on porn (in the UK especially, but also now in the U.S.), and many other things. The only reason that there isn't mainstream public outrage about this is that the sheeple listen to the MSM, who tell them that what the government is doing is righteous and just and keep their attention focused on the ever-widening race divide, on hating Trump, etc, and because they simply don't take an interest in their rights as long as it's only affecting others (look up the poem "First They Came...").

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, N3v3r3nding_N3wb said:

Who the fuck would be making the laws, then? It can't just be some rando-pando organization. The government has to give the go-ahead, at the absolute least, and since we live in a republic, well, multitudinous politicians would be involved, which would introduce the aforementioned corruption. That's assuming that the organization is self-sustaining, or at least mostly so (which is unlikely considering they're not making any products); if they're not a completely separate, self-sustaining organization, they're tied to whoever/whatever gives them funding, and serve that person/group above anyone else because they're out of work if they don't. Science in the truest, purest form doesn't work that way, but this wouldn't be the truest, purest form.

 

I'm not saying that it'll be applied retrospectively. I don't know how you could've gotten that from what I said. I'm saying that this law will change relatively often; how do you compensate those who were wrongly imprisoned, and is potentially saving the lives of, by a ridiculous overestimation, roughly 

.00037% of the population (in the U.S.'s case; they were the best numbers I could find in a short timespan, and only including deaths that are preventable by vaccinations, and this law wouldn't help those without the money to get them, etc., although not a whole lot of people die from home remedies, either, so these numbers are probably still an overestimation if those were included) worth adding a new governmental organization and jeopardizing the freedom of speech of the entirety of the population, as well as guaranteedly ruining the lives of a few people who ended up being correct?

 

I know what they are; I'm saying that they'll be corrupted. I'm saying this because there's no way to introduce this without making it political or making the burden of truth so heavy that barely anything gets done, defeating the purpose of the law. Given enough effort and time, anything can become an "indisputable fact (so you don't misunderstand, I'm not saying that it'll necessarily be true, but it can be controlled to the point of expressing a different belief jeopardizes your safety, and is therefore almost entirely unspoken; i.e. the belief that transtrenders don't have to be referred to by their preferred pronoun could be silenced based on psychological health studies ("studies" plural; there are many of them, however biased lots of them may be))."

 

[1] You're right; they don't right now, but any lawmaking body would have to be a governmental organization, and specifically be part of Congress/Parliament/equivalent, which would give them the power to do just that.

 

[2] Right, because our law system is void of corruption. That's definitely proven by the fact that almost all cases against Trump and his policies just happen to land in the hands of judges with previous vendettas or fundamental ideological differences; I'm sure those were just happy accidents (note that I can't speak on Australia's law system, though the safe schools bullshit that is allowed to go through indicates to me that it's about as bad as the U.S.'s; nor can I speak on the UK's, but their bias towards Islamic immigrants indicates to me that they're also about as bad as the U.S.).

 

[3] No, I'm saying that they're well on their way and that this would just be another, very powerful, tool that they'd be able to use. The goal of governments is to increase their power. To have evidence of their willingness to censor, we must look only at hate speech codes, but we can also look at the discussion around Muslim immigration, we can look at the ever-tightening restrictions on porn (in the UK especially, but also now in the U.S.), and many other things. The only reason that there isn't mainstream public outrage about this is that the sheeple listen to the MSM, who tell them that what the government is doing is righteous and just and keep their attention focused on the ever-widening race divide, on hating Trump, etc, and because they simply don't take an interest in their rights as long as it's only affecting others (look up the poem "First They Came...").

Um, righto then,  Your whole premise rests on governments being able to determine what a scientific fact is and an US v them mentality that serves no value when trying to be reasoned/objective.  Until you can move past this there is little more to discuss.

 

And Just an FYI, the safe schools program is not a government corruption issue, far from it. 

[N3v3r3nding_N3wb]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

Um, righto then,  Your whole premise rests on governments being able to determine what a scientific fact is and an US v them mentality that serves no value when trying to be reasoned/objective.  Until you can move past this there is little more to discuss.

 

And Just an FYI, the safe schools program is not a government corruption issue, far from it. 

Look, yes, I do have quite the "us vs. them" mentality when it comes to the government. It is not unfounded, however. The government is not and has not been "by the people, for the people" in basically any country for a very, very long time. The Patriot Act, the EU, the UK government's reluctance to follow through with Brexit, mass immigration, globalization, the pushing of social justice, Canada's Bill C16 (which was passed just over 2 weeks ago), genocides (not in the West, but I said governments broadly, so I might as well include something that the West doesn't really do), lies, spying, secrecy, getting the MSM to spew whatever message they want them to (control of the media), etc., etc., etc. The thing that is wrong with this discussion is your belief that the government will be anything but underhanded and treacherous, not my belief that the government would use this as another tool to censor people. Sadly, the West is advancing ever towards authoritarianism, and unless we really get our shit together and force the government to listen, well, there will be no one left to speak for us.

 

Yes, it is a government corruption issue. The fact that they're allowed to teach their curriculum IN SCHOOLS, and, further, to CHILDREN is appalling. The fact that they haven't been stopped by the government shows how far the SJWs' tentacles have penetrated (side note, no I'm not saying they should be silenced, I'm saying that they shouldn't be supported by schools and, by extension, the government; if they wanna scream their message, hold rallies, etc. let them, but don't support them in schools).

[mr moose]

55 minutes ago, N3v3r3nding_N3wb said:

Look, yes, I do have quite the "us vs. them" mentality when it comes to the government. It is not unfounded, however. The government is not and has not been "by the people, for the people" in basically any country for a very, very long time. The Patriot Act, the EU, the UK government's reluctance to follow through with Brexit, mass immigration, globalization, the pushing of social justice, Canada's Bill C16 (which was passed just over 2 weeks ago), genocides (not in the West, but I said governments broadly, so I might as well include something that the West doesn't really do), lies, spying, secrecy, getting the MSM to spew whatever message they want them to (control of the media), etc., etc., etc. The thing that is wrong with this discussion is your belief that the government will be anything but underhanded and treacherous, not my belief that the government would use this as another tool to censor people. Sadly, the West is advancing ever towards authoritarianism, and unless we really get our shit together and force the government to listen, well, there will be no one left to speak for us.

 

Yes, it is a government corruption issue. The fact that they're allowed to teach their curriculum IN SCHOOLS, and, further, to CHILDREN is appalling. The fact that they haven't been stopped by the government shows how far the SJWs' tentacles have penetrated (side note, no I'm not saying they should be silenced, I'm saying that they shouldn't be supported by schools and, by extension, the government; if they wanna scream their message, hold rallies, etc. let them, but don't support them in schools).

You know nothing about it.  Simple as that.    The problem with society these days is everyone thinks they are an expert and everyone thinks their opinion is the only legitimate one.     As I work in schools and closely with many teachers I think I know little bit more about it than you.   But I highly doubt first hand experience is going to curb your opinion when it seems your ideals are too important you.

 

 

[dexT]

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

You know nothing about it.  Simple as that.    The problem with society these days is everyone thinks they are an expert and everyone thinks their opinion is the only legitimate one.     As I work in schools and closely with many teachers I think I know little bit more about it than you.   But I highly doubt first hand experience is going to curb your opinion when it seems your ideals are too important you.

 

 

Classic. You seem to be the problem with society by your own definition. 

[N3v3r3nding_N3wb]

11 hours ago, mr moose said:

You know nothing about it.  Simple as that.    The problem with society these days is everyone thinks they are an expert and everyone thinks their opinion is the only legitimate one.     As I work in schools and closely with many teachers I think I know little bit more about it than you.   But I highly doubt first hand experience is going to curb your opinion when it seems your ideals are too important you.

 

 

Right, the ideals of freedom and liberty and resisting tyranny. How awful of me! Also, I even admitted that I might be wrong (Page 4, I believe), but that you haven't given me a reason to think so.

 

Well, it definitely seems that neither of us'll be backing down, and y'know what Mark Twain said.

[DildorTheDecent]

The Gestapo will be at your door if you have problems with the new anti-hate rules lol.

[mr moose]

4 hours ago, N3v3r3nding_N3wb said:

Right, the ideals of freedom and liberty and resisting tyranny. How awful of me! Also, I even admitted that I might be wrong (Page 4, I believe), but that you haven't given me a reason to think so.

 

Well, it definitely seems that neither of us'll be backing down, and y'know what Mark Twain said.

I don't care what mark twain said,  you claimed outright that the safe school program was government corruption (well after page 4). It isn't. I know this from both personal experience, heavy involvement in the school system and close ties with many teachers.

 

 

[mr moose]

6 hours ago, dexT said:

Classic. You seem to be the problem with society by your own definition. 

 

 

So do you think me being aware of my own flaws and the the flaws in humanity is somehow worse than those flaws themselves?  I dare say ignoring the faults in humanity and avoiding accepting that you have them too might just be worse.

 

 

[dexT]

30 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

 

So do you think me being aware of my own flaws and the the flaws in humanity is somehow worse than those flaws themselves?  I dare say ignoring the faults in humanity and avoiding accepting that you have them too might just be worse.

 

 

Um, no? Lol all I am saying is that you are description of what you said is the problem with society.

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, dexT said:

Um, no? Lol all I am saying is that you are description of what you said is the problem with society.

I thought that was obvious, sorry.

[N3v3r3nding_N3wb]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

I don't care what mark twain said,  you claimed outright that the safe school program was government corruption (well after page 4). It isn't. I know this from both personal experience, heavy involvement in the school system and close ties with many teachers.

 

 

"The Safe Schools Coalition Australia (SSCA) is the first national program funded by the Australian Government (https://www.education.gov.au/safe-schools-coalition-australia)..."

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, N3v3r3nding_N3wb said:

"The Safe Schools Coalition Australia (SSCA) is the first national program funded by the Australian Government (https://www.education.gov.au/safe-schools-coalition-australia)..."

And?  is there supposed to be more in your post? 

[dexT]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

And?  is there supposed to be more in your post? 

Do you work at a Uni? What are your views about what's going down at Evergreen State College?