Rant thread

[graveyard johnny]

On ‎07‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 8:24 PM, longboard said:

You know the thing about crazy paving?

its not all its cracked up to be

[Exiled Townie]

"Nine MPs used their parliamentary expenses to fund Amazon Prime subscriptions"

Nine MPs claimed Amazon Prime subscriptions on their parliamentary expenses. Some of them said it was a mistake, or were caught in a "subscription trap" after taking out a free trial, the Daily Mirror reports after new figures were revealed. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, responsible for handling expenses claims, told the newspaper subscriptions could be claimed but MPs must "justify the subscription is used for parliamentary purposes".

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/nine-mps-used-their-parliamentary-expenses-to-fund-amazon-prime-subscriptions/ar-AAo82RO?li=AA59G2&ocid=spartanntp

 

[Farmduck]

At the risk of reactivating Brianna Wu's public profile, she has decided to run for Congress and is clearly concerned about security issues:

 

[Wiltshire Rhino]

23 hours ago, Farmduck said:

At the risk of reactivating Brianna Wu's public profile, she has decided to run for Congress and is clearly concerned about security issues:

 

Never heard of her until I read this post but now I want her to win. She seems "fun"! 

[Mumby Magic]

Multi Millionaires totalling nearly 500million pound asking me for my hard earned cash.

[Mark S]

21 minutes ago, Mumby Magic said:

Multi Millionaires totalling nearly 500million pound asking me for my hard earned cash.

Charities that have their HQ is swanky London offices, employing teams of well paid PR people. Surely they could be based up North in a much cheaper office, with much lower salaries.

[Bleep1673]

Should this entire piece be renamed the rubbish Yorkshire opinion politics thread?

[Farmduck]

I got into an argument (if you could call it that) on a YouTube video about some right-wing virtue-signalling GOTI telling us why she hates Muslims (no, not the people of course, just the religion) and I actually feel bad. I feel bad because this woman and her White Knights are so dumb. I'm shooting fish in a barrel with a blindfold on and it just feels wrong.

She rattled off a list of "Muslim majority" countries which were all such financial disaster areas that no-one ever goes there. She included India - only 14% Muslim and has never been a Muslim majority country - despite it having the 5th or 6th biggest economy in the World. Other countries that "no-one ever visits" included Egypt - 10 million tourists/year - and Indonesia - 12 million tourists/year.

She said we've been tolerating Islam for 3,000 years too long. Mohammed only died in 632AD. Then one of her White Knights jumped in and tried to show that some aspects of Islam can be traced back to Sumeria and Mesopotamia in 4500BC. I asked them to show me an example, any example, of where someone, anyone, had used the word "Islam" to mean "The religion based on the Quran and various pagan beliefs and rituals dating back to Sumeria and Mesopotamia in 4500BC." No luck.

It would have been a pointless reply anyway since the entire history of mankind could be traced back to pagan beliefs and rituals so, as a weapon for criticising Islam, it was a weak argument.

One of the White Knights then said he had lived in Indonesia for a few years and it was a dump and the only place people went was Bali which was Buddhist anyway. I pointed out that Indonesian tourism department figures showed that tourists travelled to many, many parts of Indonesia, not just Bali. AND Bali is Hindu, not Buddhist, and has never been a Buddhist society. (before Hinduism, I'm willing to guess it had a system of pagan rituals and beliefs, some possibly similar to those of Sumeria and Mesopotamia in 4500BC, but I didn't say that.)

The woman replied by calling me a c*** (which I've never called anyone on YT and I'm Australian) and said maybe I should make a better video and my 2 followers could tell me how good it was. Wow! Argumentum ad hominem and argumentum ad populum  in the same sentence? These people must be 12 years old.

Lately I've been watching a better class of video content on YT and I'm usually scared to comment in case people find out how dumb I am. Finding people infinitely dumber isn't as fulfilling as I might have thought.

 

 

[tonyXIII]

7 minutes ago, Farmduck said:

I got into an argument (if you could call it that) on a YouTube video about some right-wing virtue-signalling GOTI telling us why she hates Muslims (no, not the people of course, just the religion) and I actually feel bad. I feel bad because this woman and her White Knights are so dumb. I'm shooting fish in a barrel with a blindfold on and it just feels wrong.

(trimmed)

Don't feel bad. If someone chooses to lead with their chin, it's almost direspectful not to punch them on it.

[Farmduck]

1 hour ago, tonyXIII said:

Don't feel bad. If someone chooses to lead with their chin, it's almost direspectful not to punch them on it.

Thanks Tony, I needed that.

 

It got worse. One of the supporters just replied with the reliably dumb "what about female genital mutilation?" line. There's an acronym PRATT - Point Refuted A Thousand Times - often used by atheists. FGM is dreadful but it's a cultural practice, not a religious one, as evidenced by:

- not mentioned in Quran

- predates Islam by at least 700 and possibly 2000 years in Egypt.

- in Iraq, despite them all being Muslims, it is only practised by Kurds

- in Niger, 80% Muslim country, FGM is also practised by Christians

- in Tanzania the rate of FGM is higher among Christians than among Muslims

- in Ethiopia, FGM is also traditionally practised by Jews.

 

like shooting stationary fish in a barrel. The greatest absurdity is that, as a very intolerant atheist, I hate all religions but I can still do a better job of defending Islam than these morons can attacking it. I'm not even trying to defend Islam. I'm just trying to get these morons to think critically based on facts. Or, to use facts to criticise Islam. That would be a start.

[Farmduck]

I can't believe how much trouble cinemas are still having when attempting to screen The Red Pill movie. This week we've had 2 separate venues in Sydney cancel screenings including one showing that had sold out a week in advance. The Sydney Uni Students Union banned a showing on Union premises but those organisers are attempting to arrange another on-campus venue.

The excuses for banning or for denying venues are absurd, as usual. They include the usual allegations that the film had the  “capacity to intimidate and physically threaten women on campus”. (That's the wonderful Sydney Uni Students Union there.) It was also initially cancelled in Canada with the following report from Heat St:

Feminists, including Andrea Llewellyn, admitted that she hadn’t seen the film. Speaking to Metro News, Llewellyn said The Red Pill “is such a toxic film that it’s just really inappropriate to be providing a platform for it at all.”

Yep, so toxic she can tell without even watching it. I've seen it and it's really entry-level MRA stuff, very mild. I'm more hardcore MGTOW so I generally think MRAs are just trying to negotiate better terms for their return to the plantation,  Tradcon manginas who want the Government to patch up the dyke for them instead of just cutting their losses and moving to higher ground.

The movie is available online on many sites like here: https://xmovies8.ru/movie/the-red-pill-2016/watching.html

The massive overreaction from feminists tells you more about 3rd Wave fems than they will ever admit. It's not just the efforts they will go to in order to suppress an opposing point of view. In fact, many of the points raised by MRAs should be welcomed by feminists - 93% of all workplace deaths are men, so you would think women would want access to those higher-paid, male-dominated industries. 80% of custody cases are decided in favour of the woman and, in Australia, sole parenting is statistically, an almost guaranteed ticket to poverty, so you would think women would want more men to assume the burden of sole parenting. If women really do make 82 cents in every $ that men make, surely this gap would be lessened by having more men have to sacrifice careers for parenting.

As I said, the movie is entry-level Mens' Rights material but if you're new to the idea it might be worth watching.

[henage]

No wont be watching it . Will be watching Last Kingdom , Vikings/Danes/Welsh/Scots/English chopping each other up .

[Bedford Roughyed]

27 minutes ago, henage said:

No wont be watching it . Will be watching Last Kingdom , Vikings/Danes/Welsh/Scots/English chopping each other up .

Its a great program.  I hope we get a season 3!

[gazza77]

On 27/03/2017 at 6:23 PM, Farmduck said:

I'm just trying to get these morons to think

I suspect I can see where you're going wrong here.

[Farmduck]

You would think I would have learnt something from trying to defend Islam against brain-dead Islamophobes who can't even get their anti-Islamic material straight. Now I'm arguing with an Aussie muslim on YT who cannot grasp that the World doesn't revolve around a Christian v Islam dialectic.

His original statement which attracted my attention related to the OZ Constitution being based on the Ten Commandments. This is absurd. Our Constitution is a purely administrative document outlining the division of powers between the States and the Commonwealth. It contains no criminal law.

After a few replies I'm still trying to explain that our criminal law isn't based on the Ten Commandments either, a fact which sadly escapes far too many Westerners. British common law and criminal law, and thus much Australian law, derives from Roman law and even pagan practice. Do these religious types really believe that, without a belief in God, murder, rape, theft, arson and kidnap would all be legal?

The first Christian leader in England was Ethelred of Kent, who wasn't even King of all Britain, in the late 800s. Was murder legal in Britain before then? Japan has no large-scale theistic belief. Is murder legal there? Their murder rate is lower than everywhere except Andorra, San Marino and Monaco, which were all zero in the most recent reporting year.

My case isn't helped by these repeated references by politicians and the press that our society or culture or laws are based on Judeo-Christian principles. Really? Doesn't anybody study Ancient History anymore? Western European and North American and AUS/NZ societies are based on Ancient Greece and Rome, centuries before Christ was even allegedly born. Rather than relying on Judeo-Christian principles, we have removed aspects of those societies, such as slavery, despite slavery being legal under Judeo-Christian law. We've never introduced stoning for adulterers and fornicators even though those offences carried the death penalty in Judeo-Christian law.

 

Rant over, feel better now.

Edited April 24, 2017 by Farmduck

[Farmduck]

Recently in OZ we had a brief kerfuffle (or brouhaha or vigorous tete a tete) over proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act, in particular Section 18C, which states:

Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin

(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

Most of the public objection to this Section revolves around "offend, insult." Since it's so subjective to determine what constitutes offence or insult, not only was this section considered too vague but it is also seen as a curb on free speech. One example might be mentioning the issue of race and IQ, where testing around the World has produced results which, on the surface, aren't politically palatable for many people. So, if I pointed out that Australian Aboriginals had been rated with and average IQ of 62, that would be considered offensive and insulting by many people, even if true.

Most of the critics of the "offend and insult" provisions demanded the right to speak regardless of the feelings of others. This week we commemorated ANZAC Day in OZ, our annual military remembrance day. Enter Yasmin Abdel Magied, a professional Muslim feminist on the ABC TV payroll, among other posts. Yasmin posted this on her Facebook page:  "Lest. We. Forget. (Manus, Nauru, Syria, Palestine…)".

Cue outrage from offended snowflakes. But, this time it's right-wing snowflakes who all got butthurt because some woman said some stuff they disagreed with. Hey, hang on! What happened to the right to insult and offend that was so integral to our democracy 3 weeks ago? I guess free speech is a flexible concept dependent upon the feelings of the audience. But, hang on, wasn't that one of the main arguments against legislating speech? That it shouldn't be dependent on the feelings of the audience.

"No, no, no. We're not saying she can't say what she wants, we're just saying she shouldn't be on the taxpayers' payroll." Oh, so one of the conditions of accepting a Government position is abandoning your right to free speech? What's the point of having a Parliament then? Under that condition, shouldn't all Government media be restricted to simply reading out legislation and Government policy? She wasn't using a platform provided by the taxpayers. She was using Facebook, presumably in her own spare time.

If the prosecution of a citizen by the Government under Section 18C is an unacceptable penalty for free speech then why would the firing of somebody by the same Government be an acceptable penalty for the same offence? I'm confused but that's probably because, despite my many other flaws, I'm not a hypocrite.

[Bleep1673]

12 minutes ago, Farmduck said:

Recently in OZ we had a brief kerfuffle (or brouhaha or vigorous tete a tete) over proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act, in particular Section 18C, which states:

Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin

(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

 

Can we therefore prosecute any Australians who sledge any of our wonderful sports people while touring your country? If anyone is called a Pom/my, and we haven't even eaten a pomegranate, and we take offence, are we allowed to report them to the sheep-s*agging, Kangaroo Winking*, decedents of thieves that is your version of the judicial system?

*Deliberate misspelling

Edited April 26, 2017 by Bleep1673

[Farmduck]

56 minutes ago, Bleep1673 said:

Can we therefore prosecute any Australians who sledge any of our wonderful sports people while touring your country? If anyone is called a Pom/my, and we haven't even eaten a pomegranate, and we take offence, are we allowed to report them to the sheep-s*agging, Kangaroo Winking*, decedents of thieves that is your version of the judicial system?

*Deliberate misspelling

 

You are not aware of Section 18D

 

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18D

Exemptions

                   Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:

                     (a)  in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or

                     (b)  in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or

                     (c)  in making or publishing:

                              (i)  a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or

                             (ii)  a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.

[ckn]

I'm having a lazy morning flicking through the music channels just seeing what music is these days. Now, I like Sia's music but her videos just aren't what I'd call acceptable. That girl she has dancing on her videos is far, far too young to be dancing around in a tight skin coloured leotard and in the context of some of the songs, with some of the dances  

I'm really trying not to read too much into this but I simply can't see any excuse for having a girl so far under 16 in such an outfit. 

[Bob8]

1 hour ago, ckn said:

I'm having a lazy morning flicking through the music channels just seeing what music is these days. Now, I like Sia's music but her videos just aren't what I'd call acceptable. That girl she has dancing on her videos is far, far too young to be dancing around in a tight skin coloured leotard and in the context of some of the songs, with some of the dances  

I'm really trying not to read too much into this but I simply can't see any excuse for having a girl so far under 16 in such an outfit. 

I have to say I did not see the videos as sexually suggestive in any way.

[Farmduck]

I thought a SIA was a Koren car. Which tunes are we talking about?

[ckn]

55 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

I have to say I did not see the videos as sexually suggestive in any way.

I didn't see them as sexually suggestive, just very inappropriate.

[Farmduck]

You know what grinds my gears? Man's boundless inhumanity towards ducks. Weird thing about this is that these are high quality Saxony ducks so it's unusual to see them homeless and living in a park.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-02/duck-with-knife-in-head-reports-reach-rspca/8491244

 

[graveyard johnny]

3 hours ago, Farmduck said:

You know what grinds my gears? Man's boundless inhumanity towards ducks. Weird thing about this is that these are high quality Saxony ducks so it's unusual to see them homeless and living in a park.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-02/duck-with-knife-in-head-reports-reach-rspca/8491244

 

mans boundless inhumanity towards anything thrives and extends towards most of the planet as far as I can tell

[Futtocks]

14 minutes ago, graveyard johnny said:

mans boundless inhumanity towards anything thrives and extends towards most of the planet as far as I can tell

Only because we haven't actually colonised any other planets yet.