god doesn't listen to the lyrics,
dude.
not in an analytical way,
sure nothing escapes god,
but recently god has outsourced the judgement of peoples' record collections
tordor.
god is busy with natural disasters,pregnancies, inciting acts of terrorism and minor traffic incidents.
god never really got into Dio enough to be able to pass fair enough judgement as to whether or not ronald james's lyrics were in fact wicked enough to warrent eternal pergatory.
so i'd rather not start shit making contentions about the lord being or not being into songs with the words; 'demonic', 'supreme evil', or the concept 'cruelty'
cos god is just not that into music,
at least not that judging into a punishable level
and surely u can forgive him that
sound. for sure. i agree. that's why the internet is a pretty solid forum. because the quiet ones can go hard without getting shouted down
our welfare system is something to be proud of fool. otherwise people would starve. and have no homes
most surely, but i can't really know which one's your thinking of especially if they' not on the wikipedia page unless you tell me.
simply this limegreen
freedom of speech
not wikipedia's or anyone elses convenient definition
strangely this definition will change as the term is altered under newer and more progressive policies, so while you can quote the site with great accuracy and i'm sure relevant quotes
you are only reiterating what they said 'freedom of speech is'
not what freedom of speech could, should, might be or has been
it's not a concrete thing
and look around you
nothing is as free as it could, should, might be or has been
wikipedia does not define my definition of shit-it's a reference
you can be set free son
just do like this
find somewhere comfortable to relax
let your breathing slow
as you exhale, in your mind see the word "freedom" let it fill your mind feel the word and the concept, what does the word really mean?
as you inhale try to allow the change in the air's direction to take on a smooth circular arc
so that the inhale melds into the exhale
next exhale feel/see/ - the word "of"
inhale
exhale "speech"
do for fifteen minutes and don't talk to me about boxes
seeing as there's no way the nz government can do shit if someone spams the entire voting population during this 24 hours via email from abroad. and the internet is an international beast
i saw where you coming from, but i imagine there is some way that this ban can still apply to corporate media but not apply to the type of isloated personal opinion rendered on boards like this, it's like banning dinner table discussions or 5 way phone sex. i'm sure there are ways that the language of legislation can be altered to enable this freedom for non corporate media.
but i'm not considering changing anything for radio or any other media that could influence people more aggressively, just the concept of setting up a quiet little electronic backroom where people can (legally) scoff and cuss as they regret their ill considered swing votes could be cool
in that scenario:
//Another scenario: at 11pm on voting day, someone published something saying that, going on early exit polls, it looked like Rodney Hide was going down in Epsom, and that right wing voters would be better off putting their votes towards National.
i'd hypothesise in this same scenario;
at 11:17pm on voting day on the same message board someone posted something saying that, the previous poster was a full of shit jealous h8ter amd that rodney hide was kicking criminal amounts of ass in epsom and right wing voters would be better splitting their votes....
you know. same as any other day.
lime greenm you sound like- "you want the truth-you can't handle the truth"
thanks or replying noizyboy
//Do you think that sort of statement, given the circumstances, and whether it was true or not, might affect the way some people would cast their vote?
i think that it would affect voting, and i don't see a problem with voting being affected in the last 24 hours seeing as pepole have been manipulated by all manner of shit for the last few months. if people are swayed without being able to take things with grains of salt-(particularly via the net) then 24 hours won't make the least bit of difference to what if motivating their fundamental mindset in placing a vote at all.
if i read that online on election day-and i'm thinking specifically of message boards i'd be no more swayed than when i read any of the polls that'd been published in the previous weeks.
but as hard as you worked for your 5 points there limegreen
and has hard as jimi stretches his foreskin,
you've completely failed(as admirable as your rhetoric and learned examples are) to provide an adequate reason why it should be a criminal offence to type 'vote helen' online during those 24 hours,
your argument fails to provide me with any sound reasoning why we should not be allowed to make these comments online during this time
1. i take the term freedom of speech as literally as jet mentioned the australians are free to speak on election day- as of now they have more freedom of speech on this day, i don't propose that we attempt to match that kind of circus-merely that we understand clearly the reasons behind our own. you obviously prefer a lesser freedom of speech than other democracies, and that's fair, i'm only interested in the internet as i see it as a harmless freedom, but why should your desire for censorship override others desire for freedom. as people often say on this site, noone is forcing you to read it. and that's true for any day of the year. if you don't like it, then don't click on it, you have every right to not witness the freedom of speech offered by others or even to ignore it- don't act like a victim limegreen, if we trust humans with the free will to vote as they chose then i'm sure we can trust them to be able to vote responsibly regardless of when and what they are reading.
talk of recency is a red herring , the experiments were dealing with 2 contrasting argument in quick or delayed succession over a period of time. there is nothing to suggest that 2 weeks,24 hours or even a millisecond will affect these experimental results, the results are relative. so voters would already have been affected by recency before the 24 hours came into effect . If some one typed "don't vote Helen" at 23:58 and then someone typed "vote Helen" at 23:59 the affect on the vote would be as marked as if this was typed and read in the noon of the following day immediately prior to casting a vote. Your assumption that your recency is relevant denies the humans' around you the respect due to people with free choice. as i said if you can't trust someone to filter through bullshit on the day of the election (and be sure this is not active campaigning- THIS IS NOT YELLING WITH A BULLHORN- it's words on a page no more invasive than the label on a toilet.
if any of what you were saying held any weight in that people were so susceptible to their most recent momories and what not people would end up in the polling booth ready to vote green because they'd just walked over a well cut lawn, if they noticed a sign that said 'NATIONAL election' in said booth this could also be considered a threat to the goodwill etc.
yeah it's not funny but neither are you. mr freedom of f***ing LG speech.
it's crap- you are trying to tell me new zealand voters are so i'll informed that they can't read a comment on a website without it altering their mindset? are you like this? do you have difficulty retaining saliva as you type?
2. voting is communication, point conceded-so what? does the fact that voting can be classed as communication render you a silly boy who can't read 'vote helen' immediatly prior to voting without turning into a zombie nidger?
3 'goodness and worthiness' overlooks your arbritary 24 hour freedom of speech blackout.' the two ideas are mutually exclusive. there's no rhetoric or studies to indicate that goodness and worthiness can be in anyway affected by impairing people from typing 'don't vote helen' either during the blackout or in the minutes prior to the blackout. we have seen a vast amount of badness and unworthiness in this election, the 24 hour censorship didn't alleviate this in anyway,
4 good for you. however i doubt any individual's spiel you read on the internet during that day would have affected your decision. if you disagree on this point. can you inform me exactly what kind of rhetoric (discounting traditional defamation) would have affected your decision on that day, and how you would allow it to manipulate your decision? what are the danger areas as you see them limegreen, on the internet what do you see as particularly strong potential instances of badness and unworthiness with regards to voting in the election?
5 if a swing voter, changes his/her vote (like the one burnman jimi knows) on the day in question- to what extent (answer in fractions or percentages) would you imagine their decision would be based on propoganda they'd read on the net on 'that' day compared to propoganda they'd read on the net in previous days?
if you want to make a case for devising speparate legislation for newsprint media, that's well within your power, but i'm more concerned about the internet here. due to it's relative isolation outside the realms of the public domain. bearing in mind that the internet is an international entity while a newspaper must be geographically located, there are unlimited ways that any law banning online freedom of speech (especially non-defammatory freedom of speech) can be subverted with the framework of existing international laws and various methods of distribution available.
//Or will you just keep coming up with new things every time your old argument falls over
it's not a new argument. it's an elaboration on point 2; 'click yourself through the procedure'
which is explicit in rendering the power your digits have over the technology in that you can click web pages, applications or equipment on or off in a binary manner.
the recency effect is of little weight in this. you asume that messages/spam on election day would be one sided (therefore disadvantaging the other sides) which would certainly not be the case, it'd be flowing in all directions, viewed in different orders by different people. unlike most more linear media, the internet is less prone to standard sequentiality in the ways it is both presented and read.
but really LG, don't talk to me about memory phenomena and voting-
voting is not a memory thing. find me someone who you know for sure has turned up at the polling both without an idea of who to vote 4.
people don't turn up and try to organize their minds at that point
how many people reading this weren't sure who they'd vote for until the day of the election?
i'd suggest a minority.
how many people voted differently than they'd foreseen they would 24 hours prior?
i suggest few. dispute that.
the ideaological basis behind democracy on an individual level stands against everything you're saying, you didn't vote solely with your memory limegreen, you voted on the basis of emotional persuasion rendered over a certain period of time the least volatile/important part of which was that final 20 or so hours before you 'communicated' with your country.
you could perceive the vote counting procedure to be a communicative act but the message (as opposed to the language) was not intended for the vote counter. this counter is a receptor for the electoral system yet your message is not intended for the electoral system it's intended for the an unknown/indistinguishable entity=the powers that be. you can call this communicative, but the definition of communicative defies the reality in this case. a prayer to god is not a communicative act, it can be perceived as such, but the one sidedness of these efforts don't satisfy the true methodology behind the defining 'commune' which makes up half the word.
basically your argument is weakened by this;
//it seems like a good and worthy thing to do all in your power to reduce social influence to nil for polling
because this election has been neither good nor worthy in the manner it's been contested
politicians have never been widely regarded as good or worthy people
and these illusions- goodness and worthiness
should have no bearing on our right to freedom of speech.
//how do all of those arguments not apply to newspapers
you can't turn a newspaper off. i've tried. it's a no go
voting is not a speech/communicative act.
you speak nothing
you communicate nothing
no meaning is expressed in a vote
no message is sent
you stand at a cross roads
you make a choice
you turn and walk in a new direction
this is not communication
this;
//Under international law, restrictions on free speech are required to comport with a strict three part test: they must be provided by law; pursue an aim recognized as legitimate; and they must be necessary (i.e., proportionate) for the accomplishment of that aim//
is irrelevant
if i type "vote 99 seat party" in the twenty-four hours surrounding polling, could i influence an election anymore than a memory of a billborad from merely hours prior?"
no i haven't been to a warez site, i really don't see the relevance, i only go to this site
for 24 hours?
no that seems like a possible waste of litigation having made it legal for the previous 3 years.
how long is your attention span?
1. on the day of election you could have some flash banner. just as you have for many days leading up to elections on other sites.
2. we are not talking about defamation, we are talking about the necessary free right to be able to positive or negatively comment on a political situation as a basic freedom of democracy.
and jet has said our version of freedom of speech is no more a
//key to a democracy
as
//asking people if they're interested in environmental issues, handing out fliers for their candidate. All kinds of shit.
it's a democracy
although ours is more restricting than there's
strange that
more restricting than australia's
that's down there with sheeps' dung
the big decision you speak of is: (if i may say so)
a big fucking decision
not some lightly (oh christ gran i saw a banner on the interweb ) kind of decision
the internet is special because
1 it can't move and chase or physically harrass you
2 you choose what sites you visit and click yourself through the procedure
basically totally noninvasive
3 you have to pay to use it (seems like it should be exempt from political censorship for that reason alone)
4 people are not so fucking intarded limgreen that; they can't control their minds to such a degree that; they read shit on the net that; sways their mind to such an extent that; they lose control of their nevous systems thus; creating such chaos within them that; they lose all power of sensible vote hence; ensuring the total disintegration of democracy.
u mean fascist right?
when weighing up wheather or not new zealand is a backwater hole, one need only consider the fact that banks are not open on sundays. it's impossible to meausre exactly how retarded this is for a capitalist society but there's no question that No good purpose is served.
I guess the origins could be traced back to the fact that the country is stuck in a kind of pseudo christian limbo, where many of the laws have basically been lifted straight from the king james bible.
the arbritrariness of this kind of law - keeping banks closed on any day of the week, can therefore be evaluated by weighing up the old testament religions against the eastern religions, Eastern religions offer the meditation. with scientifically proven therapeutic benefits. christianity provided the world with singing in a church.
one can see the parallels with the fact that it's also a country that wastes untold resources trying to promote itself as a nation of musical divas with very little international recognition and for very little global financial (or any other type of) return save a minor nationalistic ego massage
financial freedom or singing?
new zealand chooses singing.