Jump to content

Politics Thread 3: With A Vengeance

mack

By mack
in Archive

Recommended Posts

Guest ZipGunBop

Guest ZipGunBop

Posted
Posted

Dr Karl.

 

Seems like a nice guy.

 

But the Hawaiin shirts and calling him by his first name remove any air of authority for me.

 

Turns him into a triple J version of Dr Phil.

 

But, the kids love that stuff don't they.

Link to comment
Cynth

Cynth

Posted
Posted

People are still killing each other but at a lower rate than ever before. The murder rate has been declining for a long time. The murder rate by gun is becoming an even lower proportion of the total murders also. Good news if you ask me.

 

Your statement "of course the death by gun rate is going to drop if you take away guns"

 

We agree.

 

The gun lobby in the US don't agree with us. They say that everyone having a gun is a deterrent.

Link to comment
Guest mickisnot

Guest mickisnot

Posted
Posted

The main drivers behind the decline in the homicide rate was the NHMP (National Homicide Monitoring Program)

 

It was started in 1989 and looked exclusively into trends. Serial killings, relationship killings, killings by fire and backpacker murders etc.

 

Just under two-thirds of all homicide incidents (60.2%) occurred in residential premises. Nearly half of all homicide incidents occurred on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday, and over two-thirds of homicide incidents occurred between 6pm and 6am.

Eight out of 10 homicide incidents can be characterised as 'one-on-one' interactions between the victim and the offender, though there have been, on average, 15 multiple fatality incidents per year, resulting in approximately 39 victims per year.

 

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4524A092E30E4486CA2569DE00256331

Link to comment
Guest ZipGunBop

Guest ZipGunBop

Posted
Posted

 

Fun fact;

The bulletproof vest was invented by a woman.

Her son was probably going out to battle!

Some guys will do anything to get away from that nagging bitch at home.

Link to comment
Cynth

Cynth

Posted
Posted

I already mentioned homicide rates have been dropping for a long time. The point here though is death BY FIREARM not just

homicide. The fact is there were a few massacres prior to the gun laws, none so far afterwards (20 years!!). The proportion of homicide and suicide by firearm has also dropped dramatically from the same time.

 

 

http://theconversation.com/faking-waves-how-the-nra-and-pro-gun-americans-abuse-australian-crime-stats-11678

Link to comment
Guest ZipGunBop

Guest ZipGunBop

Posted
Posted

 

 

 

Fun fact;

The bulletproof vest was invented by a woman.

 

Her son was probably going out to battle!

Some guys will do anything to get away from that nagging bitch at home.

Hmm.

 

In 1538, Francesco Maria della Rovere commissioned Filippo Negroli to create a bulletproof vest.

Sorry, should've said "modern bulletproof vest"

 

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/6/21/stephanie-kwolekkevlarobituary.html

Link to comment
Guest ZipGunBop

Guest ZipGunBop

Posted
Posted

The Mongols had a vest of sorts.

 

It was a leather garment. When they got hit with an enemy arrow, the leather wouldn't break, even tho the arrow would push into their guts.

 

They would snap the leather tight and pop the arrow out to continue fighting.

Link to comment
Guest ZipGunBop

Guest ZipGunBop

Posted
Posted

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-15/dr-karl-backs-away-from-political-intergenerational-report/6393152

I thought it was strange that Dr Karl was putting his name to such a dodgy document...

 

I agree...and thought the same.

 

Pretty damning criticism of the Govt there.

Thing is tho,

 

Why did he sign up to endorse something he didn't fully understand?

 

Dont give me the "I didn't have time to fully read it" shite.

 

He had time to tape filmed advertisements, record radio commercials and pose for billboard photos.

 

Are you (General you), trying to tell me, he just "flicked through" this document, without noticing this allegedly glaring omission, before going on radio and speaking of how important this discussion about this document is?

 

Encouraging everyone to get involved and read it?

 

I've been hearing these radio commercials for weeks.

 

Just now we notice this huge error?

 

In this, "dodgy document", you both say you wondered about.

 

If he is a respected voice on matters such as climate change, why is he putting his name to a document that he didn't bother to read in its entirety?

 

I would've thought someone in his position, with his following, wouldn't dream of accepting an offer to become the face of a multi tiered advertising campaign, speaking on behalf of and endorsing a governmental document, if you are not fully across what it is you are supposed to be endorsing.

 

Reminds me of Krusty with his generic filmed message; "I heartily endorse this event or product".

 

Yet you and he are now blaming the report, for the fact that he was endorsing it.

 

"Damning for the Government" it may be, as you observed.

 

Bizarre behaviour, but a clever angle from the author nonetheless. If not accidental, (by "accidental", I refer to the manifestation of subconscious biases resulting from personal views and ideologies, a proven phenomenon. No doubt you are aware of this, Cynth.), it is quite subtle in its execution of diverting the readers attention, away from the curtain behind the magician.

 

Dr Karl's professional association with the national broadcaster is entering its third decade I believe, so the friendly audience for this piece, (you guys), are already primed for the pullover. The emotional attachment to, and subsequent trust of your source (ABC), and subject matter (Dr Karl), do most of the legwork to get you over the line. Takes you up to the red ribbon at the end of the dash,

 

But you still need that last little push to take you past the mental threshold.

 

The cognitive tipping point, as it were.

 

After you read his comments, followed by a number of quotes from Shorten with his usual shtick, these questions remain unanswered, or not thought of, or forgotten after the barrage of quotes, by most it seems.

 

It worked a treat.

 

Clearly.

Link to comment
pushiepedlar

pushiepedlar

Posted
Posted

all part of the plan Zip. 

 

if it is so important we all read and have an opinion on this document then a bit of controversy around its promotion and contents is just going to help the cause. 

 

problem is most of the people who its going to impact upon have 140 character attention spans. When does the twitter and instagram version come out? 

Link to comment
wendybr

wendybr

Posted
Posted

Zip makes perfectly legitimate points.  It is poor form form for him to have endorsed the importance of the document, without knowing what he was endorsing.

 

I watched a bit of the video ad, and I admit my reaction was probably not very responsible or conscientious..

 

I had three impressions....the first being,... I wonder what this is costing the taxpayer, when the aim is to soften the public for the Coalition's current agenda.  The second was...I guess he is a good choice to present this... fairly well respected and popular....and the third was....boooring....so I stopped watching., 

Link to comment
Guest mickisnot

Guest mickisnot

Posted
Posted

Dr Karl wrote an article recently on how Climate Change is affecting the Earths axis.

 

The crux of the argument was that the redistribution of melted ice at the polar regions was throwing off the tilt.

 

I doubt it Dr Karl.

 

If he's capable of writing stupid **** like that then he's capable of signing his name to anything.

 

A sell out if you ask me.

Link to comment
Carns

Carns

Posted
Posted

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-15/dr-karl-backs-away-from-political-intergenerational-report/6393152

 

I thought it was strange that Dr Karl was putting his name to such a dodgy document...

Thing is tho,

 

Why did he sign up to endorse something he didn't fully understand?

 

Dont give me the "I didn't have time to fully read it" shite.

 

He had time to tape filmed advertisements, record radio commercials and pose for billboard photos.

 

Are you (General you), trying to tell me, he just "flicked through" this document, without noticing this allegedly glaring omission, before going on radio and speaking of how important this discussion about this document is?

 

Encouraging everyone to get involved and read it?

 

I've been hearing these radio commercials for weeks.

 

Just now we notice this huge error?

 

In this, "dodgy document", you both say you wondered about.

 

If he is a respected voice on matters such as climate change, why is he putting his name to a document that he didn't bother to read in its entirety?

 

I would've thought someone in his position, with his following, wouldn't dream of accepting an offer to become the face of a multi tiered advertising campaign, speaking on behalf of and endorsing a governmental document, if you are not fully across what it is you are supposed to be endorsing.

 

The inclusion or exclusion of climate change in this so called "dodgy report", would've been evident by reading the ******* table of contents on page 1.

 

What a crock.

From the original article posted:

Dr Kruszelnicki appears in a number of advertisements promoting the report on television and radio, in newspapers and on social media, but he is now criticising the report's reduced focus on climate change.

 

"I did it on the grounds that it would be not for any political party but for the Government of Australia as a non-political, bipartisan, independent report," he told the ABC's AM program.

 

"I thought that people would know the difference between a report and a policy document.

 

"And this actually, as a report, seems to have some policy in it."

 

Dr Kruszelnicki said he was only able to read parts of the report before he agreed to the ads as the rest was under embargo.

He couldn't read the whole thing before the ads were shot. In hindsight, he would have never signed up for it. Lesson learned, I guess.

Link to comment
Guest ZipGunBop

Guest ZipGunBop

Posted
Posted

So ok the parts he did allegedly read, with no climate change mentioned, a topic which he claims is of vital importance, this didn't raise an eyebrow?

 

Like I said, the ads have been playing for weeks Carns, the full report has been available during this time,

 

What's his reason for not reading it then?

 

The excuse doesn't hold water Carns.

 

It's just as embarrassing to hear it as it is to see people fall for it, as it is to see the whole affair now get manipulated into a "damning criticism of the government" by the ABC.

 

I respect the authors craft. Not the stupid premise.

 

But hey, don't listen to me.

 

What do I know.

 

Just an opinion.

Link to comment
Guest ZipGunBop

Guest ZipGunBop

Posted
Posted

Notice how the story didn't enlighten us as to which parts he couldn't read.

 

It just said "some of it was under embargo".

 

There's your first clue.

 

Also like I said, table of contents.

 

Was that embargoed?

 

There's also this quote from the good doctor;

 

"And this actually, as a report, seems to have some policy in it."

Wait, "seems" ???!!!???

 

"Seems" to have some policy in it??

 

It looks like he STILL hasn't ******* read it.

 

:lol:

 

So,

 

Anyways, I don't really care. Done with it now.

 

It's clearly bull$hit. It takes more mental effort to believe it than it does to observe the flaws.

 

I hope the tobacco industry is paying attention.

 

There is an opportunity here to get a real life celebrity scientist on board for endorsements. Just tell him he can't read the whole report, he don't mind.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...