It's a democracy, the people have the right to value different things differently if they choose. The previous administration ran for office with the cigarette restrictions as part of their policy package and people voted for that. They didn't vote for alcohol or fast food or whatever else your claiming is the same, if people wanted to ban other things they have the right to vote accordingly.
bigschnitz
joined 2 years ago
New Zealand has publically funded health care. If the government can force me to pay for your medical treatment (via tax), why is it a stretch for them to prevent you from running up those costs by engaging in self destructive drug use?
In any democracy, the voting public should choose how tax money is spent. If the majority don't want to pay to manage smoking related illness, or pay to enforce a two tiered medical system, a democratic system would restrict or ban smoking.
Nothing screams safe like a solid unibody chassis with no crumple zones, a high center of gravity, terrible visibility and an ride height that forces pedestrians under the wheels in an impact. safe
Yeah I guess I instinctively defaulted to terrorism because, like you say, "terrorist movement" is a kind of nonsense combination of words
Well, by that established-powers created definition every single act of war meant to cower civilians or other states is terrorism unless in committed in one's own homeland (this latter exception because governments can make sure it's "lawful" where they are soverign, but their law does not extend outside their borders)
There are international laws, however unenforced, that so called terrorist states regularly violate.
Bombing of Dresden during WWII: terrorism
I think the intent was to target factories which are considered part of the military establishment, but probably.
What Israel is doing right now in Gaza and all pretty much every single action of Israel in Palestine, outside it's UN approved borders: terrorism
Is that even in question? Obviously indiscriminat bombing of a civilian population to drive them to migrate as refugees is terrorism.
Almost every single United States military operation, cover and overt outside it's own borders: terrorism
When the USA invaded Iraq everyone around me was calling the US a terrorist state and there were mass protests in my country, Australia, at the our governments choice to be complicit in that. I would say that western countries tend to use more targeted attacks so they don't usually meet their own definition of terrorist, but the USA nuclear bombs example as an example of terrorism is far from the only case.
I guess when Australia. Soldier Ben Roberts-Smith was found to be guilty of specific war crimes in Afghanistan they didn't use the blanket term "terrorism", but the guy is clearly a terrorist despite being a white Westerner.
By your very own statement (unproven, I might add) that an organization that commits acts of terrorism per that definition is a "terrorist movement", then the US is a "terrorist movement", as is Israel and for example just about every nation that invaded Iraq (as there was no UN mandate, hence it wasn't lawful and a lot of actions done there were definitelly "use of violence and intimidation" for the most definitelly "political" aim of changing the government there).
What do mean unproven? I've quoted the dictionary definition from Google. You're welcome to define terrorism however you want, but the most widely used definition, per most English language dictionaries, is to the effect of the use of violence against civilians or other non combatants to further political or social change.
Interestingly enough by your definition what Nazi Germany did to the Jews inside its own borders was not terrorism, because it was "lawful" in Germany at the time.
What the Nazis did is why we now have the Geneva convention and international laws around human rights. While those laws may not have existed at the time, plenty of Germans were tried and found guilty of them afterwards.
Most of what follows you seem to be arguing on what I consider to be the mistaken belief that there is no such thing as international law.
Israel as it exists right now is a terrorist state. I'm not stating that meaning I, in any way, agree with those who are calling for the obliteration of the state of Israel, but prior to Oct 7 the authorities were clearly selectively enforcing laws that allowed for violence and other acts of terror against Palestinians, both by the state itself and by private citizens. They clearly have been acting in violation of international law for a long time.
By your definition there is no such thing as a "terrorist movement". Outside of lone Wolf insane people, no terrorists objective is to create terror purely for terrorsnsake. Terrorism is the tool they use to pursue their objectives. It's right there in the definition of terrorism.
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
The IRA bombings of London were because they wanted the UK to leave northern Ireland, Al Quieda orchestrated September 11th to scare Americans out of supporting their agenda in the middle east. The US nukes in japan were to force Japan's surrender in world war 2. Every major act of terrorism has a specific goal. Hamas is no different, their goal is to destroy the state of Israel. Israel being invaders, terrorists, thieves etc doesn't change that Hamas is a terrorist organization.
I actually think it would have been damaging to pretend that Biden is perfect. People who can be convinced to vote one way or another aren't blind to the flaws of the current administration, pretending that everything is rosy will switch them off and they'll stay home.
Providing honest criticism, where warranted, of both sides and acknowledging the very real concerns around Biden is more likely to keep people engaged and informed. Despite how flawed Biden is, any sane, informed voter chooses him over Trump every time.
Hard to see something if you've got your eyes closed. There's plenty of liberal support for Assange, just this week the centre right led government of Australia passed a motion to urge the UK and US to return him to Australia.
Yeah we absolutely agree talking big picture! I meant I couldn't disagree more with the place to start haha.
What do you think the initial capital cost of a semi sheltered bike path is compared to a road? What about operational expenses between the two?
The reality is we could very easily have sheltered bike paths and would likely save substantial money compared to maintaining and salting roads all the time.
I couldn't disagree more. A better place to start would be outlawing yank tanks and vehicles that immediately kill pedestrians and cyclists even at low speeds. Reducing the speed limit from 50 hm/h to 40km/h literally does nothing for cyclist safety if they are hit by an SUV, nor does it address that larger vehicles have inadequate visibility and reducing speed limits without changing road design will likely increase distracted driving.
Removing vehicle capacity without providing a viable alternative will not reduce number of vehicles committing but will increase unpredictable behavior, the best option is to provide an alternative to driving first, once that is established, you can add disincentives for driving.
Most new zealnders don't smoke, if most new zealanders don't want to fund smoking how is that different than any other drug being illegal? Would you describe illegal cannibas or prescription only medications as tyranny of the majority?
There are checks and balances in place to prevent actual human rights abuses. You still haven't answered why tax paying new zealanders should be forced to pay health costs for smokers when the majority don't support it. If banning smoking is tyranny of the majority, forcing taxpayers to fund smokers against their will is surely tyranny of the minority.