Even Descartes dropped the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) when not in a thought exercise. And the god bit he inserted to not be declared a heretic.
Perceptions cannot be proven. They are perception. I thought you'd read Descartes? 2+2=4 is math. Math doesn't depend on perception. It is objectively true. Honestly READ the damn book
Well, judging by some of the posts on this forum being delusional and paranoid in America is a part time hobby It still stands 10=1 ratio with the police supporting the 10 (even if unwillingly). That is an imbalance of power no matter how you slice it. Where there is an imbalance of power there is intimidation End of story
No - but it could look like they were supporting them. Why WERE they there? Were the OCT people expecting themselves to cause trouble? Or was it for the four women having coffee?
a quarter: .25 cents: Which one is right? This is comparable to stretching what really is and what you wish. So, what is it? In reality, they are the same. Some police in America realize they also swore to uphold the Constitution and it's laws. What you are wishing for is a shootout over nothing but your terror at the US owning guns. MOD EDIT - Rule 3
It has been stated many times. The reason the police were there is that the police request that OCT give them a courtesy call when they are going to have an event. In the past, when people have seen OCT in public with firearms, they call the police and report people carrying guns in public. With the police already there, this stops the phone calls. This should be very easy to understand. They are there to ensure public safety for all.
Because there was a protest planned and its common courtesy to notify the police so they can keep order. You know... their jobs?
She is from a socialist utopia where everything is provided, no citizen wants for anything, and she wishes to share that joy with the rest of the uneducated, backwater troglodytes.
It is not an imbalance of power, if one side of the debate is too much of a fringe organization to draw sufficient numbers of like-minded individuals. For your position to be correct, the nation of Australia would need to be found guilty of intimidating and bullying firearm activists by having the greater numbers.
Maybe you would be more comfortable if the armed police surrounded the 4 ladies to make sure they didn't try anything. You are going to try to spin their response no matter what the police did. OCT called the police as a courtesy to prevent public panic and I suspect to prevent somebody from crying "Wolf".
I read the 3rd Meditation. He says he can't know whether or not a demon is manipulating him without God's guidance. I'm simply saying let's not go in a Cartesian circle, and focus on what he says because it does illustrate a good point. - - - Updated - - - The fact that I'm quoting the guy who came up with Modern philosophy with this question of whether or not we can trust our senses? The fact that it goes right back to the basic assumptions of our ideologies?
Sure, so what? I'm going to argue that Descartes could never have realized that 2+3=5, because it his perception that led him to that conclusion. - - - Updated - - - I know, then I showed you how feelings led to knowledge.
If in the past people have been concerned enough about the OCT that reports to the police have escalated to the point where the police have asked to be notified - does this not suggest that the sight of a large number of visibly armed persons is intimidating? And they outnumbered the women 10:1
And the very fact that they thought someone might be intimidated into calling the police shows that their response was for intimidation - there were FOUR women meeting in a coffee shop. To have forty people turn up and protest is intimidation because it is a 10 to 1 response
Offend vs. intimidate might make a nice play on words but here they're simply being equivocated. You don't have to like what another person is saying, but if they're doing it with the intention of causing harm or to stop you from using your rights, there's a problem. Scaring people into not using their rights for fear of retribution is a danger to any society. It can not be a nation founded upon rights then for it is the strong then that dominate the population. That is a slap to what the US was founded upon. - - - Updated - - - Public education. Mind posting it instead? How are they stopping a riot when they turn a blind eye to their friends rioting?
They might not be able to control, but they can influence their perceptions. Police know that, it's about deescelating a situation by knowing what the right words are. Think of it like this. If the police were outside someone's house while a mob was threatening to burn it down, would that look like the police are doing their job? Let's assume the mob could actually do this, wouldn't that give the exact same vibe that you're talking about right now? The mob can threaten to burn down their house, and the police could look like they're doing nothing. That matters in how the two groups talk to each other. A group that had managed to track them to a cafe, got people there in a timely fashion, decided to be armed, isn't about intimidation. Take away the guns, they were standing outside with crowbars doing nothing but carrying them around. Wouldn't that be intimidating. Remember, the right said that a person standing outside a voting center with a crowbar was intimidation.
And how is what your country is doing any different from your standard of intimidation? More residents of the nation of Australia apparently support the current firearm restrictions as they are, or would even support them being stricter. How is that not intimidation to those that wish for the status quo to return to a pre-Port Arthur state?
Not only OCT, but many people who open carry have had police called on them, despite it being legal. Research OCT on YouTube and educate yourself about the group instead of making false accusations based on your bias. Cops are called often with only one openly carried gun. Yep, some people are definitely intimidated by the sight of a gun. In no way does that mean people can't exercise their right. And they are within the law.
Now you want to regulate the freedom of assembly so that the ratio of people with differing opinions is somehow non-threatening? Next you will want thought control.
where was the brandishing? There was no threat. There was no intimidation. You are merely doing a false projection. You weren't there. You are not aware of anymore than the article relays... another "what if" game, mayhap? Rather than deal in reality......
