>>53358555 sorry bro >no right to free speech, hate speech laws out the ass and you can easily get arrested for it >downright draconian gun laws >need a license for fucking air rifles >airsoft is banned >LASER pointers are banned >fucking YO YO WATERBALLS are banned >FUCKING RUBBER DUCKS ARE BANNED >novelty lighters are banned >smokeless tobacco is banned >need a helmet to ride a fucking bicycle >plain packaging on cigarettes >absurdly high taxation on alcohol and cigarettes, most cuckfailians have to drink shitty goonbags because it's all they can afford >many violent games and movies banned >video games are expensive as shit >no self defense allowed >hoverboards will be banned soon
>>53359487 >>fucking YO YO WATERBALLS are banned What are those? >>FUCKING RUBBER DUCKS ARE BANNED Proof? >>novelty lighters are banned Also need proof on this one. >>many violent games and movies banned Not really. Only a handful are and people get around the bans all the time anyway if they want. >>no self defense allowed Also a lie.
>>53359789 Those guys actually live in India but Brazil does have a lot of monkeys (Squirrel monkeys mostly) but some really interesting looking ones like pic related. >>53359799 I made a mistake, Bonnet macaques are from South India.
>>53359997 >not having snow as a part of my life Fair enough. The feeling is mutual. >>53360012 We're talking about the present, and implying things is not something I do. >Inb4 muh 4chan protocols >websites = serious business Yeah, I don't care.
>>53359815 >What about his post is actually false, though? I'll go through what I can for you. >>no right to free speech, hate speech laws out the ass and you can easily get arrested for it Technically true. We have anti-slander and anti-libel laws that inhibit people from saying damaging things about people, but as far as I'm aware those only come into effect if you're lying/making things up about people and can't prove them. >>downright draconian gun laws Kind of true. Plenty of people in country areas own guns for hunting and pest control, but they're quite limited in what they can and can't own. Semi automatic and select fire rifles are banned, but semi auto pistols are legal. Other than that, run of the mill shit like shotguns and bolt action rifles are legal as far as I'm aware. >>need a license for fucking air rifles I don't know if this one is actually true, although it would not surprise me if it is. Weapon laws in general are quite strict here, so he's probably right on that one. Although it's also something that most people would have no idea about because nobody here other than teenagers would even have the desire to own them anyway. >>LASER pointers are banned Actually they're not. Some places still sell them and some people still own them. Although again, something that adults never seek out and only kids use them. >>fucking YO YO WATERBALLS are banned I can't comment on this because I don't even know what they are. >>FUCKING RUBBER DUCKS ARE BANNED >>novelty lighters are banned I've seen both of these in shops plenty of times. He's either mistaken about these or is flat out lying. >>smokeless tobacco is banned I don't smoke, so no idea if he's right or not. >>need a helmet to ride a fucking bicycle This one is true. If a cop catches you riding a bicycle without a helmet they can issue you with a fine. Run out of space, more to come.
>>53359487 Tbh is even a half of these things is true, it seems like they are trying really hard to make Australia safe and livable, no winder they're, like, the best country on Earth. It's completely justifiable to tax alcohol and tobacco to hell and "force" people to wear helmets. >muh video games lmao
>>53360087 Hate speech laws are disturbing, not libel and slander laws. >smokeless tobacco That means chew and snuff. >If a cop catches you riding a bicycle without a helmet they can issue you with a fine. Even the Netherlands aren't this silly. C'mon, man.
>>53360087 >>plain packaging on cigarettes Depending on how you want to classify it, this is a grey area. They packaging isn't technically plain, but the original packaging isn't used, either. Instead they usually put photos of things like brown lungs and emphysema patients on them, usually with some kind of written health warning. >>absurdly high taxation on alcohol and cigarettes This one is half right. There are high taxes on cigs, but currently tax on a lot of alcohol is fairly low. It's true that the taxes have been increased, but they were later repealed. You just wouldn't know it because the companies that sell it have kept the prices high anyway and hide behind some shitty concept like the market and consumers having already adjusted to the price hike. >>most cuckfailians have to drink shitty goonbags because it's all they can afford This is either a mistake or a lie. Plenty of people drink it, that much is true; but most people still drink beer and/or spirits. >>many violent games and movies banned Generally not movies, but some videogames are refused classification. It's not quite the same as being banned, but when you consider that it means you can't walk into a brick and mortar shop to buy them, it's very much the same. However, people that want to get the games can still get ahold of them easily enough if they know what they're doing. >>video games are expensive as shit This one he's right on. Especially when it comes to big budget releases by companies like EA, Ubisoft, Activision, etc. That's not really a nanny state thing, though; that's just foreign companies ripping us off. >>no self defense allowed Another mistake or lie. I can't speak for the other states, but here in NSW you're definitely allowed to defend yourself. The laws surrounding the means by which you can do it are definitely far more restrictive than they would be in a place like the United States, but to say it's not allowed is not even close to the truth. >>hoverboards No idea.
>>53360087 >This one is true. If a cop catches you riding a bicycle without a helmet they can issue you with a fine.
If you don't want to wear a helmet because you think It's not fashionable, just carry it around your handlebars
If a cop sees you 99% of the time they'll just tell you to put the helmet on and inform you that it's illegal not to wear a helmet
I'm not going to say 100% of the time because some asshole cop probably would fine you but It's never happened to me and I've been pulled up by cops numerous times for not wearing the helmet and every single one has let me off with a warning
They'd fine you If you didn't have a helmet at all though
>>53360197 >Hate speech laws are disturbing, not libel and slander laws. Well in any case even if we do have those, they're poorly enforced. People get accused of it, but I don't know of anybody being arrested for it. >That means chew and snuff. I have no idea if that's banned or not. You'd have to speak to somebody that frequents a tobacconist. >Even the Netherlands aren't this silly. C'mon, man. Yeah I know, you guys like to be free to crack your skull open and all that, I've seen that rant before. But honestly, the other laws and regulations annoy people far more than one that's there to remind you to protect your head when riding a bike. But based on what I've seen that's another one that's poorly enforced because I see people riding without helmets all the time for some stupid reason.
>>53360237 >This one he's right on. Especially when it comes to big budget releases by companies like EA, Ubisoft, Activision, etc. That's not really a nanny state thing, though; that's just foreign companies ripping us off.
He's actually not right.
We get paid higher wages so things cost more
In terms of purchasing power there is no substantial difference between the cost of video games in Australia and the cost of video games in the US
The PPP conversion for US to Aus in 1.4
New releases in Australia cost between $70 and $90, meaning in a purchasing power comparison they cost between $50 and $65 US
What's the price of new video games in the US? Between $50 and $60
>>53360151 > I have the rights and freedoms to kill myself and children because seat belts invade my burgergut and thus, I exercise my right as a free citizen to say that my gut SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED > ps. Support the troops > pps. And Israel too.
>>53360315 All of the alcohol/cigarette/helmet/seatbelt shit is because we have an A+ public healthcare system. If my taxes weren't paying for your cancer treatment/stay in critical ward I'd be outraged but since they are I'm a supporter of these laws. And before you ask yes I'd choose having our healthcare and putting up with these laws over your system
>>53360265 >https://www.productsafety.gov.au/content/index.phtml/tag/bans#toc2 Damn. I did not know they'd put that through. I could have sworn I saw all kinds of rubber toys like that in shops. That said, I don't often go into big department stores, so I'm kind of going off outdated information. In any case, touche to you. >>53360315 >Alcohol taxes in Cuckstralia are some of the highest in the first world. Based on our nations drinking problem, apparently it doesn't stop anybody from getting more alcohol than they reasonably need. So I guess it's not doing much in any case. Honestly, taxes like that aren't even to protect people, they're just a blatant revenue grab. Our govt does shit like that quite a lot, desu. >In Australia if you were to shoot somebody for trying to physically assault you, you'd go to jail. It depends on the circumstances. If you're talking about somebody just pushing or punching you and then you killed them, yes, you almost certainly would. But the law does allow you to use lethal force to defend against lethal force used against yourself or somebody else. However, because gun laws are so restrictive here, the only people that can really use a gun in those scenarios are police and armed security guards. Also I'm not trying to digress from the point here, but assuming that when you say "physical assault" you mean somebody trying to punch you, kick you or beat you up, what kind of a maniac would use lethal force on somebody just for that? >So yes, pretty much the vast majority of self defense is banned Well no, not really. Guns are not the only way to defend yourself. I don't know if this is some kind of cultural barrier and life is just more crazy and extreme in the US, but most altercations here are not life threatening. Yes sometimes people end up in hospital, on rare occasoins they even die, but most people are looking at maybe a few cuts or bruises at worst.
>Yeah I know, you guys like to be free to crack your skull open and all that, And? >inb4 gun laws Gun laws make sense because other people's rights are potentially at stake. If I fall off of my bike, it won't break the skull of someone 100 meters away. >>53360419 >mfw you can't have even the simplest of conversation without hurr durr banter
The Ausfailian government treats you like fucking children, shielding you from everything slightly dangerous.
A rule of thumb is that in Australia, if somethibg poses the SLIGHTEST bit of danger it's either:
>banned >heavily taxed >heavily restricted
Such a mentality does not belong here. This country was founded on dangerous freedom. For example I can ride a motorcycle in my state without having to wear a helmet and smoke a fucking cigar indoors at a bar. And I love it so much.
>>53359921 >Andrew Bolt I'm going to need more than a name. When was he arrested for something he said? >>53359921 >But they are? That's alarming. To be fair, yes, it is a bit. Our mistrustful, crotchety old man govt is by far the thing about this place that bothers me the most.
>>53360520 >>53360548 >In the South Australian Court of Criminal Appeal in R v Howe (1958) SASR 95, Mason J formulated six propositions on the law of self-defence were accepted as a model direction on self-defence in murder trials. Thus, a full acquittal was achieved if the jury found that the accused had reasonably believed they were threatened with death or serious bodily harm and, if so, that the force used was reasonably proportionate to the perceived danger.
Your self defense laws are a logic.
I like being allowed to defend myself with lethal force if I were to be physically assaulted m8
>>53360563 >http://m.baka.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/play-ball-not-bolt-in-free-speech-debate-20111027-1mm4h.html Well shit. I knew we had them, but I didn't realise they were actually enforcing them. Probably because I'd seen people get away with it before. In any case, given all the nanny state shit our govt does, I'm not exactly terribly surprised by it.
>>53360659 >Thus, a full acquittal was achieved if the jury found that the accused had reasonably believed they were threatened with death or serious bodily harm and, if so, that the force used was reasonably proportionate to the perceived danger.
>>53360603 Whereas I think that's stupid to be banned here, it's been done because it's a children's product. What's the reason for banning violent media for adults? >>53360593 http://m.baka.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/play-ball-not-bolt-in-free-speech-debate-20111027-1mm4h.html
>>53360424 Okay, but again, I don't expect you to understand, but most people find things like this difficult to care about. Yeah, you're exactly right when you say that our govt runs a nanny state and wants to either ban or regulate anything that's dangerous or that it doesn't understand, but on minor things like this nobody other than mischevious youths are even affected, so generally nobody cares.
>>53360659 >I like being allowed to defend myself with lethal force if I were to be physically assaulted m8 Frankly that one just makes you sound like a bit of a psycho, really. Don't get me wrong, I think our self defence laws are a bit inadequate and I'm not real thrilled about others dictating to me the way in which I can protect my own life should it ever be threatened. But using lethal force against someone that's punching or kicking somebody is Africa levels of reaction.
>>53360723 Okay, but still I'm not comfortable with that happening, are you? We only have a couple of political parties that even give half a shit about civil liberties and they're either tiny, ineffective ones like F.R.E.E. or shitty meme ones like the Sex Party. We really do deserve better.
>>53360882 No I'm not comfortable with it, I think It should be repealed but people blow it out of proportion, It's such a small law and It is very rarely ever enforced
It essentially says you can't say things aren't true
It's not illegal to say black people commit more crimes, or are dumber according to IQ and test results because there are many documents of that
It's illegal to say things that could be perceived as racist that have no proof to back it up
Bolt had no evidence to back up his claim that people were pretending to be Aboriginal to rort the system and there was enough leftist butthurt that the Government was forced to actually enforce the law
>>53360563 >And? And nothing. This one just comes down to a simple difference of opinion. If you think you should be able to ride your bicycle without a helmet and you do then that's pefectly fine. Literally nowhere else to go on that as far as I can see. >>inb4 gun laws >Gun laws make sense because other people's rights are potentially at stake. If I fall off of my bike, it won't break the skull of someone 100 meters away. I wasn't going to mention your gun laws, desu. If anything, I'm probably one of the only Aussies you'll see on here that thinks our laws are too strict in that regard. Our self defence laws for that matter, too.
>>53360909 >Punching and kicking have the potential to kill. Yeah, but more often than not they just result in minor injuries at most or a bruised ego. Using lethal force on the slim chance that it might maybe kill you is a pretty extreme level of reaction or even preemption in my view. I respect that that's what the law allows you to do in your country, but things are different here and most people don't seem to have a problem with that one. >If you went to a cop and started punching and kicking him you'd rightfully be shot. You'd probably be shot in America. Here you're more likely to be pepper sprayed or tazed. Even though cops are all issued with firearms here, they tend to try to avoid using them unless they have to.
>>53360991 >When an amerishot unironically uses SHALL NOT INFRINGE "Liberty" as an argument against bettering healthcare and extending the (comparitavely) poor HDI of his """nation""" You cannot fabricate this.
>>53361100 I'm upper-middle class so life is pretty great in America.
But I'll respond
You are absolutely right that Australia does have a higher living standard than America. But I personally place greater emphasis on personal freedom. Put simply, I would choose America to live in, because while the living standards are slightly lower than Australia, it isn't as authoritarian.
To me a high living standard at the cost of being coddled to shit and being free to do fuck all is meaningless. It's like a comfy well-kept prison.
I know this is radical thought to you m8, I honestly don't care. I'll take my slightly lower living standards as long as I have a fuckton of freedom than vice versa.
>>53361136 >Say punching and kicking have a 5 percent chance of killing you. Would you partake in an activity where your chances of dying are five percent? No you wouldn't. I suppose it depends on the circumstances. If we're talking about somebody being hit off guard in say a bar or a nightclub for example and that had the 5% chance, then yeah obviously not. They even have PSAs here about exactly that because of a few people that have been punched in the back of the head with no warning and it either resulted in hospitalisation or death. But shit like that happens in pubs and clubs all the time here and people don't usually die from it. But I've been hit in the head with all kinds of stuff over the years, I'm still alive and I was never hospitalised. So I can appreciate the slim chance of it actually causing serious harm to me in most circumstances. But I can also understand why people that haven't been exposed to that kind of violence much might be frightened by the worst case scenario stories. If we're talking about any kind of punching and kicking, even in controlled situations then it wouldn't bother me at all because I've already partaken plenty of times and nothing bad ever happend to me. I'm still alive and I was never hospitalised. Sorry if I'm not fully addressing what you're getting at here. I'm juggling several conversations right now and can't exactly give 100% to all of them.
>>53359921 Andrew Bolt talks out of his arse nearly all the time and is generally a shit bloke that needs to lighten up.
Here's the actual hate speech law: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html
And here's an article on its interpretation in case law: https://www.humanrights.gov.au/news/stories/body-case-law-provides-clarity-18c-commissioner
Hagan v Trustees of the Toowoomba Sports Ground Trust made it clear that someone saying "I'm offended" isn't enough to make something hate speech. It has to be considered offensive by a reasonable person. And Creek v Cairns Post made it clear that it has to cause "profound and serious" offense, not be a "mere slight".
What happened in the Bolt case was that he said fair-skinned Aboriginal people weren't really Aboriginal because they weren't black enough and were only pretending to be Aboriginal to get benefits. Like usual, he cited absolutely zero evidence in saying that.
That's way different from pretending we have some Tumblr-style law. We don't.
>>53361311 Yeah I know and I cannot deny that there is a chance there because it does indeed on occasion. But simply put, I'm just not able to do it. Not even in the legal sense (although that's also the case), but just in the sense that I'm not mentally and morally prepared to use lethal force against somebody just for hitting me or somebody else. I think this might just be a difference of culture and national character, really. >Thus why if I went to Australia and started swinging at a coppah's head I'd be shot dead. Bro I'm telling you they probably wouldn't shoot you. You'd be far more likely to be pepper sprayed or tazed at worst. Police get assaulted here, just like anywhere else, but they don't go around lighting people up and I can only guess that it's because they're aware of the relative threat level. >>53360082 We took a vote on it and decided we're going to stay white. If we boost our melanin, who are non-whites going to bitch about? Asians?
Kek. Your government treats you like one of those retarded children who stuck forks into wall sockets as kids and banged their heads on walls, so their parents covered the wall sockets and made them wear a helmet at home.
You ban, heavily restrict or heavily tax anything slightly dangerous m8
>>53361289 >>53361289 Nah, I'm shitposting, and have vidya to play. All I can say, is that the USA is a much more unstable nation, partially due to the laws being lax, and partly due to ease of access to guns. it will show in the years to come. > inb4 "so patriotic I'm willing to go to war against my own nation" speech
>>53361482 Okay. So are you saying people should or shouldn't be allowed to use lethal force to defend against a punch to the head? Assuming of course that they aren't knocked unconscious by the first blow.
>>53361454 >your government We live in a functioning democracy m8, our government pretty accurately reflects the will of the people. Something you'll never understand. If we wanted things to be different we'd make them different, simple as that
>>53361612 True, but in most cases it isn't. Have you ever been out drinking with your mates on the weekend and seen a fight break out? Ever been to a party and seen a fight break out? How many people died at those? >>53361628 How is asking a simple question getting worked up? >>53361640 Just wear your helmet and avoid the whole thing desu. Even if not wearing a helmet was legal I'd still wear one because I'm not real keen on head injuries. >>53361664 Fukken lol'd, Rareflag. >>53361672 >Police only shoot at people with wielded knives or guns. Even then they've been known to try and talk people down instead of just shooting them.
>>53360593 Andrew Bolt was not arrested, he only violated CIVIL law (Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act), not CRIMINAL law, there is a distinct difference. No police were involved, he just got sued. Also, how can you not know who Andrew Bolt is as an Australian? He's pretty much our own one-man Fox News..
>>53361699 > talk people down instead of just shooting them If our police went around shooting every leb or Arab soccer hooligan with a knife, there would be more chances for a sand-nignog Charlestown and Boston-style uprising
>>53360957 Sorry I took so long to get to you. >Bolt had no evidence to back up his claim that people were pretending to be Aboriginal to rort the system and there was enough leftist butthurt that the Government was forced to actually enforce the law In that case I take back most of what I said. I already knew there was the slander/libel about false accusations and such, I just didn't know that Bolt had said that shit without anything backing it up.
>>53361794 >Andrew Bolt was not arrested, he only violated CIVIL law (Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act), not CRIMINAL law, there is a distinct difference. No police were involved, he just got sued. Figures. The one piece of evidence he tried to throw at me about speech infringement and it didn't even involve an arrest like he was trying to get at. >Also, how can you not know who Andrew Bolt is as an Australian? He's pretty much our own one-man Fox News.. I know who he is, I just didn't know he'd been arrested until I read the article posted ITT. Also I don't watch a lot of TV. >>53361801 Possibly, but that seems kind of speculative.
>Americans shit on your cunt >Respond with anger and derision >They reply in kind >Respond rationally and reasonably >They actually have a rational and reasonable conversation with you Who'da fucken thunk it? Thanks to the USA bros that weren't complete wankstains ITT, but I've got shit to do, so I'm heading off for a while. Everybody be good or I'm reporting you to our police state overlords and having you arrested for hate speech.
>>53362368 Post your american ìd's and outside your windows right now. Youre the same proxied aussie who constantly makes aussie themed tjreads on int and attention whore on sp in cric and other aussie threads there who are you fooling mate? I myself only recently started using aussie ip's after a long stint on german and dutch proxies
On the bike helmet thing, there are way too many spastic drivers who can't stand cyclists on our roads for me to ever feel comfortable riding without one. My dad has gotten into numerous serious accidents/fights/minor accidents that turn into fights just because motorists hate having to drive carefully.
I go the long way just so I don't have to ride with traffic.
>>53362751 This. There are drivers who deliberately hit cyclists because they hate them that much. And they know they can get away with it unless the cyclist has a gopro or something. Plus there's all the idiots who open the car doors without looking.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.