It's getting worse. Online Opinion, or Online Ignorance?

NathanJ

Mhaze’s point is not mere pedantry, the difference between the meanings of censure and censor is huge and important. To censor something is to prevent it being said; to censure it is to express disapproval of what was said and/or how/when it was said. Thorpe’s comments deserved censure, but should most definitely not be censored.

Hi AC,

Pay peanuts you get monkeys. BTW Fanta is no good for you, higher in sugar than Coke, now that's saying something. Were you at a "Drive Through"? Best takeaway around here is a Vietnamese Pho Soup at 15 bucks. How great is Multiculturalism, Pho Soup, Laska Soup with extra hot chilli sauce, plus fresh chilli on top, my wife can't get enough chilli, and she's not even Mexican, isn't Multiculturalism wonderful. The Thai place we like WOW, Multiculturalism just terrific, otherwise it would be a plate of E-coli from Greasy Freddie's Aussie Takeaway.

If you have problems with Macca's again, go straight to the top and talk to the big cheese himself Ronald, if Ronald can't help, then talk to the brains trust employee, Grimace, who according to Maccas is actually "the embodiment of a milkshake" I thought Grimace was the embodiment of a purple turd. Seems I'm wrong.

Hi Paul,
I've actually been cutting back on the takeaways recently.
It was the first time I'd been to McDonalds in a while, maybe a month or so.
It seems like in the last 6 - 12 months the prices of everything have skyrocketed to a point where you just can't justify paying that much.
Better to do more homecooked meals, not that they're getting any cheaper either.
Plus I've got this magpie with it's babies in my backyard, I made the mistake of giving it some mince, and it's been coming back for more ever since for the last 3 weeks.
My 19yo female housemate has been bragging to me about these Youfoodz meals, they actually look and smell pretty good, I'm keen to try them, but even they're $11 a pop.

Found this article before forum members may find interesting.

Not just kids: Everyone to be age verified for social media
Proposed under-16s ban has wider implications for Australians.
http://ia.acs.org.au/article/2024/not-just-kids--everyone-to-be-age-verified-for-social-.html

"During a Senate Committee hearing last week, Greens senator David Shoebridge probed the means of delivery for an age-based social media ban – revealing the technology currently trialled for the initiative would effectively require users of all ages to run through an age assurance check."

- As expected.

Rhian,

<<Mhaze’s point is not mere pedantry, the difference between the meanings of censure and censor is huge and important.>>

I didn't say is was mere pedantry. What I am saying is that there are reasons behind certain things being done and that is what is important here and it's a bigger picture issue we simply cannot avoid or turn away from.

The senators here were not censured for nothing. There was a reason for doing so more than just a token act in parliament or it wouldn't have happened. It was to censor them in terms of future activity. Very much to tell the senators in question to keep their mouths shut, be wary in terms of future things they say, keep an eye on their words and actions etc.

It is a form of silencing. No one here knew what the senators were going to say or do beforehand, so this is the best way to do what those who supported the censure motion wanted - and they will do it all again if it goes unquestioned and left unchallenged.

We face politicians doing things in our lives and to ourselves and to other elected representatives by backdoor ways which are not helped by simplistic assessments over censure or censor regarding this particular case which aren't reflective of my views either in terms of moves to silence our elected representatives and senators in Australia.

.

Dear Paul,

.

I largely sympathise with your post.

Regarding your objection followed by a question :

« "society reacted proportionately to the infractions of its rules" no I disagree, some politicians reacted against other politicians to the infractions of their rules. Who is the arbitrator of societies rules? »

I see that the censure was voted by the senate and passed by 46 votes to 12, describing Thorpe's actions as "disrespectful and disruptive" and said they should disqualify her from representing the chamber as a member of any delegation.

According to a BBC article, “A censure motion is politically symbolic but carries no constitutional or legal weight”.

Here is the article :

http://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz0memjm3jro

.