Message from @yordanyordanov
Discord ID: 689816929279672327
Well, I haven't seen your content for a while.
I used to follow your YuouTube channel but then I saw you stopped uploading for a few weeks and thought you might have given up on it.
Now I see you come back.
Good.
You ask really interesting and deep questions @Settler's Lament
I see in your work real strive to find the **ROOT** of the problem not just make some cheesy video for the viewcount
and there aren't many people like this around.
Please, keep up the good work!
👍
Thank you very much
No problem.
I think we need more people like you around, I mean around not only in Canada where you are from but generally on the Internet.
I think soon enoug we will be facing an all out war here-online and we would be desperate for sound couterarguments to the sheeple's stupid but well-rehersead replies.
What I see as the biggest problem of the alt-whatever-you-wanna-call-it Internet right now is the presence of plenty of people but few ideas.
Most people just take a developed set of ideas-be it from the far right, the classical liberals, the libertarians, the Christian conservatives or whomever and just regorgetate it over and over again without put any effort about thinking of the implications of what they just prescribed into.
And the crazy-commie-left already had counterpoints to all their responses and just keep poundering them on the official media and the big channels.
Even the big ones-Sargon boy here, Stefan Molyneaux or BPS just fit in the mold and regorgetate.
And that's obviously not gonna work any more.
In you I see someone who tries to THINK FOR HIMSELF, find his own answer and actually puts a lot of efforts behind his scripts.
If something can work, that it!
Make people think, so they can find their own answers, not just copy stuff from the thick old books.
I think at the end this approach and people like you would make the final difference, not the regorgatating ones.
Keep up the good work man!
👍
Hi, first time poster, not sure if this channel is best fit, but felt that this article in The Verge continues on a recent video by Sargon. Article is critical of "pedo-busting" not because it's morally questionable vigilantism, but because in their minds, it's inherently "homophobic." https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/18/21183662/pedo-hunting-vigilante-youtube-tik-tok-anti-lgbt-viral
Guys i need help, a cousin relative of mine might have the virus and her niece believes is just the flu cause her authorities told her the 14 day meme nothingburger. can you link me to trustworthy sources that debunk that old crao please? i will be very thankful.
I'm sorry. Theres No cure. Just wait it out and hope she doesnt decide to travel.
keep your boomer safe
@Divinity
Avigan works.
MEXICO, PLEASE, IMPEACH AMLO
Anyone familiar enough with AU constitutional law to have an opinion of whether Tasmania's interstate human quarantine/travel ban is constitutional? s92 seems to indicate otherwise
There have been some limited exceptions granted historically for things like fruit fly quarantine but it's a big jump from not bringing in apples to preventing people entering and leaving
@The1stImmortal As an Australian, all I've ever seen in relation to the constitution is a complete ignorance or deflection of its original meaning and purpose. For example, passages about free speech, about the rights and lawmaking ability of states, about the inclusion of new zealand, about how much of the unwritten British 'constitution' remains implied and so on. after reading s92 in full, I'd suggest that you CAN interpret the words "shall be free" as "shall have no tariff or extra charge incurred". This is a shutdown of movement between states in 'extraordinary circumstances', not an imposition of financial restrictions.
It seems there is precedent set in 1988 and again in 1992 for this passage strictly on the subject of peoples and free movement. Precedent can (obviously) be dismissed or overruled, and my assessment is that most judges would uphold this law's legality - on the basis of this statement from the judge in 1992:
"subject to permissible regulation which might take the form "of excluding from passage across the frontier of a State creatures or things calculated to injure its citizens", but the severity and need for such measures must still be assessed"
There would be a reasonable argument to be made that prohibiting movement for the sake of people's health is valid.
With all that said, it comes down to the individual judges (should anyone officially challenge the law) and how much those judges hate Tasmania.
I'm not a fan of many of the ways the High Court has traditionally interpreted the Constitution. We've taken a much softer approach here than in the US - there seems to be a much lower bar to override constitutional restrictions here than there in general (see: s116 being essentially entirely gutted vs almost identical wording in the US 1st Amendment being a gold standard)
From what I can find - and I haven't found the sources you mention so I'd be curious there - passage of people is different to passage of goods, in that human movement seems to have been interpreted into s92 already as a standalone thing. Previous Federal laws on restricting people for quarantine reasons, particularly the Biosecurity Bill of 2014, seem to have focussed on having a "checklist" of criteria to be met, followed by individual orders being made. That specificity seems to have been what got such quarantines across the line previously.
What I'm worried about is a blanket ban on *all* travellers, without specificity, being imposed independently by a state. That seems to cross a line to me.
Of course, you're right - it'd depend on the judges of the High Court, assuming they even took the case in a timely fashion (one way to sidestep the issue would be to use the virus as an excuse to not hear the case until the matter was no longer relevant).
Oh it'd almost certainly take them a year or two