Lurtz .

Sydney Nsw, Australia

Someone is shy

Lurtz hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Lurtz .
Posted almost 3 years ago
Scott Fraser: Why eyewitnesses get it wrong
While I agree (that I think) he a has made a mistake about the towers falling, and probably means the aircraft hitting the towers, I feel it doesn't detract from what he is saying. A friend and I used to do all sorts of things together, like hunting, fishing, nights out on the town etc. When ever we get together these days and recount or reminisce; our recollection of a lot of these events varies, and wildly at times, to the point where I look at him and wonder if we are in fact talking about the same thing. Of course my recollection is always the correct one. I also remember watching a documentary about a woman who was raped by a man for a period of time which she estimated to be about 20 minutes. She said she deliberately kept looking at this man so that she could identify him if ever caught. Long story short, she ended up identifying the wrong guy. Her face was inches from his. The guy was later cleared through DNA and the actual perpetrator was eventually caught. In my opinion the only thing she got right was the colour of his skin. And no, I can't vouch entirely for the accuracy of my recollection of that documentary. Cheers.
Noface
Lurtz .
Posted over 3 years ago
James Hansen: Why I must speak out about climate change
I'm sensing a bit of intellectual snobbery here on this forum. I think one of the major problems when it comes to an issue like this is that to many it is a debate where a debate is not necessarily what is called for. There is a lot of misleading 'information' disseminated on the net and I think a lot of the argument is between people who are actually seeking the same thing. They just want the answers, the truth , the facts. If viewed a debate then both sides are susceptible to confirmation bias. What matters is to spread the facts and to debunk the the bad information, not ridiculing others for what is probably just an attempt to understand the issue. No one takes kindly to being ridiculed or dismissed, and that approach is rarely constructive . No one can deny it is a complicated issue and not everyone is capable of reading and properly comprehending scientific papers on the subject. I would imagine there are people in both camps that do not understand it at all. Right/wrong flip a coin, take a stand. I like the debunking site that Mitch Smith put up previously (repeated below) and I think this approach is better. I haven't watched it all yet but it appears to show that there has been misleading information put out by both sides and addresses some of the contentious issues. I think it's better to advertise sites and sources of good information that address peoples confusion and scepticism without turning it into a pissing contest. In this day and age a little scepticism is a good thing.......and at least it show that people are interested. Cheers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PLA4F0994AFB057BB8&feature=plcp&context=C47e2259FD
Noface
Lurtz .
Posted over 3 years ago
Stephen Coleman: The moral dangers of non-lethal weapons
That figure of 2226 instances of use of pepper spray during a two year trial period when the public were assured that it would only be used as a last resort, an option between shouting and shooting................says a lot. I wonder how often it is used now that it is standard issue? I was shocked at that figure. I live in Australia and remember the introduction of pepper spray, and more recently tasers. My very first thought was that it would be open to misuse and/or over use and to me the reason seemed obvious. There are potentially serious consequences for the police if they shoot someone. It means they have to think very carefully before taking that step. Labelling something a non-lethal weapon practically removes that sense of responsibility. So I suppose what I am wondering is that, if it seemed so obvious to me that it would be misused (and I'm no Einstein) then why was it ever introduced?