Quiz for correct thinking people

medusala

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Posts
34,959
Likes
6,230
Location
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Thread starter #1
Which of the following are unacceptable:

1) freedom fighters using children as hostages
2) gulags
3) elimination of counter revolutionaries
4) eating caviar and threatening rare fish species as a result
5) killing animals whilst boiling them alive
6) wearing mink coats
7) dogs killing foxes
8) gassing and snaring foxes
9) people with hyphenated surnames
10) private schools



Answers:
7,9 and 10

If you scored:
10 - well done comrade, however the chances are you are an American spy so we may have to shoot you.
6-9 you may be able to serve in a lowly position in the politburo
3-5 you obviously need some time in a reeducation camp to reconsider your answers
<3 your family will be sent a bill for the bullet.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

MGREG

Club Legend
Suspended
Joined
Apr 19, 2002
Posts
2,981
Likes
1
Location
Beatles best band ever
Other Teams
Collingwood
#2
medusala said:
Which of the following are unacceptable:

1) freedom fighters using children as hostages
2) gulags
3) elimination of counter revolutionaries
4) eating caviar and threatening rare fish species as a result
5) killing animals whilst boiling them alive
6) wearing mink coats
7) dogs killing foxes
8) gassing and snaring foxes
9) people with hyphenated surnames
10) private schools



Answers:
7,9 and 10

If you scored:
10 - well done comrade, however the chances are you are an American spy so we may have to shoot you.
6-9 you may be able to serve in a lowly position in the politburo
3-5 you obviously need some time in a reeducation camp to reconsider your answers
<3 your family will be sent a bill for the bullet.

HAHA.

That is an absolute classic! :D
 

dan warna

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 13, 2003
Posts
20,557
Likes
190
Location
melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
#3
which of the following are unacceptable

1. selling chemical weapons to iraq
2. supporting iraq during its illegal invasion of iran, by shelling iranian military bases and warships, and military aid to iraq
3. hiring mercenary death squads to do your dirty work in iraq
4. using fuel air bombs and cluster bombs in situations which have resulted in the death of children
5. allowing a fruit cake born again christian creationist to advise you on public and foreign policy
6. using illegal concentration camps in afghanistan, iraq, and cuba, which are worse than gulags from the soviet era, and not allowing the 'prisoners' a fair trial for over two years in some cases
7. making automatic weapons and semi automatic weapons available to anyone who wants them without a licensing proceedure
8. telling anybody abstinance is a legitimate cure all for HIV-Aids, (mmm unless you have issues, sex is a lot of fun and you are never going to convince anyone who isn't a born again christian moron that it isn't,
9. supporting un democratic dictators like those in saudi, pakistan, kuwait etc
10. torturing people

if you scored 10, welcome to the faith brother, your employment contract is being sent out by haliburton right now

if you scored between 7 and 9, there is a place for you in the front line of america's liberation of Iraq

between 4 and 6, bush will get better in his second term

3 or less, you ungodly heathen, a few months or years in a rehab centre at guantanamo for correctional therapy will have you seeing the light.
 

demon_dave

Club Legend
Joined
Sep 5, 2003
Posts
2,727
Likes
2
Location
Highett
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory,Chelsea
#4
dan warna said:
which of the following are unacceptable

1. selling chemical weapons to iraq
2. supporting iraq during its illegal invasion of iran, by shelling iranian military bases and warships, and military aid to iraq
3. hiring mercenary death squads to do your dirty work in iraq
4. using fuel air bombs and cluster bombs in situations which have resulted in the death of children
5. allowing a fruit cake born again christian creationist to advise you on public and foreign policy
6. using illegal concentration camps in afghanistan, iraq, and cuba, which are worse than gulags from the soviet era, and not allowing the 'prisoners' a fair trial for over two years in some cases
7. making automatic weapons and semi automatic weapons available to anyone who wants them without a licensing proceedure
8. telling anybody abstinance is a legitimate cure all for HIV-Aids, (mmm unless you have issues, sex is a lot of fun and you are never going to convince anyone who isn't a born again christian moron that it isn't,
9. supporting un democratic dictators like those in saudi, pakistan, kuwait etc
10. torturing people

if you scored 10, welcome to the faith brother, your employment contract is being sent out by haliburton right now

if you scored between 7 and 9, there is a place for you in the front line of america's liberation of Iraq

between 4 and 6, bush will get better in his second term

3 or less, you ungodly heathen, a few months or years in a rehab centre at guantanamo for correctional therapy will have you seeing the light.
THATS the classic
 

medusala

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Posts
34,959
Likes
6,230
Location
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Thread starter #5
dan warna said:
which of the following are unacceptable

1. selling chemical weapons to iraq
2. supporting iraq during its illegal invasion of iran, by shelling iranian military bases and warships, and military aid to iraq
3. hiring mercenary death squads to do your dirty work in iraq
4. using fuel air bombs and cluster bombs in situations which have resulted in the death of children
5. allowing a fruit cake born again christian creationist to advise you on public and foreign policy
6. using illegal concentration camps in afghanistan, iraq, and cuba, which are worse than gulags from the soviet era, and not allowing the 'prisoners' a fair trial for over two years in some cases
7. making automatic weapons and semi automatic weapons available to anyone who wants them without a licensing proceedure
8. telling anybody abstinance is a legitimate cure all for HIV-Aids, (mmm unless you have issues, sex is a lot of fun and you are never going to convince anyone who isn't a born again christian moron that it isn't,
9. supporting un democratic dictators like those in saudi, pakistan, kuwait etc
10. torturing people

if you scored 10, welcome to the faith brother, your employment contract is being sent out by haliburton right now

if you scored between 7 and 9, there is a place for you in the front line of america's liberation of Iraq

between 4 and 6, bush will get better in his second term

3 or less, you ungodly heathen, a few months or years in a rehab centre at guantanamo for correctional therapy will have you seeing the light.
1) US did not sell chemical weapons to Iraq that were used on other countries. BTW how can you say they had chemical weapons sold to them by USA but didnt have WMD?
2)More illegal than invasion of Kuwait?
3) So the USA are hiring soldiers of fortune of other nationalities, please expand on this.
4) name a war where civilians werent killed.
5) Labor's foreign policy is determined by the UN ie the security council veto of countries like china and russia
6) you are a moron 20m+ died in Stalin's gulags how many died in Guantanamo Bay?
7) cf death by star trial
8) Cuba
9) As opposed to being a dictator
10) Apparently Stalin, Pol Pot,Mao etc were reasonably good at torture.

DW you are an A grade muppet.
 

BlueMark

Club Legend
Joined
Feb 22, 2003
Posts
2,233
Likes
12
Location
MELB
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Carlton
#6
So I take it that if you are right minded, then you do not have a problem with what the Russians have been doing in Chechnya, that the American invasion of Iraq has condemned that country to long term instability. That is OK for the Coalition to violate international law and human rights while claiming to be fighting a war to uphold these very prinicples ( a mans gotta do what a mans gotta do).

Personally I thought a righted minded person should condemn all acts of agression and demands that all violators of human rights and international law be made to face justice, no matter who they are or where they are from. To take any other position is simply hypocritical.
 

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
#7
I think you forgot 4 - caviar is a toffy nosed indulgence.

Why expose yourself as a fool.

I'd vote 1, 2, 3 (French resistance were counter revs?), 4, 5 (drown em), 6, 7, and I'm a rampant lefty.
 

otaku

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 7, 2002
Posts
9,307
Likes
1
Location
48' 03&quot;N 13' 51&quot;E
#8
BlueMark said:
Personally I thought a righted minded person should condemn all acts of agression and demands that all violators of human rights and international law be made to face justice, no matter who they are or where they are from. To take any other position is simply hypocritical.

whos justice are you talking about? Is it justice to kill someone for murder? Is it justice to lop a hand of for theft?

What is justice?
 

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
#9
otaku said:
whos justice are you talking about? Is it justice to kill someone for murder? Is it justice to lop a hand of for theft?

What is justice?
It is certainly justice... but is it correct?
 

dan warna

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 13, 2003
Posts
20,557
Likes
190
Location
melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
#10
medusala

so basically its ok for the US to commit crimes and be hypocritical, but not ok for iraq? my point is that BOTH are wrong, stoogie

as for your comparison b/w kuwait's invasion by iraq and the US invasion of iraq, BOTH were illegal, and note the US govt returned kuwait to the monarchistic dictators, democracy? when the US had the chance?

THE US DON"T WANT THE PEOPLE TO CHOOSE!

as for democracy, you talk about democracy in the ME, even in the 1980s many counties in the US states of alabama, mississippi, missouri etc, EVEN WHEN THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION were african american, they had NO african americans on the electoral role.

you need to get a new rubber stamp from GJ, i hear she gets hers straight from condie rice.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

BlueMark

Club Legend
Joined
Feb 22, 2003
Posts
2,233
Likes
12
Location
MELB
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Carlton
#12
There are sanctions available via the International Court which already has a body of case history to refer to. The International Court is the appropriate place to deal with all accused War Criminals and violations of human rights.

I am sure that someone will bring up Milosevic and how long his case is taking. I would agree that the case is taking longer than expected, but, Milosevic is in detention and answering for his crimes.
 

Bombers 2003

Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Posts
34,490
Likes
4,769
Location
Yatala
AFL Club
Essendon
#15
medusala said:
Which of the following are unacceptable:

1) freedom fighters using children as hostages
2) gulags
3) elimination of counter revolutionaries
4) eating caviar and threatening rare fish species as a result
5) killing animals whilst boiling them alive
6) wearing mink coats
7) dogs killing foxes
8) gassing and snaring foxes
9) people with hyphenated surnames
10) private schools



Answers:
7,9 and 10

If you scored:
10 - well done comrade, however the chances are you are an American spy so we may have to shoot you.
6-9 you may be able to serve in a lowly position in the politburo
3-5 you obviously need some time in a reeducation camp to reconsider your answers
<3 your family will be sent a bill for the bullet.
Answers,1,4-8.
What does that make me?.
 

medusala

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Posts
34,959
Likes
6,230
Location
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Thread starter #16
funkyfreo said:
I think you forgot 4 - caviar is a toffy nosed indulgence.

Why expose yourself as a fool.

I'd vote 1, 2, 3 (French resistance were counter revs?), 4, 5 (drown em), 6, 7, and I'm a rampant lefty.
FF
whilst I agree with you beluga caviar is acceptable to the lefties in the UK despite that species of sturgeon being virtually wiped out (pretty sure its banned in Oz under CITES). Its just their hypocrisy. They are the ones exposing themselves as fools.

Snaring is extremely cruel, which is why its banned in Tasmania and I would think other states as well. I am glad you think its ok for an animal to have its leg stuck in a steel cage for a day or so whilst it tries to bite through its own limb.
 

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
#17
medusala said:
FF
whilst I agree with you beluga caviar is acceptable to the lefties in the UK despite that species of sturgeon being virtually wiped out (pretty sure its banned in Oz under CITES). Its just their hypocrisy. They are the ones exposing themselves as fools.

Snaring is extremely cruel, which is why its banned in Tasmania and I would think other states as well. I am glad you think its ok for an animal to have its leg stuck in a steel cage for a day or so whilst it tries to bite through its own limb.
Contradictions in politics are just one of the things life continually coughs up. The biggest one for me is when fellow greenie types will protest MAccas, but then smoke thier corporate brand ciggarettes, given the global working conditions, cash cropping v food growing, etc etc etc. But you just get that. You just seem to think they are only on the left.

Don;t guilt me about snaring when your whole point is that a fox should be chased for miles by a pack of hounds for an afternoon of sport.
 

medusala

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Posts
34,959
Likes
6,230
Location
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Thread starter #18
funkyfreo said:
Don;t guilt me about snaring when your whole point is that a fox should be chased for miles by a pack of hounds for an afternoon of sport.
a) foxes have no natural predators and thus have to be controlled
b) previously wolves would kill foxes before they were eliminated in the UK
c) thus its both necessary for foxes to be killed and natural for dogs to do so.
 

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
#19
medusala said:
a) foxes have no natural predators and thus have to be controlled
b) previously wolves would kill foxes before they were eliminated in the UK
c) thus its both necessary for foxes to be killed and natural for dogs to do so.
Roads are a pretty good natural predator, as is lack of habitat, however, the traditional English "hunt" would play an insignificant roll in managing fox numbers.
 

medusala

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Posts
34,959
Likes
6,230
Location
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Thread starter #20
funkyfreo said:
Roads are a pretty good natural predator, as is lack of habitat, however, the traditional English "hunt" would play an insignificant roll in managing fox numbers.
I have a fox (and presume he has relos) that I see every now and then and I live in central London. Also saw another one last night after leaving the pub. They seem to be able to negotiate London traffick ok.
Lack of habitat isnt that much of an issue for them, they can live just about anywhere ie arctic, desert, towns.
 

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
#21
medusala said:
I have a fox (and presume he has relos) that I see every now and then and I live in central London. Also saw another one last night after leaving the pub. They seem to be able to negotiate London traffick ok.
Lack of habitat isnt that much of an issue for them, they can live just about anywhere ie arctic, desert, towns.
The "pests" issue is only really relevant in the countryside - or are you concerned that when the hunt is banned you may be attacked on the way home from the pub by maurauding packs of uncontrolled foxes? there are no urban fox hunts to my knowledge?
 

otaku

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 7, 2002
Posts
9,307
Likes
1
Location
48' 03&quot;N 13' 51&quot;E
#22
funkyfreo said:
The "pests" issue is only really relevant in the countryside - or are you concerned that when the hunt is banned you may be attacked on the way home from the pub by maurauding packs of uncontrolled foxes? there are no urban fox hunts to my knowledge?

just out of curiosity - why shouldnt we hunt foxes?
 

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
#23
otaku said:
just out of curiosity - why shouldnt we hunt foxes?
My understanding is that you can hunt foxes - just not on horseback with dogs, or maybe not even with dogs at all. The basis is that it is an inhumane bloodsport as opposed to a legitimate population control or food source "hunt". A few ligetimate pest controllers who use dogs have been hit by the crossfire, as opposed to social hunts.

I think it is very much a symbolic statement as much as a practical one. It is certainly not a "Fox Numbers Protection Policy".

Do the UK want to live in a society where a group of people on horseback chase after a pack of dogs that is chasing after a Fox that has been released specifically for that purpose, with the intent of ripping the said fox to pieces on capture? They, through majority of elected members, have voted NO.

I'd suggest they use a Fox scented trail formed by dragging around a foxy smell around on the morning of the "hunt". When the dogs reach the target after a few hours, and the jolly horseriders follow, there is actually a side of beef with a Tony Blair mask on it, and they can watch the dogs rip that to shreds.

Would maintain the interest and the numbers of participants, if not increase them, provide positive PR for Hunters showing they can change with the times. In fact they could call it the Blair Witch Hunt, to coin a popular movie title.

So everyone wins. There is a genuine hunt, with an enjoyable prey, and no foxes inhumanely killed. Because of the lack of bad press, I think it could be marketed as a genuine tourist attraction and result in a tourism boom for rural UK.
 

otaku

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 7, 2002
Posts
9,307
Likes
1
Location
48' 03&quot;N 13' 51&quot;E
#24
funkyfreo said:
My understanding is that you can hunt foxes - just not on horseback with dogs, or maybe not even with dogs at all. The basis is that it is an inhumane bloodsport as opposed to a legitimate population control or food source "hunt". A few ligetimate pest controllers who use dogs have been hit by the crossfire, as opposed to social hunts.

I think it is very much a symbolic statement as much as a practical one. It is certainly not a "Fox Numbers Protection Policy".

Do the UK want to live in a society where a group of people on horseback chase after a pack of dogs that is chasing after a Fox that has been released specifically for that purpose, with the intent of ripping the said fox to pieces on capture? They, through majority of elected members, have voted NO.

I'd suggest they use a Fox scented trail formed by dragging around a foxy smell around on the morning of the "hunt". When the dogs reach the target after a few hours, and the jolly horseriders follow, there is actually a side of beef with a Tony Blair mask on it, and they can watch the dogs rip that to shreds.

Would maintain the interest and the numbers of participants, if not increase them, provide positive PR for Hunters showing they can change with the times. In fact they could call it the Blair Witch Hunt, to coin a popular movie title.

So everyone wins. There is a genuine hunt, with an enjoyable prey, and no foxes inhumanely killed. Because of the lack of bad press, I think it could be marketed as a genuine tourist attraction and result in a tourism boom for rural UK.

all well and good - but my question was "why shouldn't we hunt foxes?".

Is it because it is inhumane? or because the fox can sometimes get away? Or it tires the horses? Or the kill isnt spread around evenly enough?
 

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
#25
otaku said:
all well and good - but my question was "why shouldn't we hunt foxes?".

Is it because it is inhumane? or because the fox can sometimes get away? Or it tires the horses? Or the kill isnt spread around evenly enough?
Ok - well then I guess the main argument is that this method of killing a fox is inhumane, and that relates not so much to the dog eating fox (although this certainly is part of the argument), but the bloodsport nature of humans cheering on dog eating fox (this is the less publicised but I think most honest assessment).

It is not an argument against controlling fox populations, or potential fox escape, and it is as fine for the horses as any other trot around the Manor grounds.
 
Top Bottom