Thursday, October 1, 2009

UrViewz Security Council

Work's awful at the moment. It's mainly the people there, all of whom I detest without exception.

Anyway, having pointed out the decline and fall of Your Views from its pinnacle as a forum for rabid ranting to a nadir of complaining about supermarkets, it's good to see some issues of import being dealt with again. I was delighted to have this topic brought to my attention: "Should Iran be allowed to continue with its nuclear programme?" Well, what is it to be, Herald readers? Yes or no? Nutters on both sides can lock horns over the question with a ferocity that can only come from not having any idea about the issue at hand. Anyway, quick, get on there and have your say before Ban Ki Moon turns up and tallies the votes.
AGW Sceptic (Greenlane): As long as Iran has terrorist connections then they should not be allowed nuclear capabilities, especially if they lie about what they do have.

Honestly, it's like allowing Hitler to rearm prior to World War 2 against the international regulations of the time. I think the difference here is that the crackpot running Iran is intentionally trying to provoke an attack (by Israel especially) on Iran so he can play the victim card, unite with the other looney tunes (UN included), and make the big push for Israel's destruction.

Other differences between Nazi Germany and modern Iran:
  • Iran didn't start the costliest war in world history twenty years ago.
  • You can't generate civilian power with tanks and battleships.
Similarities between Nazi Germany and modern Iran:
  • Not that fond of Jews.
  • Your Views contributors cannot locate them on a map.

Telsh@r (United States of America): When bombs are developed the plans will be spread around. This won't lead to WW3 because there is no nation to fight. If Islam doesn't want to do anything to prevent it then there vicitms must. Iran needs to either accept exclusive use of thorium or stop. Letting Iran develop a nuke is like giving a pyromaniac a blow torch. It leads to trouble.

They'll probably pass the plans around the table at the next big World Muslim Meeting. He (I assume) continues:
0. Iran weaponizes.

1. Saudi Arabia will follow. (they hate/fear Iran)

2. Saudi Arabians are heavily involved with terrorism around the globe. (at least 17 9/11 hijakers were Saudi Arabian)

3. Weapons will be disseminated around the globe through Sunni radicalist Jihad.

4. NZ and other countries give into extortion from radicalists to not be nuked.

5. NZ and other countries choos
e slavery later after skipping sacrafice now.
How to become enslaved in five easy steps (or six if you count Step "0"). This kind of person used to have to shout things on street corners to get an audience; God bless the internet.

Meanwhile, elsewhere on Your Views...

Does firing too many staff makes the Herald ignore spelling? So many great things about this one: the typo in the headline; classic Herald science 'reporting'* with the claim that the study says "letting your children eat sweets could turn them into serial killers"; and the overall idea that, whatever this scientific study says, the truth will be determined on Your Views with the anecdotes of crazy people.

JAFA and proud (Mt Wellington): They spend a lot of money doing supposed valuable research on stupid topics and they come up with the most ridiculous conclusions.

What a waste of resources!

Next, they're going to say if you like a certain colour, you're a murderer.

It's all fun and games until someone loses their mind.

*Albeit apparently stolen in this case from a rubbish Independent piece.


  1. "Iran weaponizes"

    So the actual country is weaponised? What does it do, go and sit on a smaller country until it cries "uncle!"?

  2. Monk De Wally De HonkOctober 1, 2009 at 8:31 PM

    Hi. It's not an excuse but the newspaper editor had the sense to remove 'serial killer' from the lede.

  3. Eating too many sweets will make kids fat and unattractive.

    So that's gotta make them either suicidal or serial killers. It's commons sense.

    Hey look I made a your views.

  4. "Work's awful at the moment. It's mainly the people there, all of whom I detest without exception."

    And 60% of whom are reading this right now.

  5. Isn't giving sweets to your children every day bad parenting? And isn't bad parenting recognised as a factor contributing to, you know, general retardness?

  6. Flynn: Yeah, I hope they have a sense of irony. Seeing I told them all during a meeting to read this. Fingers crossed.

    Philip: That's the sort of subtlety for which there is no room in mainstream science reporting.

  7. How about a Your Views on the point(lessness) of asking opinion questions about matters of science? Perhaps they could trial "Is the sky really blue?" as a precursor.

  8. I don't know what YV bother dressing it all up in some supposedly current affairs relevant question.

    They just a few open ended forums with things like "How 'bout dem wimminz/homoz/*insert race*/terrurusts/dumb politishun of moment/benufushuries".

    Your Views: The wastelands of talkback radio.

  9. God, too many beers already..

    "I don't know *WHY*..."


    "The *SHOULD* just..."

  10. They are just trolls posting stuff they know people will bite on. Case in point "Are you thinking about becoming a vegetarian?".

  11. And the best thing about the typo in the headline is that they repeat it in the last paragraph.

    It's like they secretly want the ridicule.