Page 2 of 23 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 341
  1. #16
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,958
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    That is normal for appeals courts. It's still absurd for Tribunalists to make judgements on religious questions.
    The alternative being to either have no such laws (not even the milder version that Brandis wants to introduce) or else to abolish the defence of genuine religious purpose.

    Who says that this missing verse changed anything? Some judge?
    I already posted the link to the judgement. Item 85 quotes the previous Tribunal reasoning on this point. That said I have not yet found the full original Tribunal ruling.

    Why was this ever a matter for the courts?
    Because it was relevant to whether he had acted in good faith in his sermons.

    Come off it. So he said that [Behrendt] had a white father, probably a misspeaking for white mother.
    Perhaps you should read the full judgement in the Bolt matter before telling me to "come off it" based on a summary that grossly overlooks the trainwreck of Boltian errors re Behrendt and others. This is not the first time I have posted the link to it.

    These errors start with the "liebchen" comment above; despite her German surname Behrendt's family had no recent German background. Bolt said Behrendt was raised by her white mother when actually she was raised by both parents including her Aboriginal father until age 15. Bolt said Behrendt was a "professional Aborigine" who chose that identification; the evidence was she had been raised as such, identified as such as an early age and received racist taunting as a child on account of her Aboriginality.

    What was really a crock, as Bolt pointed out, was people with much European blood and name and looking like Europeans going on the gravy train of preferential treatment for Aborigines.
    Then he should have said just that instead of coming up with a long list of false claims and insinuations about how Aboriginal various people he referred to were.

    What view would he not have espoused? The point also made by Sowell that affirmative action incentivizes people to claim membership of the preferred group?
    The view that the people he mentioned were fraudulently overemphasising their Aboriginality, which was a view based on his wilful and lazy ignorance about their backgrounds.

  2. #17
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    The alternative being to either have no such laws (not even the milder version that Brandis wants to introduce) or else to abolish the defence of genuine religious purpose.
    Rules with exemptions are usually bad laws. Here we have a secular judge with no qualifications in the original languages deciding religious questions. It's a shame that there are so many LINOs, especially in NSW and Vic, that want to keep Labor's silly laws.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    I already posted the link to the judgement. Item 85 quotes the previous Tribunal reasoning on this point. That said I have not yet found the full original Tribunal ruling.
    The judges said, although their qualifications for saying so are not stated:

    Secondly, the way in which he dealt with the Qur’an verse 38 to 40 gave me great concern with regard to his ability to put forward an honest and fair representation of Islam. I am of the view that he deliberately omitted verse 39 so as to give an anti-Islamic interpretation of a Qur’anic verse. Indeed, when his attention was directed to this, his explanation was that there were time constraints. He then gave an explanation (T2114-2116) which I find extraordinary, namely that he omitted it because verse 38 requires amputation, verse 39 says if you repent you will be forgiven, but he said this relates only to a second offence, and that was the reason for his omission of that verse. Despite the arguments of Mr Perkins to the contrary, I find that assertion illogical and unsustainable. In my view, viewed objectively, it was an act [which] was deliberately deleted by him to support his views with regard to the Qur’an.

    I presume that it's:

    5:38 [As for] the thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands in recompense for what they committed as a deterrent [punishment] from Allah . And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.
    5:39. But whoever repents after his wrongdoing and reforms, indeed, Allah will turn to him in forgiveness. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
    5:40. Do you not know that to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth? He punishes whom He wills and forgives whom He wills, and Allah is over all things competent.

    Judging by the practice in Islamic countries, the hand is chopped off, but the thief can still repent and be forgiven.

    Then the judges say:

    Overall, he was negative in his approach to Islam and its religious teachings.

    Again, why is this a matter for the courts? The moderators of this board are highly negative towards Christianity and its religious teachings, but you don't see the Christians running to the courts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    Because it was relevant to whether he had acted in good faith in his sermons.
    There is something wrong with government policing the sermons.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    Perhaps you should read the full judgement in the Bolt matter before telling me to "come off it" based on a summary that grossly overlooks the trainwreck of Boltian errors re Behrendt and others. This is not the first time I have posted the link to it.
    It's not disputed that Bolt was found guilty under the law. The dispute is whether the law is an ass.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    The view that the people he mentioned were fraudulently overemphasising their Aboriginality, which was a view based on his wilful and lazy ignorance about their backgrounds.
    The imbecilic affirmative action nonsense provides a huge incentive to overemphasise Aboriginality, because of all the goodies they receive.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  3. #18
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,958
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Rules with exemptions are usually bad laws.
    Any evidence for this assertion? In any case even if it is true it provides no evidence that any particular law with exemptions is a bad law. Some exemptions are very good; for instance it is very good that exemptions to laws against killing people exist where the killing was in clear self-defence.

    Here we have a secular judge with no qualifications in the original languages deciding religious questions. It's a shame that there are so many LINOs, especially in NSW and Vic, that want to keep Labor's silly laws.
    It was the Tribunal that made the primary decision in this case. However there is nothing irregular about courts making decisions on matters on which the judges are not qualified experts. It is for this reason that parties to a case frequently arrange appropriate expert testimony if a risk is perceived of the court ruling incorrectly. And indeed there was plenty of testimony from witnesses in the original case.

    The judges said,[..]
    No; this is a quote from the original Tribunal decision, which was by a Judge Higgins of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. I have now found Judge Higgins' original ruling.

    I presume that it's:

    5:38 [As for] the thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands in recompense for what they committed as a deterrent [punishment] from Allah . And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.
    5:39. But whoever repents after his wrongdoing and reforms, indeed, Allah will turn to him in forgiveness. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
    5:40. Do you not know that to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth? He punishes whom He wills and forgives whom He wills, and Allah is over all things competent.

    Judging by the practice in Islamic countries, the hand is chopped off, but the thief can still repent and be forgiven.

    Then the judges say:

    Overall, he was negative in his approach to Islam and its religious teachings.

    Again, why is this a matter for the courts? The moderators of this board are highly negative towards Christianity and its religious teachings, but you don't see the Christians running to the courts.
    Are you saying here that the moderation of this board displays negativity towards Christianity, or simply that two posters who happen to also be among the five people who hold moderator status here are highly negative towards it as posters?

    If the first this is something that should be taken up in the Help and Feedback section and substantiated - I would of course then point out how many times we had banned antichrist for ranting against religion in the wrong place. If only the second then our moderator statuses are irrelevant to the discussion. Moderators are not equivalent to pastors except when posting as moderators. The rest of the time the equivalent to a pastor here is everyone, since anyone can speak and be heard by an audience.

    As for the reason the comments were a matter for the courts, I've explained this more than enough. There is a defence for honest opinions presented in good faith. However if the defendant appears not to be giving their honest view of Islam, and is deliberately cherrypicking and being evasive about their own comments, then it is unlikely they have that defence available, because they are probably not giving their sincere view of that religion. There was far far more in the original finding about all this.

    There is something wrong with government policing the sermons.
    Are you objecting here to any form of policing of the content of sermons by government whatsoever or just to these particular laws?


    It's not disputed that Bolt was found guilty under the law. The dispute is whether the law is an ass.
    That, while true, is not relevant to the paragraph it was written in reply to, which refuted your "Come off it. So he said that [Behrendt] had a white father, probably a misspeaking for white mother." comment by showing that his errors went much further.

    I would say that the dispute is also whether Bolt was an ass. It is relevant because apologists seek to cast him as having merely expressed a view and been pilloried for that view. The reality is that he sloppily attacked the reputations of many individuals and vilified them based on false and sloppily researched claims. Bolt's efforts were a rampant, careless, sloppy, vindictive and profit-motivated false-witnessing spree. No-one should take any supposedly Christian morality that attacks the laws while not also rebuking Bolt's articles seriously.

    The imbecilic affirmative action nonsense provides a huge incentive to overemphasise Aboriginality, because of all the goodies they receive.
    If the incentive is so huge then all the more reason why any half-competent journalist should be able to expose such behaviour without making blatant factual errors everywhere.
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 27-05-2014 at 09:50 PM.

  4. #19
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    Any evidence for this assertion? In any case even if it is true it provides no evidence that any particular law with exemptions is a bad law. Some exemptions are very good; for instance it is very good that exemptions to laws against killing people exist where the killing was in clear self-defence.
    OK, agreed, but I was talking about exemptions for certain groups in the community, not including law enforcement for example.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    It was the Tribunal that made the primary decision in this case. However there is nothing irregular about courts making decisions on matters on which the judges are not qualified experts. It is for this reason that parties to a case frequently arrange appropriate expert testimony if a risk is perceived of the court ruling incorrectly. And indeed there was plenty of testimony from witnesses in the original case.
    Higgins deciding on whether a religious text was used correctly—a total absurdity, because even with the above, a judge is not qualified, and should not be deciding such matters in the first place. This is for free exercise of religion, for both sides to argue their case in the open without the courts being involved.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    No; this is a quote from the original Tribunal decision, which was by a Judge Higgins of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. I have now found Judge Higgins' original ruling.
    Yes, Higgins was the original judge, and his ruling was preposterous and largely overturned. The point is that it should never have got as far as Higgins' court.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    Are you saying here that the moderation of this board displays negativity towards Christianity, or simply that two posters who happen to also be among the five people who hold moderator status here are highly negative towards it as posters?
    The latter. Far more negative than the the Dannys were about Islam.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    As for the reason the comments were a matter for the courts, I've explained this more than enough. There is a defence for honest opinions presented in good faith. However if the defendant appears not to be giving their honest view of Islam, and is deliberately cherrypicking and being evasive about their own comments, then it is unlikely they have that defence available, because they are probably not giving their sincere view of that religion. There was far far more in the original finding about all this.
    We know what the court finding was, but the absurdity is that ostensibly insincere views of religion are a matter for the courts in the first place. Despite what this Judge Higgins claims, the two Dannys are far better versed in the Koran than the complainants. One of Higgins' more absurd condemnations is that the Dannys induced laughter from the audience. In any case, even if the ruling were true, the Dannys were doing nothing as egregious as the various lists of decontextualized Bible "contradictions" that one can find on any atheopathic gutter website inhabiting the darker hovels of the Internet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    Are you objecting here to any form of policing of the content of sermons by government whatsoever or just to these particular laws?
    The former.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    No-one should take any supposedly Christian morality that attacks the laws while not also rebuking Bolt's articles seriously.
    What does Christian morality have to do with Bolt? He is an agnostic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    If the incentive is so huge then all the more reason why any half-competent journalist should be able to expose such behaviour without making blatant factual errors everywhere.
    The only problem is that the errors detracted from this real problem of incentives to become members of the preferred group, which is not unique to the Australian Aboriginal form of affirmatic action but endemic wherever AA is tried throughout the world. Sowell's book Affirmative Action Around the World: an empirical study documented this.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  5. #20
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,958
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Higgins deciding on whether a religious text was used correctly—a total absurdity, because even with the above, a judge is not qualified, and should not be deciding such matters in the first place.
    How is that any more absurd than the courts deciding any other matter on which expert evidence is required and the judge is not qualified in the area of expertise? Even if it was not a matter in which "freedom of religion" was involved, it is possible a judge might need to consider the sincerity of someone's comments in the area of religion in deciding whether they are a credible witness, and ditto for any other specialisation.

    The latter. Far more negative than the the Dannys were about Islam.
    I doubt that that is possible.

    One of Higgins' more absurd condemnations is that the Dannys induced laughter from the audience.
    Why is this absurd? Are you saying the audience did not laugh? Are you saying they were laughing at something in the newspaper or telling each other jokes behind the pastor's back?

    What does Christian morality have to do with Bolt? He is an agnostic.
    It has to do with you because on another thread you implied that someone being an "atheopath" rendered their comments about morality a joke.

    I am suggesting that if you can get this far in discussing Bolt's form on this matter without rebuking his lazy, sloppy and severe factual errors in his various attacks on others then you are in no position to make such a claim as it is more likely your own moral system that is deficient.

    That you say now that "The only problem" with Bolt's behaviour is that his errors obscured an opportunity to make a point - ie that his comments were just tactically unfortunate rather than reprehensible - underlines the problem here. If a supposed morality does not include that it is grossly improper to make personal attacks on others that are riddled with lazy factual errors of the sort made by Bolt, why should anyone take it seriously?

  6. #21
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    How is that any more absurd than the courts deciding any other matter on which expert evidence is required and the judge is not qualified in the area of expertise? Even if it was not a matter in which "freedom of religion" was involved, it is possible a judge might need to consider the sincerity of someone's comments in the area of religion in deciding whether they are a credible witness, and ditto for any other specialisation.
    A judge deciding on religious text becomes an unacceptable and absurd intrusion of government into religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    I doubt that that is possible.
    It is, definitely. The pastors were showing up the problems in the Koran that are being applied by almost all terrorists in the world today. But they also said that it was important to love Muslims as people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    Why is this absurd? Are you saying the audience did not laugh? Are you saying they were laughing at something in the newspaper or telling each other jokes behind the pastor's back?
    It should be obvious: making the audience laugh should not be an offence requiring court involvement. It also shows up the gross inequality under the law resulting from such bills: far worse vilification of Christians is par for the course for the GayBC, Dawkins, and other village atheopaths. Yet far from being in danger of being hauled before anti-vilification tribunals, the GayBC gets funding coerced from taxpayers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    It has to do with you because on another thread you implied that someone being an "atheopath" rendered their comments about morality a joke.
    Not sure what this has to do with Bolt, because he never claimed to be a Christian, so never claims to be following Christian morality. But yes, it is absurd that an atheopath like RW rants on about alleged violations of Christian morality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    That you say now that "The only problem" with Bolt's behaviour is that his errors obscured an opportunity to make a point - ie that his comments were just tactically unfortunate rather than reprehensible - underlines the problem here. If a supposed morality does not include that it is grossly improper to make personal attacks on others that are riddled with lazy factual errors of the sort made by Bolt, why should anyone take it seriously?
    Saying it was Behrendt's father rather than mother, and pointing out that people that were visually indistinguishable from Aborigines were claiming the benefits of Aboriginality was all correct. OK, so some had long identified as Aboriginal, but that's the whole point: that affirmative action policies provide an incentive to so identify.
    Last edited by Capablanca-Fan; 29-05-2014 at 06:22 AM.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  7. #22
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    But yes, it is absurd that an atheopath like RW rants on about alleged violations of Christian morality.
    I never ranted against Christian morality. If you followed Christian morality then you wouldn't be an apologised for self-confessed liars like the Zimmermans. However not only do you excuse their lies you actually rationalise them to the point you don't even consider someone who lies under oath and then pleads guilty to perjury as having lied at all. So it is not Christian morality I have a problem with. It is Jono amorality which is the issue.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  8. #23
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    I never ranted against Christian morality. If you followed Christian morality then you wouldn't be an apologised for self-confessed liars like the Zimmermans. However not only do you excuse their lies you actually rationalise them to the point you don't even consider someone who lies under oath and then pleads guilty to perjury as having lied at all. So it is not Christian morality I have a problem with. It is Jono amorality which is the issue.
    Once again, RW, in his desperation to find the Zimmermans guilty of something, whinges about the alleged lie about available funds and the rants of a judge removed for his bias. There should instead be a problem with politically motivated prosecution and overcharging prosecutors who face no sanctions for unethical conduct like witholding excupatory evidence (except for that rare case of a whopping one day sentence for Nifong). Also, RW persistently lies about the definition of biblical faith.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  9. #24
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,958
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    A judge deciding on religious text becomes an unacceptable and absurd intrusion of government into religion.
    Religion can cry me a river until it stops intruding into government (something which seems to be getting worse in this country rather than better lately, with chaplaincy funding the latest example).

    That said, I do not accept that a judge who considers a person's use of a religious text in considering whether they have displayed good faith is necessarily so intruding. Such a thing could also happen in a case that had nothing to do with the ability of a pastor to preach; it could occur while judging the credibility of a witness to an alleged crime, or a good character witness for an alleged offender.

    It is, definitely. The pastors were showing up the problems in the Koran that are being applied by almost all terrorists in the world today. But they also said that it was important to love Muslims as people.
    So? I can say nice things about many Christians as people and I can defend such rights as I think they should have, yet that doesn't stop you calling me "Far more negative" towards them. Professions of love for adherents of an opposing faith do not alone prove anything. In some cases they are made tokenly, or even insincerely with the intent of increasing the insult of the communicated view. A homophobe who throws "love the sinner, hate the sin" into their rhetoric is often more hateful than one who doesn't even bother with the false piety.

    Not sure what this has to do with Bolt, because he never claimed to be a Christian, so never claims to be following Christian morality. But yes, it is absurd that an atheopath like RW rants on about alleged violations of Christian morality.
    Again, it has to do with you. To spell it out really clearly, it is inappropriate for you to stand in judgement on RW's ability to comment on morality when you have shown your own to be deficient through your reluctance to condemn Bolt's gross factual errors in his attacks on other people.

    Saying it was Behrendt's father rather than mother, and pointing out that people that were visually indistinguishable from Aborigines were claiming the benefits of Aboriginality was all correct. OK, so some had long identified as Aboriginal, but that's the whole point: that affirmative action policies provide an incentive to so identify.
    In the Behrendt case, he didn't just mix up her father and mother but also falsely implied she was German ("mein liebchen"). Of course he would not have been able to imply this had he not "innocently" mixed up which of her parents was white, since once people realised her father was Aboriginal, the idea of her being German on account of her surname would have immediately collapsed.

    Had he argued the point you suggest he would have had to admit that several of his victims were identifying as Aboriginal all along; they needed no incentive to do it since they were already doing it from childhood. At most he might have maintained an argument that the existing system encourages them to maintain their pre-existing identification rather than hiding it.
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 29-05-2014 at 12:39 PM.

  10. #25
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,121
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    Had he argued the point you suggest he would have had to admit that several of his victims were identifying as Aboriginal all along; they needed no incentive to do it since they were already doing it from childhood. At most he might have maintained an argument that the existing system encourages them to maintain their pre-existing identification rather than hiding it.
    There are also disincentives to identifying and being identified as Aboriginal, of course. Larissa Behrendt was born in 1969, only two years after the 1967 referendum; the RDA wasn't passed until 1975.

  11. #26
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    Religion can cry me a river until it stops intruding into government (something which seems to be getting worse in this country rather than better lately, with chaplaincy funding the latest example).
    Intruding into government? More likely, government is intruding more agressively into religion, although the current administration is trying to roll some of this back.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    That said, I do not accept that a judge who considers a person's use of a religious text in considering whether they have displayed good faith is necessarily so intruding. Such a thing could also happen in a case that had nothing to do with the ability of a pastor to preach; it could occur while judging the credibility of a witness to an alleged crime, or a good character witness for an alleged offender.
    This was a case of an argument between two religious groups; a judge should butt the hell out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    So? I can say nice things about many Christians as people and I can defend such rights as I think they should have, yet that doesn't stop you calling me "Far more negative" towards them. Professions of love for adherents of an opposing faith do not alone prove anything. In some cases they are made tokenly, or even insincerely with the intent of increasing the insult of the communicated view.
    Anything is possible, but not likely in this instance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    A homophobe who throws "love the sinner, hate the sin" into their rhetoric is often more hateful than one who doesn't even bother with the false piety.
    The concept of "homophobia" is moronically named and moronic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    Again, it has to do with you. To spell it out really clearly, it is inappropriate for you to stand in judgement on RW's ability to comment on morality when you have shown your own to be deficient through your reluctance to condemn Bolt's gross factual errors in his attacks on other people.
    Gross factual errors should be pointed out in the open without scuttling to the courts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    In the Behrendt case, he didn't just mix up her father and mother but also falsely implied she was German ("mein liebchen").
    So he used a German phrase to match the German surname. That's the best you have? It's not as if it was a Nazi comparison.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    Had he argued the point you suggest he would have had to admit that several of his victims were identifying as Aboriginal all along; they needed no incentive to do it since they were already doing it from childhood. At most he might have maintained an argument that the existing system encourages them to maintain their pre-existing identification rather than hiding it.
    Political correctness can start at an early age, but even that concession, of incentives either to join or maintain an identification with a preferred group, shows the idiocy of affirmative action programs.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  12. #27
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    There are also disincentives to identifying and being identified as Aboriginal, of course. Larissa Behrendt was born in 1969, only two years after the 1967 referendum; the RDA wasn't passed until 1975.
    When Larissa Behrendt was only a little girl.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  13. #28
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,958
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Intruding into government? More likely, government is intruding more agressively into religion[..]
    The two are not mutually exclusive.

    Anything is possible, but not likely in this instance.
    Why not?

    The concept of "homophobia" is moronically named and moronic.
    I think the completely irrational paranoid claim that same-sex marriage will destroy traditional marriage is a good example of why the term is not so badly named or silly as you think, unless you prefer to argue that those saying so are all lying. Frankly it is flattering homophobes to imply that their stance only originates from an irrational fear over which they have little control (a la traditional "phobias"). The truth about such people is much worse.

    Gross factual errors should be pointed out in the open without scuttling to the courts.
    But at all stages of this discussion, far from agreeing that Bolt made gross factual errors, you have minimised and trivialised the extent of his blunders.

    So he used a German phrase to match the German surname. That's the best you have? It's not as if it was a Nazi comparison.
    The point is that it was sloppy and lazy to imply she was German when she was not, and when he could easily have found out she was not. Instead he chose to resort to the insulting and inappropriate - perhaps even sexist - sarcastic use of "mein liebchen" (= my darling) to insinuate she was German and he'd found out her little game.

  14. #29
    CC International Master Goughfather's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,380
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Anything is possible, but not likely in this instance.
    A lazy response which simply demonstrates your impoverished (in)ability to critically analyse this particular argument.

    As an aside, it is clear that Jono is a racist sociopath who represents an ongoing danger to civil society. However, we should not seek to ostracise and condemn him. It is important that we show our love for him by praying that God may work a miracle in his life and turn him into a decent human being.
    "People with guns don't understand. That's why they get guns. Too many misunderstandings." - Jerry Seinfeld, The Little Kicks

  15. #30
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,121
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Gross factual errors should be pointed out in the open without scuttling to the courts.
    Under the RDA, all that Bolt and the Herald Sun had to do was to print an apology and corrections, with no financial penalty. As neither Bolt nor the paper disputed that the column contained "gross factual errors", isn't this exactly the outcome you want?

    You also seem to be implying that the law of defamation should be abolished. Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey wouldn't agree with you - they have both "scuttled to the courts" to correct what they claimed were "gross factual errors". Andrew Bolt himself arguably did something similar recently (about a comment made on the Q&A program on the ABC). And if a "gross factual error" causes serious damage to a person's business or reputation, shouldn't they be able to obtain compensation in court?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Vic Labor's proposed anti-discrimination laws
    By Capablanca-Fan in forum Politics
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 01-12-2014, 02:05 PM
  2. anti-discrimination case in Toronto sf SSM
    By Capablanca-Fan in forum Politics
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 18-07-2013, 05:48 AM
  3. Court rejects Jetstar discrimination claim
    By antichrist in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 18-01-2012, 07:42 AM
  4. Discrimination against Gays (homosexuals)
    By antichrist in forum Politics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-01-2012, 03:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •