Posts by Idiot Savant

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First

  • Island Life: Verdict: Not proven,

    2+2 = unproven

    Only if you ignore Peano arithmetic.

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report

  • Hard News: Media 7,

    So, now I have a good excuse to get a Freeview box.

    Unfortunately, according to that same story, it looks like I should wait until much later in the year to get one that is actually basically functional. Bugger.

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report

  • Hard News: There's Always One,

    So just who is 'this sort of person'? TV1 at mid day reported it was a Somali woman. Someone on PAS says it was a man who was arrested. If it was a Somali man dressed as a woman I think it reasonable to be be fearful this was a terrorist incident.

    Pretty clearly a woman, according to the photo here.

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report

  • Hard News: There's Always One,

    I thought Don Brash did eat babies?

    Nope. Strictly corned beef and boiled peas. Which in modern New Zealand, is almost as bad.

    (Welcome to the food front of the culture war)

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report

  • Hard News: Must Try Harder,

    This claim would still be before the court under conditions existing before the act.

    Only if the government was slack. And they had every incentive to solve the problem quickly with settlements.

    On the plus side, they wouldn't has poisoned relations with the other Treaty partner for a generation as well (something I think is pretty important if we want these settlements to stick).

    Some legislation would still have been necessary - I think the sections of the F&SA covering customary rights are a pretty good framework. But we didn't need to violate article 3 and deprive people of due process and equality under the law in order to establish them.

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report

  • Hard News: Must Try Harder,

    Surly settlement by negotiation and agreement is a preferable way of achieving a solution to a problem than dragging it through the courts.

    I agree entirely - but regardless of how many cases went to court, that was what was going to happen anyway. You only have to look at the history of fisheries settlements to see that.

    As for the law "settling the status quo", the reason why it was necessary was precisely that the status quo wasn't (or rather, it was somewhat different to what Pakeha thought it was - i.e. them owning everything and Maori being peons. And yes, with the ugly attitudes on display at the time, that is the appropriate way to describe it). In this case, the "solution" - stripping people of access to the courts on essentially racial grounds, in a way which exactly mirrored past abuses (you know the crown did this on land rights when maori started getting "uppity" and thinking justice applied to them, right?) - was not a good way of going about it.

    Given the comments of the now Chief Justice in her opinion, past precedent on foreshore ownership, and the usual way we have of resolving such issues, I don't think we would have had anything to fear from iwi bringing cases to court. But then, my neck isn't red.

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report

  • Hard News: And on into a whole new year,

    Sorry Steve, I'm still not getting your drift. Who exactly do you think we need to throw in jail for blasphemy? Who do you think we need to "come down like a ton of bricks" on?

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report

  • Hard News: And on into a whole new year,

    Not in law, but hopefully in education we promote some correct views on physics.

    Hopefully. But my point is that we don't throw people in jail for being wrong about physics. Neither do we throw them in jail for their views on economics, climatology, or parental discipline. What makes theology so special?

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report

  • Hard News: And on into a whole new year,

    Steve: I'm sorry, I don't catch your drift.

    What possible legitimate purpose could be served by throwing people in jail for their views on Christian theology?

    What possible legitimate reason could the government have to care about such issues?

    It is not the role of government to promote "correct" theology or religious views, any more than it is their role to promote correct views on physics. If we had a law on the books suggesting that, e.g. climate change deniers be prosecuted and thrown in the slammer for a year, people (including me) would be screaming in outrage. So why should we be threatened with that for our opinions (or lack thereof) on someone else's god?

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report

  • Hard News: And on into a whole new year,

    Steve: You'd like to think that was some protection, but still, wouldn't it be better not to have to worry?

    This law doesn't serve any legitimate or useful purpose. It's a remnant from a past age of religious persecution. And we should do away with it entirely.

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report

Last ←Newer Page 1 140 141 142 143 144 172 Older→ First