Posts by Grant Dexter
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I think the USA suffers from too much pressure from both sides. Basically, because one group is strongly against welfare and one strongly for, you wind up with the worst of both worlds. Thus the poor do not benefit from either benefits or the relief that lower taxes would bring.
-
Morgan:
You are going to jump on the it's legal bandwagon? I understand that it is not against the law to expose one's breasts in public. All I have suggested is that it must be an impotent and rather redundant city council that must have the backing of the law for any decision it makes. Even one as trivial as granting parade rights. If you really think the ability to deny parade rights regardless of the legality of the march is the start of the slippery slope toward 1984 then .. well .. I guess you could get away with that opinion in some circles ...
You then go on to suggesting that you would be justified in defying a law if you saw fit. So I guess actively opposing established law is only acceptable if you do it. Interesting set of .. *ahem* .. standards you have there, mate.
You think banning things has unintended consequences. What might those be?
You think authority needs to be constantly questioned and watched very carefully indeed. Wouldn't that make the people doing the watching and questioning either:
A) the real source of authority, or
B) a bunch of loser, cry-baby wannabes?You think you don't need to be told how to live or what to think. And you think that's a reason to have a constitution? What is the constitution going to do? Not tell you how you can act?
Allow me to clue you in. EVERYBODY, not just you, has the capacity to think just as they please. Why do you have such a problem with people who suggest courses of action that you do not agree with?
You think you won? All you did was rant without coherency or any semblence of relevance. And your advice was ludicrous:
Nudity isn't shameful. Gee, duh!
Some kinds of public nudity are legal. Wow. You're such a profound source of knowledge in a darkened closet.
Nudity isn't pornography. Whew. I was starting to stink as well...You seem to be most interested in supporting the authority of the law. But you most certainly have your own agendas that the law does not currently encompass. You also would like to see current laws adjusted. So I guess, once again, that it only when you are unhappy with the law that anything has to be done or said. How about you step off your pedestal and find a moral standing you can defend without hypocrisy?
You are also interested in why some people think they have the right to stop others from doing completely legal things. And, like I said, this isn't about the legality of the situation. It's about the right of proper authority to determine simple things like who will and who will not march down Queen Street.
And your closing rant:
Lots of stuff offends me, but you know what? I don't have a right to never be offended. The same holds true for mindless wowsers, petty minded wannabe dictators, misguided religionists, and ordinary average every day people on the street.
Is utterly pointless. People don't like what other people do. Are you trying to make some kind of point? Were you under the impression that people did not know that?
You haven't done this very much before, have you? Debating someone who understands how utterly bereft of common sense you are, I mean.
-
Yes, Lucy, it's porn. I haven't seen it and I know it's pornography. Do you think it is not?
Sometimes, Lucy, the law is wrong. And sometimes it takes people with courage to stand up for what is right. There are many ways to stop this parade. A few of them would be justified. People could not show up (that's not really feasible). The media could stay away (yeah right). The police could crack down on it (they'd have some issues afterward though). The city council could ban it (and face unpopularity). The courts could rightly judge against (that'd be the best way). Unfortunately society is so broken that the few voices from the public and the weak attempts from the council are ridiculed to the point of absurdity.
You're worried that if you stay within the boundaries of the law might have to fear arbitrary action against you? What arbitrary action against anyone would barring a pornographic parade entail? A bunch of prostitutes who aren't allowed to show off their breasts? And what have you to fear from the insistence that pornography is wrong?
Grow up, please.
-
No, Craig. The city council is completely justified in attempting to block pornography. If you do not think a porn producer organising porn stars to ride topless down the main street in Auckland is pornography then you're ... well .. you're just lost.
And, Morgan, if a city council cannot decide which parades it will allow and which it will not, but must appeal to the law then what possible use does a council have? What issue, if this one must be referred, need not be referred?
Your dislike of a certain cartoon version of an authority type has blinded you. You're jumping up and down insisting that a controversial and pornographic parade be not barred. Tell us .. even if the banning of this parade was unfair in some way .. what would we lose if it were banned?
-
Tony, it does not matter how well investigated the numbers are .. my point is that the data just isn't available in order to compare different countries with regard to mortality rates and welfare. If you could link to the poper you cited then I might be able to show what I mean.
Stephen, when I say it's not OK to legislate charity I don't mean that it is wrong. Just that it does not meet needs but rather forces people to meet certain standards of poverty in order to benefit. It is not OK to steal. When it comes to taxation there might be a fuzzy sort of distinction between the cash a government is justified in claiming and that which it is not. But I do not think a welfare state is anywhere near that fuzziness :)
Of course it is ok to legislate on other Christian moral grounds. Though I wouldn't claim them as Christian. It should be never OK to murder, rape, steal and kidnap.
-
Craig the difference between a democracy operating under the rule of law, with an independent judiciary, and a society ruled according to the whims of a cadre of oligarchs is the amount of pejorative you used to describe each.
No matter what the government type it is possible for them to make the right decision. It wouldn't matter if it were a dictator for life banning pornography or the current regime doing the same thing. Both would be making the right decision.
Either way, a governing body should not have to have the backing of a law in order to make decisions like this. Primarily because there is never anything wrong with barring pornography.
-
Why would the council say no to a perfectly reasonable request. And why are they obliged to say yes to pornography?
If they refused me for no good reason then I probably would be unhappy. So what? Should our governments make decisions based on how happy people are..?
-
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech! It has everything to do with proper authority. A geverning body should be allowed to say "Yay" or "Nay" regardless of the request. Why would we need a law to back up every decision they make?
-
The management for the city shouldn't need a law to stop this "parade". They should just be allowed to say, "No" and let that be the end of it.
-
Matthew's mockery of me and his earnest desire to hear what he wishes I'd say rather than what I actually say show his fundamental misunderstanding of how people work together. When rich people have money they PAY poor people so that they might work for them. When the rich people do not pay, feed, house and clothe the poor people then the poor people leave .. they don't die. They go and find other work.
I think you're all still not aware of the fundamental issue: It is not wrong to be poor. It is not wrong to live in a car, at your mate's place, in a cheap hotel or even under a bridge. It is possible to be wrong in response to being poor. Stealing is one of the ways to be wrong. The government making an institution out of theft doesn't make it right. It just makes it a whole lot safer and easier to defend or ignore.