All Eyes on South Australia

All Eyes on South Australia

There are 114 comments on the Blaze story from Jun 24, 2013, titled All Eyes on South Australia. In it, Blaze reports that:

While a federal amendment that sought to give legal recognition to same-sex marriages conducted overseas was defeated last week, a bill to allow same-sex couples to marry was introduced in South Australia, keeping marriage equality firmly placed in the political agenda.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Blaze.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#43 Jun 29, 2013
The ADELAIDEAN wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't entirely agree. Not every area of Human experience lends itself to neat consignment to one or the other of two categories ...'of personal significance only' vs 'of community significance'. Amorphous areas between the two do exist and can be disputed by those of flanking mindsets. Then the dilemma arises ... who gets to decide?
<quoted text>
Again, of only the choice were so clear-cut. At a stretch it might be legitimate for those qualified to judge. But what about naive children?
<quoted text>
For most intents and purposes, yes.
Care to toss up specific skeet?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#44 Jun 29, 2013
The ADELAIDEAN wrote:
<quoted text>
Probably the most perceptive question yet. Glad you asked.
If I have any barrow to push, it is in regard to that enigmatic Parliamentary beast called a "Conscience vote".
A review of my opening post would reveal that I hit the ground running with that thought uppermost.
It was not until half way down that I touched on Gay Marriage ... and even then, only in passing.
Predictably perhaps, it triggered a a defensive exodus from the Gay/Lesbian forum to this topic.
But that particular issue is only one of a number that I could written an opening paraphrase about. For instance Abortion, Euthanasia, Capital Punishment, ratification of Sharia Law, etc.
Others would respond in accordance with their own pet insecurities accordingly.
But the one common thread uniting all of those issues is my own distrust of the parliamentary "conscience vote" (which could infest any and all of them). Ever since I became aware of such a process I have been perturbed about its susceptibility to ethical anomaly and corruption by vested interest unrepresentative of society at large.
<quoted text>
Deceptively consistent arguments can unfortunately be erected upon false first premises. Herein lies the challenge for all concerned.
I'm sorry, but I was unclear. I really did get that. My question was specific to the post to which I replied.

N.B. The TOPIX "roboblogger" cross-posts to multiple forae determined, sometimes with humourous result, by key words in the first few paragraphs of text.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#45 Jun 29, 2013
The ADELAIDEAN wrote:
<quoted text>
What ... never heard the term before?
3,940,000 results in Google alone:
http://tinyurl.com/p27cw5t
Another poster on another of our threads presented this cogent response:



"-tip-" wrote:

"... As citizens look to the state as an authority and guide on societal behavior..."

"TonyD2" replied:

Also, I most certainly do NOT look to the state as an authority and guide for MY behavior.

I look to them as my employee who is supposed to PROTECT my choices, and to balance them with the choices of other citizen to ensure that our choices minimally impact each other, and if that cannot be avoided, to make a determination as to which right is superior (your right to travel freely vs. my right to keep my property free of trespassers, for example).

“REFUSE ALL IMITATIONS!!”

Since: Jan 11

Australia

#46 Jun 29, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry, but I was unclear. I really did get that. My question was specific to the post to which I replied.
Which class of Human beings would you expect to be "too young and innocent to know the difference, have a say, or appreciate the criteria"?
snyper wrote:
N.B. The TOPIX "roboblogger" cross-posts to multiple forae determined, sometimes with humourous result, by key words in the first few paragraphs of text.
Indeed.

“REFUSE ALL IMITATIONS!!”

Since: Jan 11

Australia

#47 Jun 29, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Care to toss up specific skeet?
I'd be a lot quicker to toss out an offensive questioner.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#48 Jun 29, 2013
The ADELAIDEAN wrote:
<quoted text>
Which class of Human beings would you expect to be "too young and innocent to know the difference, have a say, or appreciate the criteria"?
<quoted text>
Indeed.
OUR Founders lived at a time when animal husbandry was a way of survival, and the horse was the main mode of light and heavy transport. They were intimately aware of the difference between a yearling and an adult of any species. For this reason they framed into our Constitution that no person may be a candidate for our Lower House until age 25. What can be demonstrated now by x-rays of the ends of the major bones, and by endocrinological testing, is that this is the median age for male humans to actually finish adolescence, and to settle down into a more stable hormonal balance and, consequently, greater emotional and mental stability.

What they observed empirically, we can now validate through scientific testing.

Care to switch to a more refined pigeon?

“REFUSE ALL IMITATIONS!!”

Since: Jan 11

Australia

#49 Jun 29, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
OUR Founders lived at a time when animal husbandry was a way of survival, and the horse was the main mode of light and heavy transport. They were intimately aware of the difference between a yearling and an adult of any species. For this reason they framed into our Constitution that no person may be a candidate for our Lower House until age 25. What can be demonstrated now by x-rays of the ends of the major bones, and by endocrinological testing, is that this is the median age for male humans to actually finish adolescence, and to settle down into a more stable hormonal balance and, consequently, greater emotional and mental stability.
What they observed empirically, we can now validate through scientific testing.
Care to switch to a more refined pigeon?
Irrelevant. I've long known all about that. It seems you are trying to cart discussion off into your preferred comfort zone.

I repeat the question as first presented:

Which class of Human beings would you expect to be "too young and innocent to know the difference, have a say, or appreciate the criteria"?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#50 Jun 29, 2013
The ADELAIDEAN wrote:
<quoted text>
Irrelevant. I've long known all about that. It seems you are trying to cart discussion off into your preferred comfort zone.
I repeat the question as first presented:
Which class of Human beings would you expect to be "too young and innocent to know the difference, have a say, or appreciate the criteria"?
Not really. I've introduced one of many possible criteria.

Perhaps the question could be better addressed if a specific clay pigeon were selected as representative of the "problem" to be considered?

“REFUSE ALL IMITATIONS!!”

Since: Jan 11

Maribyrnong, Australia

#51 Jun 29, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really. I've introduced one of many possible criteria.
Perhaps the question could be better addressed if a specific clay pigeon were selected as representative of the "problem" to be considered?
OK, try this Clay Pigeon: Human Beings.:)

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#52 Jun 29, 2013
The ADELAIDEAN wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, try this Clay Pigeon: Human Beings.:)
Again, far too vague.

For principles to be useful, they must be tried emiprically.

“REFUSE ALL IMITATIONS!!”

Since: Jan 11

Maribyrnong, Australia

#53 Jun 29, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, far too vague.
For principles to be useful, they must be tried emiprically.
No, you are being evasive. I'll break the impasse that you have striven for.

My question to you was:

"Which class of Human beings would you expect to be too young and innocent to know the difference, have a say, or appreciate the criteria"?

The obvious answer, which you know but have avoided, is "CHILDREN".

Why would you avoid something so obvious? Because you have clearly been down this conversational road before and you know where it is heading, with all its unpalatable ramifications.

BTW, I have visited the thread from which you quoted other posters. This is a new thread here started by a new OP. I would not appreciate this discussion being prejudiced by what was aired in that other thread. I see sensitivities there that are deeply biased and agenda-driven. If this thread ends up biased also, then at least let it do so within its own context.

Now, can we stop stop playing games and get on with it!

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#54 Jun 29, 2013
Anglo-Saxon-Celt wrote:
The commie scum want all men to be poofs and all women to be promiscuous wenches.
29 For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.-- Luke 23:29
Not far off now.
Yeah, just like the return of Jesus, any day now, any minute, he's returning soon. Blah blah blah.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#55 Jun 29, 2013
The ADELAIDEAN wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you are being evasive. I'll break the impasse that you have striven for.
My question to you was:
"Which class of Human beings would you expect to be too young and innocent to know the difference, have a say, or appreciate the criteria"?
The obvious answer, which you know but have avoided, is "CHILDREN".
Why would you avoid something so obvious? Because you have clearly been down this conversational road before and you know where it is heading, with all its unpalatable ramifications.
BTW, I have visited the thread from which you quoted other posters. This is a new thread here started by a new OP. I would not appreciate this discussion being prejudiced by what was aired in that other thread. I see sensitivities there that are deeply biased and agenda-driven. If this thread ends up biased also, then at least let it do so within its own context.
Now, can we stop stop playing games and get on with it!
"Children" covers an age spectrum from birth to death from old age, and as such is too non-specific; especially so when applied to unspecified situations. An octagenarian like myself is someone's child.

You've also included undefined, non-factual, non-quantifiable terms; i.e. "young", "innocent".

Also, your phrase, " ... know the difference, have a say, or appreciate the criteria ... ", lacks evaluable data. "difference" comparing what and what? "have a say" regarding what? "appreciate the criteria" applied to what? Which criteria are we suggesting?

A postulated "child" of, say, age 3 can "know the difference" between chocolate and strawberry and, if afforded a listening parent and the substances in question can certainly "have a say" about which is to be applied to it's ice cream, and can certainly "appreciate the criteria" of liking one of the other alone and as applied to ice cream.

"What", specifically, are we talking about?

“REFUSE ALL IMITATIONS!!”

Since: Jan 11

Maribyrnong, Australia

#56 Jun 29, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
"Children" covers an age spectrum from birth to death from old age, and as such is too non-specific; especially so when applied to unspecified situations. An octagenarian like myself is someone's child.
You've also included undefined, non-factual, non-quantifiable terms; i.e. "young", "innocent".
Also, your phrase, " ... know the difference, have a say, or appreciate the criteria ... ", lacks evaluable data. "difference" comparing what and what? "have a say" regarding what? "appreciate the criteria" applied to what? Which criteria are we suggesting?
A postulated "child" of, say, age 3 can "know the difference" between chocolate and strawberry and, if afforded a listening parent and the substances in question can certainly "have a say" about which is to be applied to it's ice cream, and can certainly "appreciate the criteria" of liking one of the other alone and as applied to ice cream.
"What", specifically, are we talking about?
I know where you are coming from, but it's not where I am going. You keep putting barriers up, disguised as appeals for "clarification". I'm quite content to debate in common day-to-day English, not in hair-split semantics.

I won't be led down that path. Let me know when you're ready to discuss this normally.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#57 Jun 29, 2013
The ADELAIDEAN wrote:
<quoted text>
I know where you are coming from, but it's not where I am going. You keep putting barriers up, disguised as appeals for "clarification". I'm quite content to debate in common day-to-day English, not in hair-split semantics.
I won't be led down that path. Let me know when you're ready to discuss this normally.
I'm sorry, but we are discussing the Social Sciences here, specifically it appears in reference to one of it's Disciplines in particular: Political Science.

The problem I perceive regarding "conscience votes" is that they are essentially irrational by virtue of their inability (unwillingness?) to be subject to rational scrutiny. Rational scrutiny requires empiricism, and empirical data.

It's not possible to evaluate a sort of something, kind of over there, sometimes, or when my mood changes any, all, or none of the above.

"What" are we talking about here?

“REFUSE ALL IMITATIONS!!”

Since: Jan 11

Maribyrnong, Australia

#58 Jun 29, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry, but we are discussing the Social Sciences here, specifically it appears in reference to one of it's Disciplines in particular: Political Science.
The problem I perceive regarding "conscience votes" is that they are essentially irrational by virtue of their inability (unwillingness?) to be subject to rational scrutiny. Rational scrutiny requires empiricism, and empirical data.
It's not possible to evaluate a sort of something, kind of over there, sometimes, or when my mood changes any, all, or none of the above.
"What" are we talking about here?
I'm not about parading one's prowess in Political Science. I believe the salient features of interest in this realm of discussion can be discussed in common terms.

Yes my main misgiving is about what I have already explained.

Rather than get ourselves tied up in intellectual knots, may I suggest that I defer to my time-zone and retire after a late night, and that you take advantage of that pause to start over and re-read the discussion so far, starting from its beginning? More nuances might drop into place. I'll get back to you.:)

“True Blue”

Since: Jun 13

Opal-Hearted Land

#59 Jun 29, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, just like the return of Jesus, any day now, any minute, he's returning soon. Blah blah blah.
Fundies like him are quite the joke. LOLOLOL

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#60 Jun 29, 2013
The ADELAIDEAN wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not about parading one's prowess in Political Science. I believe the salient features of interest in this realm of discussion can be discussed in common terms.
Yes my main misgiving is about what I have already explained.
Rather than get ourselves tied up in intellectual knots, may I suggest that I defer to my time-zone and retire after a late night, and that you take advantage of that pause to start over and re-read the discussion so far, starting from its beginning? More nuances might drop into place. I'll get back to you.:)
Vague generalities don't interest me.

When you fly, do you want the fueling attendant to sort of fill the tanks with aviation petrol that is somewhere between 92 and 108 octane, or diesel, or olive oil? How about the primary landing gear bolt torqued to somewhere between 10 and 20 kilos?

You propose to discuss matters that impact people's Freedoms and lives. Far more precision is in order. Anything else is irresponsible.

Vigils finished a while ago, and Lauds is in a another hour. I think I'll use the intervening time to answer some other posts with a greater concern for specificity in topic.

Sleep well, and awake refreshed, clear-minded and ready for aviation mechanics. lol

“REFUSE ALL IMITATIONS!!”

Since: Jan 11

Saint Albans, Australia

#61 Jun 29, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Vague generalities don't interest me.
No, I say something that a reasonable person would regard as specific enough ..."Children"

It takes someone like you to turn that into 'vague generalities needlessly and obstructively ... ""Children" covers an age spectrum from birth to death from old age, and as such is too non-specific; especially so when applied to unspecified situations. An octagenarian like myself is someone's child."

According to your imitation of logic it must follow therefore that no adults exist in this world. By definition your "Children" have crowded them out of any niche to occupy.
snyper wrote:
When you fly, do you want the fueling attendant to sort of fill the tanks with aviation petrol that is somewhere between 92 and 108 octane, or diesel, or olive oil? How about the primary landing gear bolt torqued to somewhere between 10 and 20 kilos?
Arguing via analogy is traditionally frowned upon by most Logicians. With a rickety example you demonstrate why.

As long as the attendant fuels my plane with the same thing that I see safely conveying other travelers to their destinations, I am not especially motivated to interrogate him on the gram-for-gram composition of that demonstrably successful fuel. If it gets everyone else where they are going then there's nothing to suggest it won't do the same for me, unless you delay the flight by buttonholing the fuel attendant.

That is what you seem bent on doing to me.
snyper wrote:
You propose to discuss matters that impact people's Freedoms and lives.
What matters? Your turn to be specific.
snyper wrote:
Far more precision is in order. Anything else is irresponsible.
Pathological precision in any topic can come at the cost literacy in that same topic. I'm talking about the forest, yet you seek to grab me by the ear like an errant schoolboy and and demand that I tell you chapter and verse about the bark of the nearest tree at nose length. You begrudge me freedom to discuss freedom.

You have been far more vague in your own way than I ever have. I even fired a discreet shot across your bows here:
The ADELAIDEAN wrote:
<quoted text>
Hard to respond to crypticism.:)
http://www.topix.com/forum/world/australia/T9...

But you kept right on:
snyper wrote:
Care to switch to a more refined pigeon?
http://www.topix.com/forum/world/australia/T9...

But you alienated me most with this jibe that you might have thought would slip under the radar:
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Care to toss up specific skeet?
http://www.topix.com/forum/world/australia/T9...
In over 12,000 posts I have never called anyone a tosser or a wanker. I don't appreciate it in the other direction either. http://tinyurl.com/5l7wb
snyper wrote:
Vigils finished a while ago, and Lauds is in a another hour. I think I'll use the intervening time to answer some other posts with a greater concern for specificity in topic.
lol! Good luck with that. I can safely bet I'm not the first one to have told you that your manner does not facilitate a meeting of minds, but instead obstructs it.
snyper wrote:
Sleep well, and awake refreshed, clear-minded and ready for aviation mechanics. lol
Be assured, I'm not new at this. You thought you were going to do a little number on me, didn't you. Then try this for "aviation mechanics" ... an ejector seat.:)

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#62 Jun 29, 2013

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Pope Francis eases way for divorced Catholics w... 17 min Demon Finder 25
News Minnesota becomes 12th state to OK gay marriage (May '13) 51 min woodtick57 1,849
News Feds' transgender guidance provokes fierce back... 54 min woodtick57 760
News Diversity, love, strength and unity celebrated ... 5 hr Slack Jaw 8
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 7 hr Bible Believer 4,148
News Husband Decides to Divorce New Wife on Wedding ... 16 hr Hassan Chopp 7
News JPost editorial: Status quo? 16 hr USA today 1
More from around the web