All Eyes on South Australia

Jun 24, 2013 Full story: Blaze 114

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.

Full Story

“REFUSE ALL IMITATIONS!!”

Since: Jan 11

Australia

#22 Jun 28, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm fairly certain that I would not pander so.
I would look to coherence in legal logic.
In matters that affect no one but myself I do not pander either. Do we have that much in common?

Who decides what affects others?

Since when has legal logic been coherent by definition?

Do members of a Parliament exploiting a "conscience vote" display "coherence"?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#23 Jun 28, 2013
The ADELAIDEAN wrote:
<quoted text>
Democracy, yes. And if Democracy is bypassed, then what alternative name would would the process then rejoice under?
"Democracy" is not a synonym for "majority rule".

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#24 Jun 28, 2013
The ADELAIDEAN wrote:
<quoted text>
In matters that affect no one but myself I do not pander either. Do we have that much in common?
Who decides what affects others?
Since when has legal logic been coherent by definition?
Do members of a Parliament exploiting a "conscience vote" display "coherence"?
Yes.

The ones who can demonstrate and effect upon themselves.

One can always at least establish the ideal, and strive for it.

NO.

(You're FUN)

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#25 Jun 28, 2013
(I hate auto complete)

“REFUSE ALL IMITATIONS!!”

Since: Jan 11

Australia

#26 Jun 28, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
"Democracy" is not a synonym for "majority rule".
I'm not sure I said that it is.

By the same token, if legislation does not reflect community standards then what should it reflect?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#27 Jun 28, 2013
The ADELAIDEAN wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure I said that it is.
By the same token, if legislation does not reflect community standards then what should it reflect?
"Community Standards"?

“REFUSE ALL IMITATIONS!!”

Since: Jan 11

Australia

#28 Jun 28, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
The ones who can demonstrate and effect upon themselves.
What if they are too young and innocent to know the difference, have a say, or appreciate the criteria?
snyper wrote:
One can always at least establish the ideal, and strive for it.
With no recourse to "coherence in legal logic"?

“Fair & Balanced”

Since: Jul 12

wherever there's a mine

#29 Jun 28, 2013
The ADELAIDEAN wrote:
<quoted text>

I would have thought that would have been clear from my opening post, which everyone here seems petrified to acknowledge:
It was probably clear but it was sooooo long I skipped it and read everyone elses comments. Sorry.

I'll go read it now ..... or could you tweet what it all means?

“REFUSE ALL IMITATIONS!!”

Since: Jan 11

Australia

#30 Jun 28, 2013
chefboy812 wrote:
<quoted text>
It was probably clear but it was sooooo long I skipped it and read everyone elses comments. Sorry.
I'll go read it now ..... or could you tweet what it all means?
Topix is riddled with MUCH longer opening posts. I'll go with it as it is.

“REFUSE ALL IMITATIONS!!”

Since: Jan 11

Australia

#31 Jun 28, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
"Community Standards"?
What ... never heard the term before?

3,940,000 results in Google alone:

http://tinyurl.com/p27cw5t

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#32 Jun 28, 2013
The ADELAIDEAN wrote:
<quoted text>
What ... never heard the term before?
3,940,000 results in Google alone:
http://tinyurl.com/p27cw5t
Apart from a rational concern regarding behaviors concretely and quantifiably effecting the commonweal (murder, mayhem, fraud, theft, damage to property and environment, etc.), such "standards" are medieval hangovers from churches dictating personal morality to it's subjects, and should have no place in Governmental legal theory. They are a primitive atavism, rendering the legal structure schizoid in purposes and implementation.

Law should prohibit real injury and damage, not imagination-based discomforts; and should protect individual Freedom and self-determination to the absolute limits of that potentiality.

"Conscience" my arse! Keep Ms. Nosey Parker and Mrs. Grundy focused on their own cabbage patches. Tell them to mind their own business.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#33 Jun 28, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Apart from a rational concern regarding behaviors concretely and quantifiably effecting the commonweal (murder, mayhem, fraud, theft, damage to property and environment, etc.), such "standards" are medieval hangovers from churches dictating personal morality to it's subjects, and should have no place in Governmental legal theory. They are a primitive atavism, rendering the legal structure schizoid in purposes and implementation.
Law should prohibit real injury and damage, not imagination-based discomforts; and should protect individual Freedom and self-determination to the absolute limits of that potentiality.
"Conscience" my arse! Keep Ms. Nosey Parker and Mrs. Grundy focused on their own cabbage patches. Tell them to mind their own business.
WOW ! How LIBERTARIAN of you.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#34 Jun 28, 2013
The ADELAIDEAN wrote:
<quoted text>
Topix is riddled with MUCH longer opening posts. I'll go with it as it is.
I LIKED your opener. It was informative.

Most readers here are not acquainted (much less familiar) with the uniquenesses and peculiarities of the Australian Governmental system. It is not even discussed in our schools beyond the bare mention of it being one of the "Parliamentary" systems on the planet. How that translates into the day-to-day meat grinder of real political behavior isn't discussed anywhere, to my knowledge, outside of course reading at the postgraduate level at specialized schools of International Studies.

I relish as much the opportunity to read the thoughts of an educated and articulate person who can intelligently and cogently discuss their particular Governmental system, as I loathe and disdain the rants and blathering of those who aren't and can't.

We aren't going to debate your opening theses. Quite simply, we can't. We aren't conversant. We read and learn in the limited way left to those who do not actually know enough in the field to discern the important questions.

Mummy, what are those three sticks behind that man with the big stick for? Mummy, what's a "googlie"?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#35 Jun 28, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
WOW ! How LIBERTARIAN of you.
Kinda slow aren't ya.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#36 Jun 28, 2013
The ADELAIDEAN wrote:
<quoted text>
What if they are too young and innocent to know the difference, have a say, or appreciate the criteria?
<quoted text>
With no recourse to "coherence in legal logic"?
I'm not certain what the real topic is in that first.

Lack of application does not equate to absence. Legal logic is sound if the premises are.

“REFUSE ALL IMITATIONS!!”

Since: Jan 11

Australia

#38 Jun 28, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I LIKED your opener. It was informative.
Most readers here are not acquainted (much less familiar) with the uniquenesses and peculiarities of the Australian Governmental system. It is not even discussed in our schools beyond the bare mention of it being one of the "Parliamentary" systems on the planet. How that translates into the day-to-day meat grinder of real political behavior isn't discussed anywhere, to my knowledge, outside of course reading at the postgraduate level at specialized schools of International Studies.
There is actually much similarity between the US governmental system and Australia's. Even a superficial survey reveals that both are based on the Westminister System. The basic components are the same. Differences arise mainly with regard to areas of emphasis local to each country, and terminology applied.
snyper wrote:
I relish as much the opportunity to read the thoughts of an educated and articulate person who can intelligently and cogently discuss their particular Governmental system, as I loathe and disdain the rants and blathering of those who aren't and can't.
Surmounting troll-static is a rite of passage.
snyper wrote:
We aren't going to debate your opening theses. Quite simply, we can't. We aren't conversant. We read and learn in the limited way left to those who do not actually know enough in the field to discern the important questions.
I am resigned to guessing whom is meant by "we".:)
snyper wrote:
Mummy, what are those three sticks behind that man with the big stick for? Mummy, what's a "googlie"?
I see a whole world of enthralling discovery awaits you.:)

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#39 Jun 28, 2013
"We" in this instance means poster educated in the American system.

In reference to myself, I tend to use "The Royal WHEEE!"

“REFUSE ALL IMITATIONS!!”

Since: Jan 11

Australia

#40 Jun 28, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Apart from a rational concern regarding behaviors concretely and quantifiably effecting the commonweal (murder, mayhem, fraud, theft, damage to property and environment, etc.), such "standards" are medieval hangovers from churches dictating personal morality to it's subjects, and should have no place in Governmental legal theory.
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?
snyper wrote:
They are a primitive atavism, rendering the legal structure schizoid in purposes and implementation.
Law should prohibit real injury and damage, not imagination-based discomforts; and should protect individual Freedom and self-determination to the absolute limits of that potentiality.
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?
snyper wrote:
"Conscience" my arse! Keep Ms. Nosey Parker and Mrs. Grundy focused on their own cabbage patches. Tell them to mind their own business.
For most intents and purposes, yes.

“REFUSE ALL IMITATIONS!!”

Since: Jan 11

Australia

#41 Jun 28, 2013
snyper wrote:
I tend to use "The Royal WHEEE!"
I can see how that could be dizzying. lol!

“REFUSE ALL IMITATIONS!!”

Since: Jan 11

Australia

#42 Jun 28, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not certain what the real topic is in that first.
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.
snyper wrote:
Lack of application does not equate to absence. Legal logic is sound if the premises are.
Deceptively consistent arguments can unfortunately be erected upon false first premises. Herein lies the challenge for all concerned.

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.

Oceania Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
LDS Apostle visited Tonga (Feb '14) 25 min jestr 27,175
Where are the Pacific entrepreneurs? (Jan '14) 4 hr Reservation Ape 13
Call for Nat MP to stand down 5 hr Pun jab-arse B 1
For Australian Christmas, Everything's Overturn... 23 hr Deano 10
Police warn of online child sex 'grooming' Thu easy 3
What's for dinner? Australia Thu J RULES 9
Comedian faces resentencing on sex charge (Apr '12) Dec 25 punjabi mp 78
More from around the web