Comments on: More rushed legislation under urgency

By: Sapient

Sapient — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:52:11 +0000

nommopilot,
I was trying to umbrella it. there is freedom to walk down the street, there is freedom to live, there is freedom to kill, there is freedom to breed, there is even freedom to rape and pilage. There is freedom to rape and pillage with fire or with cannons, fast or over a prolonged period.
The thingis that we choose to ceed, or not utilise, these freedoms under the social contract in return for others under the same contract making that same agreement; the result being a right to not have that freedom utilised against oneself by the other members of the contract.

There is no way that humans ’should’ behave, only ways that best accheive a certain goal. For almost all goals prevalent in our society the best choice is to ceed certain freedoms so that we have protection from others and can accheive other goals. My point is that only so many freedoms should be sacrificed as are needed to accheive the goals so as to protect us from infringement on those goals such as through a dictatorship.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:42:28 +0000

Freedom isn’t Free?
A word can have many associated truths – I think you All right.
Darn Weather’s blown my uplink, but only for this and Nandor’s site – cute hey?

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: nommopilot

nommopilot — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:16:37 +0000

that’s fine Sapient, however to use your definition freedom is impossible for a human being for there are many constraints that humans cannot exceed even were we to escape societal constraints. so there’s not much point in arguing it your way either.

“freedom is the liberty to do whatever one wants, whenever one wants, however one wants. Freedom does not necessitate responsibility”

maybe your right but what’s your point? that this is how humans should behave? we should seek a responsibility-free society?

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Sapient

Sapient — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:05:08 +0000

Frog,
There is a rule in the New Zealand Legal System that all words in legislation are to be interprited in their common meaning should a definition not be provided within the legislation.
The same page you cite also defines licence as;

1 a: permission to act b: freedom of action
2 a: a permission granted by competent authority to engage in a business or occupation or in an activity otherwise unlawful b: a document, plate, or tag evidencing a license granted c: a grant by the holder of a copyright or patent to another of any of the rights embodied in the copyright or patent short of an assignment of all rights

So the weight is stongly on the definition with which i was working.
Furthermore, a link down the bottom of that page to “freedom” provides:

1: the quality or state of being free: as a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b: liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence c: the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous d: ease , facility e: the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken f: improper familiarity g: boldness of conception or execution h: unrestricted use
2 a: a political right

and under synonyms at the bottom of the page;

license implies freedom specially granted or conceded

But if we are working with different definitions then there is little point in arguing such facts as we would mearly be talking past another.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 22:36:42 +0000

Kahakitea! Thanks for the kindness…forgive my lazy research habits (dial-up) – was in beautiful Kinglake when all this went down.
Certainly in the County Courts in Melbourne, several Judges were very concerned that the Burden of Proof had shifted:
ie; Guilty until proven innocent.
So – circumstantially jailed?
I am tempted to make several innocuous observations here…suffice to say if in London, DC, Canberra (& hundreds of other cities) it were revealed that the IntServ. had a file on a Child, or an MP, there would be all hell let loose….here la-de-da – :might be the Gangster thing runs deep here – ain’t restricted to traditional Patches.?

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: bliss

bliss — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 22:21:29 +0000

Frog said:

wat – I somehow doubt you understand the true meaning of freedom. You speak of it as if it had no relationship to responsibility. You are speaking in favour of license, not freedom. I would prefer not to live in your world of anarchy, but in one where individuals take responsibility for their impact on the community.

Shame on you Frog! I doubt very much that Wat is in favour of anarchy! Anarchy is a system where decisions are made and responsibility rests with those effected, rather than those who own.

peace
W

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: frog

frog — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 22:15:38 +0000

Sapient – While I do not dispute the possible meaning that implies authority, I am using it in this context:

3 a: freedom that allows or is used with irresponsibility b: disregard for standards of personal conduct : licentiousness

from:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/license

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Sapient

Sapient — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 22:10:09 +0000

Frog,
No, Licence implies that permission has been given; Freedoms exist always without regard to authority until, through the social contract, we agree not to exercise them in exchange for protection (from others exercising their freedoms) in the form of rights.
Authority does not grant us the ability and freedom to do things, it only tells us what we cannot do or must do. An example of licence may be cops with guns or tasers whilst other members of society are not allowed to carry them, or a drivers licence for that matter.
No frog, your freedom is nothing but licence bestowed by an all powerful and all knowing state; and nothing can be more compromising of our freedoms.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: kahikatea

kahikatea — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 21:39:11 +0000

# Mark Says:
February 12th, 2009 at 9:51 am

> PS: Missed the Case, but would this Scott fella like a DNA test?

there is no sample of the killer’s DNA to compare it to, because the bodies were never found, and neither was the weapon.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: phil u

phil u — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 21:03:48 +0000

ah nandor…!

..welcome to the (contentious) world of link-whoring…!

(hasn’t fwoggy put you on the most-favoured list yet..?

..is that because of the ‘labour-hand-licking’ comment..?..)

..and farrar has his daily ‘must-read’..list..

..and..if he likes you..

..you’ll get on that too..eh..?

..(and of course..as the record shows..

..you will continue to be taking every opportunity to promote/help whoar..?

..eh..?..)

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:51:28 +0000

PS: Missed the Case, but would this Scott fella like a DNA test?

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:49:53 +0000

Frog: Not my place to defend people (anymore). But I read the same piece and thought it a great example of asberger’s.
True lineal component based thinking – it’s a rare gift that allowed the development of the very cyberspace.
While the whole may not look true – it’s sum parts are razor sharp.
Anyway, just my take, he can speak for himself I’m sure
regards

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: frog

frog — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:34:46 +0000

Sapient – you are defining license, not freedom with your comment. Your failure to understand the term is probably the greatest threat to my freedom.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: kahikatea

kahikatea — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:26:16 +0000

I presume the people who believe Scott Watson is innocent have logical reasons for saying so – they can’t have been taken in by his charm, because he doesn’t appear to have any.

And it’s also worth remembering that, if Scott Watson is innocent, then the real killer is still out there…

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: samiam

samiam — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:14:30 +0000

Some nice words for the day..
http://finance.google.com/group/google.finance.983582/browse_thread/th read/459de40437b40a78/ecc14afa09dd64c0

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: wekaontheroof

wekaontheroof — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:52:08 +0000

Scott Watson ? a rogue? probably best inside ? yes put not the guilty one
try looking at the evidence held in the courts file you’ll be surprised

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: chcfitzy

chcfitzy — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:16:15 +0000

I may be wrong but wasn’t the planted evidence in AA Thomas done around his home?
For the lab to cross contaminate samples is possible, but to fiddle with their evidence on purpose would be a tough call.
I can’t be as objective as I’ld really like to be either coming from Blenheim.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:29:01 +0000

Waqar Younis is cheesed i forgot – think I’ll retire- hell just say it Nandor – hand me that kaya dude…it’s about to start rainin.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Nandor Tanczos

Nandor Tanczos — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:05:25 +0000

Do you? The only compelling evidence I can see is the hair match from the blanket. First pass over, no long blond hairs only stubby black pubes. Weeks later, with all the evidence pointing the other way, suddenly a recheck finds a long blond hair from Olivia Hopes head. Curious that the evidence bag by then had a 1 inch slit in the corner. Also coincidental that the test was taken in the same lab that hair taken from Olivias hairbrush was tested in. Shades of A.A.Thomas?

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: chcfitzy

chcfitzy — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:28:35 +0000

Nandor I wouldn’t be hanging my colours too close to that Scott Watson mast.

There are plenty of dodgy decisions out there to champion and I find that particular verdict to be a proper one.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)