Board Moderators
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Stubby

  • Rank
    The Night is Dark and Full of Growlers

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Perth, Western Australia
  • Interests
    Reading, Writing, Movies, VideoGames, Internets

Recent Profile Visitors

12,995 profile views
  1. Preston Jacobs and the Purple Wedding

    [MOD] This topic seems to have run its course. [/MOD]
  2. Ramsay wrote the pink letter

    [MOD] A reminder that the show is not the books and that this section of the forum is for the books only. The rules of the forum do not permit discussion of the show in this section. [/MOD]
  3. Ashara Dayne as Jon Snow's mother

    [MOD] If you think someone is trolling the forum, please use the report function. Do not personalise debate by threatening other users or posting intimidatory or sexist content. [/MOD]
  4. We don't say bleedin. The correct phrase is "bloody drongo". And if Trump spoke to Brady, Trump would have learned some humility.
  5. Kim Jong Un is happy that he's no longer the silly one.
  6. [MOD] Another mod has indicated that we are discussing a position on something. That means don't raise it. Again, the forum rules do not permit embedded videos. This warning was posted upthread and should have needed to be repeated. [/MOD]
  7. [MOD] Folks, please don't embed videos as they will only be deleted. This has always been the policy of this forum, and the only reason it is not disabled at present is because we don't get the option to disable it. [/MOD]
  8. Trump just sacked her.
  9. Board Issues 4

    Embedded videos are not permitted.
  10. U.S. Politics: It's Torture

    OT, 1. There is no guaranteed freedom of speech in the Australian Constitution. It was implied into the Constitution by a decision of the High Court. The HCA found that we have freedom to discuss political and governmental affairs, as a necessary pre-requisite to good government. 2. That implication has been found by the HCA to be a good defence to a defamation action brought by a federal politician: Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd (1994). 3. Critically, the implication is that the only speech that is protected is that relating to government and political issues. 4. Saf Fisher wrote a paper on the issue in 2006: (2006) 8 University of Technology Sydney Law Review 21 This is a quote from that paper that summarises the core issue: 5. Punching someone is a physical assault. If it is not the government applying the 'punch' it is not something that either the USA or Australia calls an imposition on free speech. 6. In R.A.V v City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 1992, the US Supreme Court found that the boundary between free and hate speech was not as difficult to imagine as critics of hate speech legislation like to present. This quote is again from Fisher's article: 7. One thing that a majority of persons arguing on this issue overlook is the facts in any one case. It is very rare for Western Courts to decide matters without a background in facts. In this case, Spencer was espousing stuff that was proposing genocide. Genocide affects individuals. It is the ultimate expression of violence to a class of individuals. Inciting violence against individuals was not, in my view, ever intended to be protected by the free speech provisions. It follows that I do not accept that free speech was the core issue in the Spencer scenario. The core issue was Spencer's conduct and had nothing to do with the exercise of government. As to the assault, the individual concerned would need to prove provocation as a Defence. That is a whole other discussion, but I would note that 'self-defence' or 'defence of another' would not be relevant.
  11. U.S. Politics: It's Torture

    [MOD] Several posts have been deleted and a user has been suspended. Of course this is a highly emotive topic but that is no excuse to be abusive to other members. Please all take a deep breath. [/MOD]
  12. [MOD] Folks, please respect the wishes of other posters about how they are addressed. Also, this discussion as a whole needs to be a little more restrained. Thanks in advance. [/MOD]
  13. Yes there is another thread. You brought the arguments against feminism into this one. Your opinion doesn't make sense.
  14. 1. I always like it when I am told what the actual issue is when it's not. It's called strawmanning. Usually, it's done because the person employing it doesn't like the actual issue or cannot argue against it. It's like an opponent of marriage equality bringing up the silly suggestion that marriage to pets might as well be permitted as a reason to oppose marriage equality. They are not the same thing. In this case, the simple issue is that women want to be seen and treated as equals to men. It is not abour removing rights from men. It is not about denigrating or emasculating men. It is not about checking a woman's privilege. How hard is that to comprehend? 2. This is you dodging the issue. In this case, you want to argue about something else than equality for women. 2.1 Further, please tell me where I said that women's rights to equality are more important than some other issue? You will find that I expressly said otherwise. And now, a yes or no question for you. Is it fair for a woman to do the same job as a man and get paid less?