But as soon as this is over, you can bet the poo is going to be flung in all directions in parliament and the media.
This is the sort of event the government needs to leverage if are to have a chance to re-float their electoral prospects.
Isn't that very possibly what we are dealing with here? Some lone wacko in the Lindt cafe? I don't think it has been established (yet) that there are any accomplices, much less any organisation behind this.
IMO the high level of publicity given to this, fueled no doubt by our fear of Islam, is itself dangerous. Sure the fact that it's happening in Martin Place was always going to amplify it next to the more usual suburban day(s) hostage dramas. But hang out an Islamic flag and you get to shut down the entire heart of the city?
What's does that telling serious terror groups? Not it was preventable
And there's still the possibility that said lone wacko (and friends imaginary or otherwise) could still kill someone of course.
Hmm. I was pretty sure my maths was sketchy - but now I have actual proof!
It's not that difficult: You choose either (thesis, antithesis, synthesis) or (Problem, Reaction, Solution). Either was you end up with three words.
Is it still being anti science when you point out predictions that don't come true ?
It certainly is being "anti-science" when you seek to misrepresent the science as you have done here.
Within the science of climate change that regarding hurricane (and other tropical storm) formation is famously unsettled.
As far as model predictions, these seem to favour a probable decrease in the frequency of formation (along with a possible increase in intensity) (Knutson et. al.). But, in distinct contradistinction to warming itself and its attribution, I doubt any climate scientist would confidently express a relationship between AGW and storm activity at this stage.
Race (as the term is typically used) does not refer to any actual scientifically based genetic lineage, whereas species does. Clan again is not a scientifically based objective criteria for selection.
The purely scientific status of these constructs is of no relevance. You are presuming to answer a legal question --whether a Chimpanzee ought to be regarded as a person at law --not a scientific one.
Suffice that they are cultural constructs by which individuals classify themselves and each other. Thus, in applying your criterion, an individual would be capable of perceiving a self interest ("the only [legal] basis needed") in advancing, over and above other races and clans, the interests of that group to which they belong.
You
This being a question of law no rationale other than a legal one is even appropriate. Seriously!
It will no more do to answer technical questions of law by recourse to biology (as opposed on occasion to legal questions of fact) than it would to attempt to legislate to flatten out the earth. Oh, and I think you'll find the law, though it may not be corporeal, is nonetheless very real.
Your rational[e] would dictate that both the humans and the corporation (which exists only on paper) should have equal rights.
It's not my rationale, "it's the law, stupid." And no, natural persons and corporate persons, though they share many of the aspects of legal personality, do not have equal rights (and are distinct legal classifications for that reason). Specifically there can be no question of habeas corpus applying to a corporation. So your observations regarding corporations here are impertinent.
So, who among us believes a person should be given the death penalty or put in prison for an attempt to "kill" a corporation?
(Speaking of "nonsense"
Really?
Apparently.
Even the most average 2 yr. old human is vastly more intelligent than the most cultured of monkeys.
And what logical connection does that have to anything under discussion? Oh, sorry I forgot
Any imbecile can see that the commonality of DNA between two critters is irrelevant to their relative intelligences.
As to what any imbecile might see you may have the advantage. However, were we to consider this logically we should begin by noting that the observation that "[c]himpanzees are genetically closer to us that they are to the other great apes" hardly proves, nor even suggests, the essential irrelevance of genetic factors in making up intelligence, (say for example as between different humans).
Even in considering the "relative intelligences" of humans and chimps, the question of what a "cultured monkey" might be capable of compared to a 2 yr old human has no bearing on the question. Rather the question must be whether the intelligence of the chimpanzee more closely resembles that of the human than do the intelligences of "the other great apes."
That means DNA is essentially irrelevant to the question of intelligence.
You must have missed out on the logic gene.
s/Animal Life/Non-Human Species/
That being said parent post is still silly. That is not the "basis" that is needed, and moreover it finds its reductio ad absurdum via race, clan and family in pure sociopathy.
All that was needed was the lack of any precedent whatsoever of an animal being afforded legal personality and the fact that a chimpanzee is not in the nature of a person. For as the court, here quoting Black's explains: "Persons are the substances of which rights and duties are the attributes."
... unlike human beings, chimpanzees cannot bear any legal duties, submit to societal responsibilities or be held legally accountable for their actions. In our view, it is this incapability to bear any legal responsibilities and societal duties that renders it inappropriate to confer upon chimpanzees the legal rights – such as the fundamental right to liberty protected by the writ of habeas corpus – that have been afforded to human beings.
YMMV, but I find that a rather more satisfying rationale than "the only basis needed is self interest."
I had never heard of "microagression" before this article.
Neither had I. It was the only thing I took away from this sad collection of platitudes.
You will never see any prodigy say, "I played video games all the time."
FWIW, Civilization (IV and V) has inspired my son to take an active interest in history, cartography and languages. What the brain takes from the environment depends on the brain as well.
Yes, yes, i understand you - you don't understand me (and Greek, and Greek Orthodox theology!).
Well I'm glad I've articulated my position more successfully than you.
[B]ut you choose that theoretical accusation because i am Greek?
No, not at all. I wouldn't especially associate paedophilia with Greeks (the etymology of the term notwithstanding). Nor with homosexuality for that matter. Rather the particular infamy of that charge was meant to dramatise the intolerable situation we should descend into, once we were to abandon the ancient precept pertaining to onus.
To call someone an atheist is an accusations of the most heinous crime.
Only where it is a crime to be so enlightened. I think you might find more people might object to being called a paedophile than an atheist (even among believers).
[I]n the Greek Orthodox theology it's not even posible to be without God since... its not posible!
That may be so in G.O theology, but since we have not yet been able to discover God anywhere outside your head, we are getting a little ahead of ourselves to deem it impossible for anyone else to be without him. More to the point it would be a mistake overly to fall back to the Greek etymology of the term when it has a clear meaning (relating to personal belief) in the language we are speaking. Thus the OED defines the 'atheist' in the first sense to mean "One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God." Nor need we even use the term. I'm not particularly wedded to the word 'atheist' and actually prefer, when challenged as to my religious affiliation, to call myself simply a 'non-believer.'
Goddsess? blasphemy!
Not to the goddess worshiper, it's not! God, Goddess, it's all the same to me. I just wanted to emphasise that we were speaking about some abstract human-like creator, not in particular that god that is in your head. In any case, being Greek orthodox you surely don't harbour the fervent anti-Marianism of the anglophone churches?
Agnostic: the blind and deaf theist! You - curable
Again the OED has 'agnostic' meaning: "A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of immaterial things, especially of the existence or nature of God." Yes agnostics are blind, but unlike all the other blind people possess at least the humility to admit they do not know that which they cannot know.
As far as a cure, from my perspective, it is not I who needs to be cured. It is you who has fallen from the light of truth into the darkness of fable. Not that I should wish to cure you, mind. If a belief is capable of providing succor to a fellow sufferer in the vale of tears, far be it from me to disabuse them thereof. And in any case, were your beliefs to lead you to behave according to the highest ethical standards demanded by Jesus of his followers, (and I must say, I find it difficult to reconcile an admitted racism with those moral imperatives), I should have no ground to complain.
But now to the crux of the matter
So, because of the "contra principia negantem non est disputandum" YOU must accept that YOU are a theist (having God in you) else we cannot have a discusion!
You are exactly correct. Just as you are to me the barbarian who will not recognise the need to provide proof for your assertion that "God exists," so I am the wild man who regards what is for you axiomatic as the very thing to be established. There is then, on both those sides, little prospect of meaningful dialogue.
I hope at least that you may have benefited from practising your English with me.
It will surprise no one that a majority of people identifying as 'environmentalists' remain opposed to nuclear energy. But that was not what the post I was replying to was claiming. Instead it was denying that those in favour of nuclear energy could be environmentalists, but were instead "conservationists." As the second (as it was when I searched) link [to the Wikipedia list] shows, that us palbably untrue. Indeed there are a number of very high profile environmentalist who are in favour of nuclear energy as among the most practicable means of reducing fossil fuel use.
Before I go, I'd hate to leave you with the impression (as the Wikipedia article might), that penalty clauses will always and in every case be unenforceable. A famous exception flowing from the decision in Peachy v Duke of Somerset (1720) 1 Strange 447 [93 ER 626] where the penalty doctrine will not protect you from a penalty clause should the loss to the other party not be quantifiable in money terms.
The point is that law is never simple. The best wishes of the layperson notwithstanding, the Law cannot easily be intuited, nor even unambiguously discerned from the observation of its apparent operation in everyday life. Even those with legal training are uncertain about its operation (actually we're more uncertain because of our greater knowledge of the uncertainties). The take home lesson here is simply, when you see what might be construed as a penalty clause in a contract, alarm bells should go off. That being the case it should have been obvious to me from the start there was only a vanishingly small possibility that university lawyers would chose any service agreement by which to institute the fines, a fortiori when an explicit statutory power to levy fines exists. My bad.
Maybe in the 1980s you could be forgiven, but post-interwebs there's really no excuse for this kind of ignorance.
Seeing how humans are animals
Those whacky anti-nuke guys
"The medium is the massage." -- Crazy Nigel
