Stupid World

[BoristheBiter]

New laws cost $3.5m each - study... so we're paying to remove our own freedoms... oh the irony.

And sadly it is lost on the one that doesn't vote.

[mashman]

Law change in way of anti-corruption convention

"Correspondence from the Ministry of Justice reveals a change made to an anti-money laundering Bill in 2009 is the problem.

At the time, Parliament removed a requirement for prominent public servants to be subject to enhanced due diligence around such matters."

and remember, at all costs you must protect your own bwaaaa ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaa. This has to be my fave for a while.

[Oscar]

Shame you see them as random press links... but I guess that was to be expected.

Have another old chap.

New laws cost $3.5m each - study... so we're paying to remove our own freedoms... oh the irony.

More fatuous comments.

Why is the cost of legislation related to the removal of freedoms?
The fact is that passing a new law costs money.
Are you inferring that $3.5m is excessive? because Prof. Wilson at Otago University says it's good value:
http://www.3news.co.nz/Health-legisl...2/Default.aspx

You also don't give us any proof of connection between new legislation and loss of freedom. We don't have to go that far into the past to come up with legislation that gives more freedom: Gay Rights, Civil Unions, or the Bill of Rights Act.

[mashman]

More fatuous comments.

Why is the cost of legislation related to the removal of freedoms?
The fact is that passing a new law costs money.
Are you inferring that $3.5m is excessive? because Prof. Wilson at Otago University says it's good value:
http://www.3news.co.nz/Health-legisl...2/Default.aspx

You also don't give us any proof of connection between new legislation and loss of freedom. We don't have to go that far into the past to come up with legislation that gives more freedom: Gay Rights, Civil Unions, or the Bill of Rights Act.

Legislation removes my choice and therefore removes more of my freedom. Calling that fatuous, well let's not go down that road suffice to say that I see things very differently from yourself.
Of course it costs money, I'm not saying that it doesn't, I'm not saying that in the current environment that it isn't value for money (other than it only needs to be done because the justice system cannot rely on common sense alone any more, hence the above story of "protection" of those in power), you're the one who has opened up the "argument" further than it needed to go, as is your bent.

As above, legislation removes my choice and therefore removes more of my freedom. Why do we need legislation to allow people to be gay? or black? or female? or to TELL us what our rights are? As I said, your freedom is not your choice, unless your choice has been legislated for. An exceptionally archaic way of doing things... but hey, politics wouldn't be politics without the government telling us what we aren't allowed to do. the funny thing is, it doesn't stop those who exercise their "bad" choices anyway. Those who believe that we need our lives legislated in such a way are nothing but sheep.

[Oscar]

Legislation removes my choice and therefore removes more of my freedom. Calling that fatuous, well let's not go down that road suffice to say that I see things very differently from yourself.
Of course it costs money, I'm not saying that it doesn't, I'm not saying that in the current environment that it isn't value for money (other than it only needs to be done because the justice system cannot rely on common sense alone any more, hence the above story of "protection" of those in power), you're the one who has opened up the "argument" further than it needed to go, as is your bent.

As above, legislation removes my choice and therefore removes more of my freedom. Why do we need legislation to allow people to be gay? or black? or female? or to TELL us what our rights are? As I said, your freedom is not your choice, unless your choice has been legislated for. An exceptionally archaic way of doing things... but hey, politics wouldn't be politics without the government telling us what we aren't allowed to do. the funny thing is, it doesn't stop those who exercise their "bad" choices anyway. Those who believe that we need our lives legislated in such a way are nothing but sheep.

That's better - you're using your words.
Your original post had the link and some silly comment about irony (which, strictly speaking it wasn't). It's good to see that you have some opinions of your own.

You still have a problem with comprehension, though - I said your remarks were fatuous, not the legislation.

[BoristheBiter]

That's better - you're using your words.
Your original post had the link and some silly comment about irony (which, strictly speaking it wasn't). It's good to see that you have some opinions of your own.

You still have a problem with comprehension, though - I said your remarks were fatuous, not the legislation.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Oscar again.

At least he's learning.

[mashman]

That's better - you're using your words.
Your original post had the link and some silly comment about irony (which, strictly speaking it wasn't). It's good to see that you have some opinions of your own.

You still have a problem with comprehension, though - I said your remarks were fatuous, not the legislation.

cheers Dad. It is Ironic to me. You have your own view and you don't see the post as ironic, just fatuous . Fair enough, that's your comprehension of what I am getting at in 4 or 5 words of posting ... entertaining if nothing else .

[mashman]

At least he's learning.

That makes 1 out of the 3 of us ... although I always knew that 1 of us was open to learning.

[Oscar]

cheers Dad. It is Ironic to me. You have your own view and you don't see the post as ironic, just fatuous . Fair enough, that's your comprehension of what I am getting at in 4 or 5 words of posting ... entertaining if nothing else .

You missed my meaning (comprehension again).
Having to pay for losing your freedoms isn't ironic.
It doesn't qualify as irony:

Irony: The expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.

[mashman]

You missed my meaning (comprehension again).
Having to pay for losing your freedoms isn't ironic.
It doesn't qualify as irony:

It is ironic if you believe that we are paying for our freedoms (plenty of people believe this is why we pay for our legislation)... I find it humorous that that is the opposite that is actually happening. Perception, not comprehension is the difference. I understand why you don't see it as ironic. Seems to be a one way street here .

[avgas]

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you do say will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right for an attorney, should you not have an attorney the court will provide you with one.

Have anything to say.
Thought fucken not.

Freedom is a form of sanitary pad, not a right anymore.

[BoristheBiter]

It is ironic if you believe that we are paying for our freedoms (plenty of people believe this is why we pay for our legislation)... I find it humorous that that is the opposite that is actually happening. Perception, not comprehension is the difference. I understand why you don't see it as ironic. Seems to be a one way street here .

legislation is only because we can't kill the stupid.

The problem is if you have the right to do what ever you want, I guess that is a freedom, you are impacting on someone right to not be bothered by you.

If common sense was allowed into law non of this would be necessary.

[mashman]

legislation is only because we can't kill the stupid.

The problem is if you have the right to do what ever you want, I guess that is a freedom, you are impacting on someone right to not be bothered by you.

If common sense was allowed into law non of this would be necessary.

I thought it was to stop people from doing that very thing ... even stupid people work, don't I, I mean they.

Teaspoon of cement?

heh... now that I agree with.

[Oscar]

It is ironic if you believe that we are paying for our freedoms (plenty of people believe this is why we pay for our legislation)... I find it humorous that that is the opposite that is actually happening. Perception, not comprehension is the difference. I understand why you don't see it as ironic. Seems to be a one way street here .

(sigh)
It's not perception, it's definition.
It's not irony.

If you voted to removethe freedom to vote, maybe that would be irony...I dunno.
Alanis Morrisette has a lot to answer for.

[mashman]

(sigh)
It's not perception, it's definition.
It's not irony.

If you voted to removethe freedom to vote, maybe that would be irony...I dunno.
Alanis Morrisette has a lot to answer for.

Perception changes definition. If it didn't, then lawyers wouldn't be required.
It is.

I'm sure she does... but fortunately I never paid her any attention to start with.