R9: Sydney v Carlton (Post match discussion)

dannyboy · **Posted:** Wed Jun 03, 2015 4:32 pm

Sydney Blue wrote:

dannyboy wrote:

"but the issue there is they are under constraints and limits. With the indigenous people there are no constraints or limits they are free to live how they wish" Are they - I think we might have very different concepts of that word "free" like "free" market and "free" speech "free education" and "free" from persecution...

Isn't "Free" an abstraction that ignores the reality of each person... And if so wouldn't it be good when we talk about "free" that we remember it is an abstraction? After all, who is "free"? And are some people more 'free" than others?

"But as the world moves on they need to move with it" — is that an or else statement?

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-ne ... port-warns

Thats pretty deep Danny
The link you posted
Do we relax our laws so they don't end up in jail ??
Do we send the White kid to jail for stealing and allow his indigenous mate to get off with reprimand .
Do we remove them from that environment? ? (Cant do that)

There is fast becoming a time where people regardless of their color or race are going to have to be made responsible for their own actions.
A world with out laws will result in anarchy . A world that has rules for some but don't apply to others will be an even greater anarchy

Okay 2 more points (I will try and be brief) and then you can respond and then I think we should let others get back to football, I wish we were around a pub sharing a few jars over this but anyway...

Point 1) It seems to me when someone doesn't agree they always shout "there will be anarchy" in fact I would argue that anarchy is more likely to be the result of not listening, not changing, not seeing that everything/everyone cannot be treated the same (just ask King Louis XVI(?) of France).

point 2) rule of law - this could get really long so instead I have chosen a very simple example.

In Melbourne now that stations are not manned announcements are made that people with prams should board only at the first carriage so that the driver can see them get on and off at all times.

It seems fair enough but

I would argue people with prams also often have one (or more) other toddlers with them, could often be pregnant, or with someone pregnant (you get my drift?) so here is a law designed by (men I am willing to bet) that really does make it harder for a select group (women/people with young kids). They have to walk the further o the platform than the rest (there and back), might often be running late (young kids/nappies etc) more in the rain, the cold (etc) Is it just? For me, no, it is convenient (ie a rule of thumb). Should laws simply be about what is convenient? Or should laws take into account the needs of the people they are most likely to affect?

Perhaps nck and the other lawyers could best answer this one?

http://www.amnesty.org.au/action/action ... IYJ_pledge

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... MP=soc_567

www.facebook.com/MichaelLeunigAppreciat ... 11/?type=1

billc3 · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:41 pm **Posts:** 4627

Can add people with disabilities to point 2... BTW which pub

dannyboy · **Posted:** Wed Jun 03, 2015 9:06 pm

any pub is a storm...

Sydney Blue · **Posted:** Wed Jun 03, 2015 9:49 pm

dannyboy wrote:

Sydney Blue wrote:

dannyboy wrote:

"but the issue there is they are under constraints and limits. With the indigenous people there are no constraints or limits they are free to live how they wish" Are they - I think we might have very different concepts of that word "free" like "free" market and "free" speech "free education" and "free" from persecution...

Isn't "Free" an abstraction that ignores the reality of each person... And if so wouldn't it be good when we talk about "free" that we remember it is an abstraction? After all, who is "free"? And are some people more 'free" than others?

"But as the world moves on they need to move with it" — is that an or else statement?

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-ne ... port-warns

Thats pretty deep Danny
The link you posted
Do we relax our laws so they don't end up in jail ??
Do we send the White kid to jail for stealing and allow his indigenous mate to get off with reprimand .
Do we remove them from that environment? ? (Cant do that)

There is fast becoming a time where people regardless of their color or race are going to have to be made responsible for their own actions.
A world with out laws will result in anarchy . A world that has rules for some but don't apply to others will be an even greater anarchy

Okay 2 more points (I will try and be brief) and then you can respond and then I think we should let others get back to football, I wish we were around a pub sharing a few jars over this but anyway...

Point 1) It seems to me when someone doesn't agree they always shout "there will be anarchy" in fact I would argue that anarchy is more likely to be the result of not listening, not changing, not seeing that everything/everyone cannot be treated the same (just ask King Louis XVI(?) of France).

point 2) rule of law - this could get really long so instead I have chosen a very simple example.

In Melbourne now that stations are not manned announcements are made that people with prams should board only at the first carriage so that the driver can see them get on and off at all times.

It seems fair enough but

I would argue people with prams also often have one (or more) other toddlers with them, could often be pregnant, or with someone pregnant (you get my drift?) so here is a law designed by (men I am willing to bet) that really does make it harder for a select group (women/people with young kids). They have to walk the further o the platform than the rest (there and back), might often be running late (young kids/nappies etc) more in the rain, the cold (etc) Is it just? For me, no, it is convenient (ie a rule of thumb). Should laws simply be about what is convenient? Or should laws take into account the needs of the people they are most likely to affect?

Perhaps nck and the other lawyers could best answer this one?

http://www.amnesty.org.au/action/action ... IYJ_pledge

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... MP=soc_567

http://www.facebook.com/MichaelLeunigAp ... 11/?type=1

Railways introduce a law to protect some from doing harm to themselves and thats an inconvenience ?
Its a bit like shall I walk 200 yards up the road and cross at the crossing or run the gauntlet and cross right here at the traffic.
You could mount an argument that all sections of the platform be manned. But would the rest of the public be willing to pay for this service? I doubt it.

And what about the train driver himself doing his job and someone who doesn't want the inconvenience of walking down the platform gets dragged under his train . My now ex father in law worked on Sydney rail from the age of 13 to he retired at 74. ( 1/2 cast aboriginal by the way but thats beside the point)
Now he drove trains right up until his 20 death either by suicide or accident.
The railway said 20 was to much and confined him to office duties for the last 25 years of his working life. In his younger years he was cheif shop steward head on the union a powerful man.
Now he is not a former shadow of himself he quiet and hardly speaks. although he never spoke much about it these deaths were chewing him up.
He would have loved that law

Next time I'm in Melbourne I will hook up Danny and we can invite a few of my foes on here like GWS baz baz Synners and Moshe who I have met before.
I'd love to have a beer with all TCers and chew the fat for e while

GWS · **Posted:** Wed Jun 03, 2015 9:58 pm

Sydney Blue wrote:

dannyboy wrote:

Sydney Blue wrote:

dannyboy wrote:

"but the issue there is they are under constraints and limits. With the indigenous people there are no constraints or limits they are free to live how they wish" Are they - I think we might have very different concepts of that word "free" like "free" market and "free" speech "free education" and "free" from persecution...

Isn't "Free" an abstraction that ignores the reality of each person... And if so wouldn't it be good when we talk about "free" that we remember it is an abstraction? After all, who is "free"? And are some people more 'free" than others?

"But as the world moves on they need to move with it" — is that an or else statement?

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-ne ... port-warns

Thats pretty deep Danny
The link you posted
Do we relax our laws so they don't end up in jail ??
Do we send the White kid to jail for stealing and allow his indigenous mate to get off with reprimand .
Do we remove them from that environment? ? (Cant do that)

There is fast becoming a time where people regardless of their color or race are going to have to be made responsible for their own actions.
A world with out laws will result in anarchy . A world that has rules for some but don't apply to others will be an even greater anarchy

Okay 2 more points (I will try and be brief) and then you can respond and then I think we should let others get back to football, I wish we were around a pub sharing a few jars over this but anyway...

Point 1) It seems to me when someone doesn't agree they always shout "there will be anarchy" in fact I would argue that anarchy is more likely to be the result of not listening, not changing, not seeing that everything/everyone cannot be treated the same (just ask King Louis XVI(?) of France).

point 2) rule of law - this could get really long so instead I have chosen a very simple example.

In Melbourne now that stations are not manned announcements are made that people with prams should board only at the first carriage so that the driver can see them get on and off at all times.

It seems fair enough but

I would argue people with prams also often have one (or more) other toddlers with them, could often be pregnant, or with someone pregnant (you get my drift?) so here is a law designed by (men I am willing to bet) that really does make it harder for a select group (women/people with young kids). They have to walk the further o the platform than the rest (there and back), might often be running late (young kids/nappies etc) more in the rain, the cold (etc) Is it just? For me, no, it is convenient (ie a rule of thumb). Should laws simply be about what is convenient? Or should laws take into account the needs of the people they are most likely to affect?

Perhaps nck and the other lawyers could best answer this one?

http://www.amnesty.org.au/action/action ... IYJ_pledge

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... MP=soc_567

http://www.facebook.com/MichaelLeunigAp ... 11/?type=1

Railways introduce a law to protect some from doing harm to themselves and thats an inconvenience ?
Its a bit like shall I walk 200 yards up the road and cross at the crossing or run the gauntlet and cross right here at the traffic.
You could mount an argument that all sections of the platform be manned. But would the rest of the public be willing to pay for this service? I doubt it.

And what about the train driver himself doing his job and someone who doesn't want the inconvenience of walking down the platform gets dragged under his train . My now ex father in law worked on Sydney rail from the age of 13 to he retired at 74. ( 1/2 cast aboriginal by the way but thats beside the point)
Now he drove trains right up until his 20 death either by suicide or accident.
The railway said 20 was to much and confined him to office duties for the last 25 years of his working life. In his younger years he was cheif shop steward head on the union a powerful man.
Now he is not a former shadow of himself he quiet and hardly speaks. although he never spoke much about it these deaths were chewing him up.
He would have loved that law

Next time I'm in Melbourne I will hook up Danny and we can invite a few of my foes on here like GWS baz baz Synners and Moshe who I have met before.
I'd love to have a beer with all TCers and chew the fat for e while

It's a date.

But we're not foes.

We're just not currently pursuing a similar equilibrium.

Oh... and I'd rather you didn't chew my fat.

Sydney Blue · **Posted:** Wed Jun 03, 2015 10:11 pm

GWS wrote:

Sydney Blue wrote:

dannyboy wrote:

Sydney Blue wrote:

dannyboy wrote:

"but the issue there is they are under constraints and limits. With the indigenous people there are no constraints or limits they are free to live how they wish" Are they - I think we might have very different concepts of that word "free" like "free" market and "free" speech "free education" and "free" from persecution...

Isn't "Free" an abstraction that ignores the reality of each person... And if so wouldn't it be good when we talk about "free" that we remember it is an abstraction? After all, who is "free"? And are some people more 'free" than others?

"But as the world moves on they need to move with it" — is that an or else statement?

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-ne ... port-warns

Thats pretty deep Danny
The link you posted
Do we relax our laws so they don't end up in jail ??
Do we send the White kid to jail for stealing and allow his indigenous mate to get off with reprimand .
Do we remove them from that environment? ? (Cant do that)

There is fast becoming a time where people regardless of their color or race are going to have to be made responsible for their own actions.
A world with out laws will result in anarchy . A world that has rules for some but don't apply to others will be an even greater anarchy

Okay 2 more points (I will try and be brief) and then you can respond and then I think we should let others get back to football, I wish we were around a pub sharing a few jars over this but anyway...

Point 1) It seems to me when someone doesn't agree they always shout "there will be anarchy" in fact I would argue that anarchy is more likely to be the result of not listening, not changing, not seeing that everything/everyone cannot be treated the same (just ask King Louis XVI(?) of France).

point 2) rule of law - this could get really long so instead I have chosen a very simple example.

In Melbourne now that stations are not manned announcements are made that people with prams should board only at the first carriage so that the driver can see them get on and off at all times.

It seems fair enough but

I would argue people with prams also often have one (or more) other toddlers with them, could often be pregnant, or with someone pregnant (you get my drift?) so here is a law designed by (men I am willing to bet) that really does make it harder for a select group (women/people with young kids). They have to walk the further o the platform than the rest (there and back), might often be running late (young kids/nappies etc) more in the rain, the cold (etc) Is it just? For me, no, it is convenient (ie a rule of thumb). Should laws simply be about what is convenient? Or should laws take into account the needs of the people they are most likely to affect?

Perhaps nck and the other lawyers could best answer this one?

http://www.amnesty.org.au/action/action ... IYJ_pledge

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... MP=soc_567

http://www.facebook.com/MichaelLeunigAp ... 11/?type=1

Railways introduce a law to protect some from doing harm to themselves and thats an inconvenience ?
Its a bit like shall I walk 200 yards up the road and cross at the crossing or run the gauntlet and cross right here at the traffic.
You could mount an argument that all sections of the platform be manned. But would the rest of the public be willing to pay for this service? I doubt it.

And what about the train driver himself doing his job and someone who doesn't want the inconvenience of walking down the platform gets dragged under his train . My now ex father in law worked on Sydney rail from the age of 13 to he retired at 74. ( 1/2 cast aboriginal by the way but thats beside the point)
Now he drove trains right up until his 20 death either by suicide or accident.
The railway said 20 was to much and confined him to office duties for the last 25 years of his working life. In his younger years he was cheif shop steward head on the union a powerful man.
Now he is not a former shadow of himself he quiet and hardly speaks. although he never spoke much about it these deaths were chewing him up.
He would have loved that law

Next time I'm in Melbourne I will hook up Danny and we can invite a few of my foes on here like GWS baz baz Synners and Moshe who I have met before.
I'd love to have a beer with all TCers and chew the fat for e while

It's a date.

But we're not foes.

We're just not currently pursuing a similar equilibrium.

Oh... and I'd rather you didn't chew my fat.

Now just need to organise a work junket :-)

moshe25 · **Joined:** Wed May 11, 2005 1:23 am **Posts:** 11671

GWS wrote:

Sydney Blue wrote:

dannyboy wrote:

Sydney Blue wrote:

dannyboy wrote:

"but the issue there is they are under constraints and limits. With the indigenous people there are no constraints or limits they are free to live how they wish" Are they - I think we might have very different concepts of that word "free" like "free" market and "free" speech "free education" and "free" from persecution...

Isn't "Free" an abstraction that ignores the reality of each person... And if so wouldn't it be good when we talk about "free" that we remember it is an abstraction? After all, who is "free"? And are some people more 'free" than others?

"But as the world moves on they need to move with it" — is that an or else statement?

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-ne ... port-warns

Thats pretty deep Danny
The link you posted
Do we relax our laws so they don't end up in jail ??
Do we send the White kid to jail for stealing and allow his indigenous mate to get off with reprimand .
Do we remove them from that environment? ? (Cant do that)

There is fast becoming a time where people regardless of their color or race are going to have to be made responsible for their own actions.
A world with out laws will result in anarchy . A world that has rules for some but don't apply to others will be an even greater anarchy

Okay 2 more points (I will try and be brief) and then you can respond and then I think we should let others get back to football, I wish we were around a pub sharing a few jars over this but anyway...

Point 1) It seems to me when someone doesn't agree they always shout "there will be anarchy" in fact I would argue that anarchy is more likely to be the result of not listening, not changing, not seeing that everything/everyone cannot be treated the same (just ask King Louis XVI(?) of France).

point 2) rule of law - this could get really long so instead I have chosen a very simple example.

In Melbourne now that stations are not manned announcements are made that people with prams should board only at the first carriage so that the driver can see them get on and off at all times.

It seems fair enough but

I would argue people with prams also often have one (or more) other toddlers with them, could often be pregnant, or with someone pregnant (you get my drift?) so here is a law designed by (men I am willing to bet) that really does make it harder for a select group (women/people with young kids). They have to walk the further o the platform than the rest (there and back), might often be running late (young kids/nappies etc) more in the rain, the cold (etc) Is it just? For me, no, it is convenient (ie a rule of thumb). Should laws simply be about what is convenient? Or should laws take into account the needs of the people they are most likely to affect?

Perhaps nck and the other lawyers could best answer this one?

http://www.amnesty.org.au/action/action ... IYJ_pledge

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... MP=soc_567

http://www.facebook.com/MichaelLeunigAp ... 11/?type=1

Railways introduce a law to protect some from doing harm to themselves and thats an inconvenience ?
Its a bit like shall I walk 200 yards up the road and cross at the crossing or run the gauntlet and cross right here at the traffic.
You could mount an argument that all sections of the platform be manned. But would the rest of the public be willing to pay for this service? I doubt it.

And what about the train driver himself doing his job and someone who doesn't want the inconvenience of walking down the platform gets dragged under his train . My now ex father in law worked on Sydney rail from the age of 13 to he retired at 74. ( 1/2 cast aboriginal by the way but thats beside the point)
Now he drove trains right up until his 20 death either by suicide or accident.
The railway said 20 was to much and confined him to office duties for the last 25 years of his working life. In his younger years he was cheif shop steward head on the union a powerful man.
Now he is not a former shadow of himself he quiet and hardly speaks. although he never spoke much about it these deaths were chewing him up.
He would have loved that law

Next time I'm in Melbourne I will hook up Danny and we can invite a few of my foes on here like GWS baz baz Synners and Moshe who I have met before.
I'd love to have a beer with all TCers and chew the fat for e while

It's a date.

But we're not foes.

We're just not currently pursuing a similar equilibrium.

Oh... and I'd rather you didn't chew my fat.

I hold you fully responsible for that image I now can't seem to shake.

camel · **Posted:** Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:05 pm

Remember, more than three shakes is...

Fenwick Snap · **Joined:** Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:00 pm **Posts:** 733

dannyboy wrote:

Direct racial discrimination happens when someone is treated less fairly than someone else in a similar situation, because of their race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin. Indirect racial discrimination can happen when a policy or rule treats everyone in the same way, but has an unfair effect on more people of a particular race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin than others.

Think of the bold bit...

That's what's wrong (in my eyes) with your argument.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2015/06/02/ad ... al-racist/ - well it made me laugh.

He's one of the best satirists going around. Shame so many comments beneath the article thought it was serious. Or were they satirising satire? :hitcomputer:

dannyboy · **Posted:** Mon Jun 08, 2015 9:02 am

for my own sanity I never read the comments below an article...

kingkerna · **Posted:** Mon Jun 08, 2015 9:12 am

dannyboy wrote:

for my own sanity I never read the comments below an article...

Wise move indeed

R9: Sydney v Carlton (Post match discussion)

Who is online