louismaxwell
Team Captain
- Sep 26, 2014
- 578
- 177
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Banned
- #376
i said i will brush up on my english skills what more do you want.FFS this is the only thing that gets through to you in this whole thread. Really?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
i said i will brush up on my english skills what more do you want.FFS this is the only thing that gets through to you in this whole thread. Really?
i said i will brush up on my english skills what more do you want.
i said i will brush up on my english skills what more do you want.
.......differentiate between equality in relation to domestic violence........and what???It is better than someone who can't differentiate between equality in relation to domestic violence.
i don't go and i don't hate it at all , i ask that you behave in a manner borderline human and not as a degenerateYou to stop going to Mardi Gras seeing as you hate it so much.
i don't go and i don't hate it at all , i ask that you behave in a manner borderline human and not as a degenerate
Which is utterly woeful by Mordy. ie some groups get offended more easily than others. Arbitrary muppetry.
"reference to an ordinary and reasonable member of the group of people concerned"
Fantastic. Lets ask a nutcase member of Hillsong / Hari Krishna, Orange People, Waco inhabitants or the like what they think. Absolutely staggering that people can defend such stupidity let alone the ruling by a failed ALP candidate.
No, my argument doesn't rely on his self identification at all.Surely your argument relies on people's self identification with a group and not your interpretation of what group they identifiy with?
And if I took you to court for murder then a judge should conclude that you are guilty of murder? Surely there's a piece of the puzzle missing here. Evidence? Something? Anything? Pretty much everything but the verdict? That's not how courts work.So if louismaxwell belonged to group, let's call them Catholics, who were offended by some aspects of the gay mardis gras then a judge should conclude that the conduct was reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate a group of people based on an assessment by reference to an ordinary and reasonable member of the group of people concerned and the values and circumstances of those people.
18c is irrelevant and I'm pretty sure there's already thread regarding it.FWIW, I'm not Catholic and I'm not offended by the gay mardis gras. Just highlighting the the flaws of 18c.
My argument is that louismaxwell hasn't proved that mardi gras is offensive to anyone but himself. His whole argument is "I AM personally offended", not whatever group he identifies with.
So whether he identifies himself as a catholic, straight or a transsexual is completely irrelevant without first proving that mardi gras is offensive or discriminatory against those said groups. Which he hasn't done because his argument is that HE is offended, not an entire community or group.
Under what premise do you claim that if Catholics took say the organisers of Mardi Gras to court, the judge would find Mardi Gras guilty of discrimination against Catholics? what precedent are you using? Where's the objective assessment?
18c is irrelevant and I'm pretty sure there's already thread regarding it.
Cool. So if loius were to get a few of his mates together who were also offended, that would be evidence of a group being offended. I don't think it would be that hard.
Not discrimination. Under 18c people being offended by actions or words is enough to prohibit those actions or words.
You literally couldn't spell the name that you just quoted...Yep you're correct. Good point medusela.
Yeah, that's why there is 18d. Which you and the other Bolta fangurls always forget.Not discrimination. Under 18c people being offended by actions or words is enough to prohibit those actions or words.
LOL.With the passing of Gough Whitlam i wonder will this be an impetus to pass the gay marriage act as a tribute to the former PM, as their was conjecture that Gough may have been Australia's first gay head of state. It would be a fitting show of respect to Gough as another ground breaking piece of reform to be remembered by inclusive of all the other reforms that he led the way on in the past.
i still want you BANNED, see ya.
We're going around in circles here. Simply stating you are offended is not evidence of anything, whether it is one person or a hundred.
Let's look at 18c:
It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.
Ignoring the fact that absolutely no evidence or reasoning whatsoever has been put forth by either of you, and of course that the racial discrimination act is completely irrelevant anyway, Part (b) means the claim does not qualify under this act (amongst many other things).
Only 46? You softy, you.Well. That was entertaining.
46 posts deleted. It takes two, or three, or four, or five to tango.
It takes a bigger man to resist responding to the troll and just report it.
Yes, you are correct in your argument and I was wrong. Catholics who are offended by the gay mardi gras could not reasonably take action under 18c.