Search results

I wouldn't say Howard has redefined the doctrine. Rather he has wrongfully infringed it and in doing so blemished his own government. It's just that the public are so apathetic to these notions that he can get away with it. The average person's priority is on "me" and how much money I have...

1. It depends on what area of law you are dealing with. 2. Speak for yourself, I'm going to the bar!

If any of the believers here want some semi-serious discussion they should read and participate in this thread. It seems more suited for that forum anyway. You remind me of the villagers in medieval times explaining why volcanoes errupted - "the Gods are angry!"

Dear members, As you may or may not have been aware, I am stepping down as moderator from News, Current Affairs & Politics. I have a great deal of commitments this year and I would seriously not be able to maintain things. After a consideration of potential replacements, the other...

Please don't write like that in here.

You must unenrol from your degree in writing by the census date. Do this by sending a letter to your faculty stating that you wish to withdraw from your B Behavioural Health Science degree.

Re: UNSW crim 1 and crim 2 Additionally, you may like to look over last year's reading guides for Crim 1 and Crim 2 in order to see what areas are covered.

Re: UNSW crim 1 and crim 2 Crim 1 covers much more of the social aspects, theories and issues of crime. It does involve substantive law, but not a great deal. The substantive law that it does include is interwoven with the themes and issues discussed. Though some tend to prefer black letter law...

That would have no application to merely depicting Muhammad. You aren't attacking people, you're attacking their beliefs.

Definitely not. Religion is a set of beliefs, race is a natural, unchangeable aspect of a person. You can criticise people for holding a certain belief by pointing out why it is wrong - they can then change their belief. You cannot criticise someone's race, firstly because they cannot change...

He didn't post that, I did. I merely abbreviated "conclusion" with a "c". It's not a big deal.

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper No, as I said quite clearly, it provides the reason for an ambiguity in our discussion. Firstly, that is deductively invalid. Your argument: 1. You claim religion should be open to criticism, whether it offends or not. 2. You are not religious, so you don't...

You obviously haven't met Chief Justice Gleeson :P http://img427.imageshack.us/img427/16/mgleeson1bu.jpg

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper It is irrelevant that a billion people are offended. People should be allowed to criticise any religion that they want. Silly analogies. Your conclusion that they are trying to "wash their hands" rests upon the premise that something wrong has actually been...

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper 1. Utterly and absolutely wrong. Of course we are allowed to offend people's beliefs. 2. Your statement is nonsensical, contradictory and would produce absurd results. According to you, you don't have the right to offend my belief that "you are entitled to...

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper I always read through my posts in their entirety before posting them. I have re-read SimpsonFreak's post and have discovered he used the word "label", which I read as "libel". I read that as a typo, so there is ambiguity in what was said. (In case you don't...

Re: ATT: those of islamic faith Given the possible importance to certain members I will sticky this news item for a day.

It means that you believe, it doesn't mean that you know it. Belief is different than knowledge. As Bertrand Russell once said, the fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a...

You do not "know" that at all. You believe it. There is an important difference!

[Venezuela & Liechtenstein threads merged]