Search results

Simply because people disagree doesn't mean both groups are viscious and hypocritical. The way I see it, the Christian belief relies upon a profound blissful ignorance. A lot of people say that it does such good things, and that people need it. But I am a thinker. I cannot help but seek the...

Try and pick out the important points which are not actually statements of law necessary for the decision. For example, a judge might speculate on what the law might be if the fact scenario was changed, despite not deciding on this point at all. While this speculation is obviously important...

The ratio won't always be summarised for you in a neat paragraph Obiter is anything that was not a statement of law necessary to reach the decision, comments 'in passing'

................. ahahaha

How very interesting lol I know all those accounts are yours

Why aren't YOU at Kirby's speech? hehe. Okay well, I know. It's shocking. But in brief there are a number of reasons: 1. I have a whole lot of crap due tomorrow - poltics stuff, metaphysics readings (applying possible world theory to arguments for God takes time!) 2. I have a bloody crim...

Myer continued... 15. Do not ask me, in a rude and obnoxious fashion, for immediate assistance when I am carrying a pile of boxes that I can barely see over from one side of the floor to the other. 16. Do not swipe your card over and over before you are required to do so, overzealous shopping...

Yes, when I say legal statements necessary for the decision, I mean in the sense of the outcome.

The ratio involves the statements of law necessary for the decision. The example is not very helpful, so let me remake the situation. The applicant wishes to stop his child from eating ice-cream for dinner. The judge looks at the relevant law, and decides that the applicant does not have the...

iamsickofyear12 /ignore

1. If you want to prove that being gay is wrong based on the bible, you have to prove the bible is true. Proving the bible is true would involve proving that God is real AND that the bible is a reflection of that God's beliefs. Since you cannot do any of that, you cannot point to the bible...

No it just isn't plain illegal. Anything is legal unless prohibited. So you have to find me the authority which in any way prohibits exclusion of people from a website based on intelligence. The discrimination acts in no possible way cover that sort of thing. It's mainly about race, sexuality...

Alrite Einstein, I have two questions for you before I put you on ignore: 1. Why? You cannot offer any logical or moral justification for your claim other than your own disconcertion. 2. What if you were gay? I somehow doubt you would assert the same unfounded prejudice.

It's not bloody illegal

I see we have a new contender in the time-honored 'simpleton of the universe' competition honestly this thread has so many bigots in it, I'd hate to see it revived again

lol @ this thread on an unrelated note

That is a remarkably pretty picture :o

You're making even the conservatives cringe

I usually go over the facts twice, or in detail. From there understanding the judge(s) is fairly straightforward.

One of the most important: Sale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW)