Post by Rich80105 Post by Willy Nilly
Anybody notice anything missing in Hipkins' laundry list? Such as a
little thing known as *human rights*? Not on Labour's radar, it
seems. To them, Cabinet has all the rights, we the people have none.
Another view is that all of the issues raised by Hipkins are related
to Human Rights - including the right to safety and to life.
Let's rephrase that: ...related to HumanRights - including the right to life and to reasonably expect to live in safety **as the norm**.
You have invented that. Do you have the right not to be eaten by a
He has the right not to be involuntarily exposed to such risk caused by another party.
Does the Tiger not equally have the right to chase you and eat
He does. The tiger's behaviour is primal. It can't help itself. Much of human behaviour is also fundamentally primal; but it is tempered by learned reason and, through this, voluntary restraint. Breaches occur - sometimes all too tragically, when reflex emotions spontaneously occlude/exclude reason and restraint - i.e. momentary regression to the primal condition.
Anything which requires the work of others is not a "right".
There's such a thing as fair exchange in life and you are at it in life as much as anyone else(!)
There is no right to "safety", in particular, with all of its
concommitant obligations for others to labour on your behalf. Keep
In life one does one's best in safety observance, Willy. But still "The Fates conspire" and "The best-laid plans of mice and men..." That's why civilised, democratic societies have appropriate provisions and protections built into them, thereby nurturing co-responsibility and social cohesion without which you won't get far in life. These are mainly the vocational services, the very first services we call up and rely on when there's trouble and social cohesion isn't enough. Our expectations of them are almost limitless, but their pay structures seldom if ever reflect this. So where's the quid pro quo there, Willy?
Post by Rich80105
So just what do you recommend in relation to compulsory QR Code
That it should be optional, duh.
"Optional" as in **deliberately** not complying with stop signs at road junctions? - prevalent, if I may say so, to the point of lethal, dumbfuck arrogance in New Zealand.
Post by Rich80105
Do you object to the Minister seeking further advice?
To me, an odd extension of the case you put, but essentially, non-hypothetical in the context of these exchanges - so OK.
What a mindless "question". What if the question was that you, Rich,
should be arrested and, without trial, taken to a gulag on the
Ah - but now it's **you** who have invented **that**, it being distinctly hypothetical - emotive hyperbole, even - and, again, unknowingly driven by the oh-so-insidious, case-damaging Foucault fallacy.
Would you object to the Minister "seeking further
advice" on that? Would you not object to the topic arising at all?
As I say...
Just more Rich trolling. Heavens, why did I bite?
Well, you did, and If you've learned anything at all from it you will have gained a little and lost nothing.