New Zealand Immigration Officer Making Wild Claims

[conachair]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

There are no. That's what I say.

Me too

No evidence whatsoever for any kind of objective morality.
And isn't the existence of any of the thousands of gods a bit of a taboo subject on here?

The New Zealand question is like every other morality question. Purely subjective. Where do you draw the line.

[jeanathon]

Originally Posted by Delfin

So, if you're an FAA inspector with authority to ground airplanes, and someone wants to take off in an airplane with potted plants attached to the wings in a hurricane over a populated area, you'd wish them bon voyage rather than succumb to nanny statism and presume that the crash scene would be investigated and mopped up by people getting paid to do that job anyway? An besides, the chances of the fool crashing on a school are minimal.....

I'll leave off now, but one of the reasons why the nanny state is taking over our lives is that the spokespeople for freedom so often resort to arguments that only would be put forward by people who can't differentiate reasonable from reprehensible, so no one pays any attention to their arguments.

I am a sucker for an interesting debate.
To answer your question. Yes. For one the potted plants would blow off the wings long before rotation speed so that was just silly.
2. Believe it or not private as well as government pilots do purposefully fly into hurricanes. Now if a private pilot was ready to fly into a hurricane without a radar based altimeter I would explain to him/her that they would most assuredly die because their pressure based altimeter would be so unreliable and the visibility so bad. As far as over a populated area well a light plane as demonstrated by the misguided youth in Tampa post 9/11 showed they do less damage to a structure than a tree falling on it.
3. I can guarantee that his insurance company would be clamoring for new laws if they had to pay. Here in the states our nanny laws like seat belt, and helmet are meant to protect the insurance company not the citizen. If you think different think again unless of course you have a couple of lobbyist in your back pocket writing laws for you in which case can I be your friend?
:flowers this is fun!

[jeanathon]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Nope, from what I found their boat sank at anchor. Guess they got lucky, although it did deny them the ability to shout sic semper tryrannus whilst slipping beneath the waves with their Labrador.

Good imagery.
The lab would have been fine or at least mine would be in that situation.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by Delfin

So, if you're an FAA inspector with authority to ground airplanes, and someone wants to take off in an airplane with potted plants attached to the wings in a hurricane over a populated area, you'd wish them bon voyage rather than succumb to nanny statism and presume that the crash scene would be investigated and mopped up by people getting paid to do that job anyway? An besides, the chances of the fool crashing on a school are minimal.....

... people who can't differentiate reasonable from reprehensible,

Delfin, I won't get into a moralistic argument with you (or anyone), but your analogy seems, well, unreasonable, at least to me.

While I agree that this boat is of questionable seaworthyness, it did get to NZed, unlike your example aircraft with vegetated wings.

I wouldn't care to go to sea in it, but I don't see letting this experienced (if possibly misguided) skipper set out as morally unacceptable. He is on his own, so no innocent victims are involved. If he does not call for help, and does not file a float plan (not required by law, other than a likely destination) then no one will be likely to set out searching for him. Postulating grieving friends and family is an assumption on your part.

I will be interested to hear the outcome of his situation.

Cheers,

Jim

[denverd0n]

Originally Posted by Delfin

...the spokespeople for freedom so often resort to arguments that only would be put forward by people who can't differentiate reasonable from reprehensible, so no one pays any attention to their arguments.

Given the rather ridiculously unreasonable examples you have been offering (someone taking off in an airplane with potted plants attached to the wings!?!), I find this statement pretty hypocritical and almost ridiculously funny.

Thank you, at least, for giving me a good belly laugh today.

[Bluewaters2812]

Originally Posted by denverd0n

Given the rather ridiculously unreasonable examples you have been offering (someone taking off in an airplane with potted plants attached to the wings!?!), I find this statement pretty hypocritical and almost ridiculously funny.

Thank you, at least, for giving me a good belly laugh today.

+1

[hellosailor]

Originally Posted by puketawa

I am all for the Darwinian theory, but not when those who are not candidates have to risk their lives to rescue those whom are candidates.

No one HAS TO risk their lives to rescue the fools. Everyone in the SAR services is a volunteer, there are no draftees, and they've all understood the rules of the game before signing up for SAR duty. It is THEIR CHOICE to risk their lives, and yes, they know that includes saving drunks and fools along with those who simply knew no better.

That doesn't mean I think we should send the SAR teams out after drunks and fools, just that they have chosen to accept this, with eyes wide open.

[salticrak]

Anyone heard from the O.P. ?

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by Delfin

(...) but if God exists, then objective morality also exists (...)

No.

Objectively, there is no proof of such a morality.

Our NZ stuck OP was not stopped by objectively moral gods. He or she got stopped by subjectively legalistic officers of a state.

b.

[Khagan1227]

It pretty much comes down to:

When in another country, you follow their laws. If you don't like them, or worse, don't know the laws, don't go.

Personally, I've been to quite a few countries and while some of their laws and rules seemed a bit odd, intrusive and overbearing, I followed the rules and didn't have a problem, in fact I had a great time almost everywhere I've been.

I'm definitely not going to let a little bureaucratic nonsense stop me from visiting NZ, OZ or any other country I wish to visit. I'll deal with it and enjoy the people and what each country has to offer. The good Lord knows the U.S. has enough nonsense!

As one poster mention EACH state in the U.S. has different laws; well even those living here can't figure them out.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by denverd0n

Given the rather ridiculously unreasonable examples you have been offering (someone taking off in an airplane with potted plants attached to the wings!?!), I find this statement pretty hypocritical and almost ridiculously funny.

Thank you, at least, for giving me a good belly laugh today.

Well of course they are ridiculous, which is the point. What I am exploring is whether there is any circumstance where some here would feel an obligation to step in and prevent someone from hurting themselves, even when the consequences may be hurt to someone else. And the answer appears to be no on the basis that no one has an obligation to prevent harm to another if that other wishes to inflict it on himself and if they need to be rescued, the SAR teams get paid for it anyway. So to some, the chain smoking inner city dynamite delivery man has every right to deliver his dynamite next to the elementary school and any attempts at regulation are merely another nail in the nanny state coffin. Cool. Also apparently insane, but who am I to judge especially given that there are no objective moral values (except apparently and ironically the objective reality that all morals are subjective ).

Back to the real world, and regarding this particular case, as noted, the Kiwis can set whatever rules they want, since after all, it is their country. Since this fellow is the autonomous free agent solely responsible for himself that many of you belief he is, perhaps he should have exercised that agency by investigating those laws before landing on NZ shores. After all, its a big world with lots of places to go where they don't take SAR as seriously. Perhaps Yemen?

And in this particular case, a marine engineer familiar with the actual vessel thinks it unfit for anything other than coastal cruising. I certainly agree that this chap should be able to sail away whenever he wishes if the only person's life that is put at risk is his own. However since NZ SAR will have to come to his aid if needed and put their lives at risk it doesn't seem unreasonable that they should have a say in the matter.

But I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

[lateral]

Something that I don't think has been mentioned is the fact that if we impose criteria on minimum state of vessel to leave NZ then we should impose the same on
entering NZ waters. Just how is that gonna work?
Meaning standardised law/criteria for maritime agencies. Yeah right! You want that?
Nanny state WORLD.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by lateral

Something that I don't think has been mentioned is the fact that if we impose criteria on minimum state of vessel to leave NZ then we should impose the same on
entering NZ waters. Just how is that gonna work?
Meaning standardised law/criteria for maritime agencies. Yeah right! You want that?
Nanny state WORLD.

Just curious, but what would you propose those nice Kiwis do if a vessel appears on their shores barely afloat and not fit to leave? Turn them away and ignore the SOS call?

[goboatingnow]

How is Europe onerous to clear into , in reality it has virtually no requirements or charges


Dave

[Albro359]

Getting back to the OP....

He's in Opua trying to clear out ?...you go to the blue building where NZ Customs are.
The CUSTOMS officer clears you out.....in my experience there are no immigration officers there. Customs stamps your passport, they don't come and look at your boat let alone inspect the chainplate bolts ! If you're an NZ registered boat they want to see your YNZ Cat 1 clearance and then you go...if you are not an NZ Boat, you just go.

I think this is all a phurphy