A Pollice ruling I don’t disagree with!
Just ity I will be overseas on Wednesdayfor the actual parade!
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: New ZealandA Pollice ruling I don’t disagree with!
518 Responses to “A Pollice ruling I don’t disagree with!”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
August 21st, 2006 at 7:30 am
There are porn stars in NZ? I thought it was just the Valley here in LA.
August 21st, 2006 at 8:25 am
The article quotes Police Inspector Rob Abbott as saying:
“In the opinion of the police, given the standards of decency observed in this day and age, a female being topless in a parade on a weekday in Queen St will not in itself constitute an indecent act. However, what actions the female performs while topless may bring the behaviour to a point which is sufficient to warrant the intervention and sanction of the law”.
So where is that greyscale line between legitimate protest and indecent act? The following historical incident comes to mind as providing helpful guidance for the Police: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10114339
August 21st, 2006 at 8:30 am
“In the opinion of the police, given the standards of decency observed in this day and age, a female being topless in a parade on a weekday in Queen St will not in itself constitute an indecent act.”
It is official – the police are completely out of touch with the moral, hardworking, everyday New Zealander. They spend the majority of their time with criminals and politicians, yet somehow think their experience of moral standards in New Zealand is the norm. When are the police, the media and David Farrar going to wake up and realise that moral standards have not changed one iota. In fact, those to profess not to believe in them seem to gain their most satisfcation in life from willfully rebelling against them, only further proving their eternal and universal spiritual reality.
Just listen to The Edge, ZM, or any radio station and you will see that every joke is at the expense of morality. Every bit of laughter and glee is because we can get away with being naughty and breaking the rules, like a bunch of kids.
Who are your police Auckland? What planet do they come from? Perhaps it is time for the every day New Zealander to make better friends with their local police force, and help them get back in touch with “this day and age”.
August 21st, 2006 at 8:39 am
Chesswas – Women’s breasts are immoral? But not topless men? What’s the difference?In moral terms that is.
I’m not really interested all this, but isn’t a bit chilly for anyone to be topless in Queen St at this time of year?
August 21st, 2006 at 8:45 am
AJ, in case you didn’t realise, the police are *always* disinterested in morals. They enforce the *law*.
And they are entirely in touch with the “day and age”. That is precisely why they have taken the stance they have!
August 21st, 2006 at 8:47 am
The law is the external and political recognition of, and protection of, morality.
August 21st, 2006 at 8:49 am
And mikeybill, if you don’t know the difference between manbreasts and those of a woman then you need to get yourself back to school…
August 21st, 2006 at 8:57 am
“The law is the external and political recognition of, and protection of, morality.”
Stop digging AJ. The hole is getting bigger.
If the cops aren’t enforcing this, what does this say about *your* morals?
August 21st, 2006 at 9:04 am
The obscenity is not the breasts per se, its the commercialisation of nudity to sell product.
Things will get interesting when there is a daily parade by various rotating advertising agencies. Suddenly, a daily event, by different parties, might seem “over the top”. But who are we to infringe upon the rights of advertising group 234 after 233 companies have had a go.
Given the police respond to “day and age” law issues, perhaps a pot smoking parade would be permissible, as a parade has now justified normally illegal activities to be legal. It’s context really. The context is drug awareness, drug liberalisation, and a celebration of our tolerance in a democracy that we would allow such expression of debatable ideas.
I hear rumour that next week the erectile dysfunction parade are going to again test our boundaries.
August 21st, 2006 at 9:07 am
Gooner check out the latest post on my blog to find out that what you’ve believed all along is a lie. There’s no difference between the principles of morality, ethics and law…
August 21st, 2006 at 9:18 am
The laws only legitimate area of concern with morals is in the field of individual rights and the protection thereof.No ones rights are being violated by bare brested women riding down Queen street so quite rightly the cops are staying out of it.Its only sexually repressed authoritarians who get off on being offended by others whos seem to want to have a problem with this…
Like AJ et el…
August 21st, 2006 at 9:28 am
You will find in law somewhere (don’t have the reference handy) the right to “public access” without being offended on the grounds of sexual harrassment, religious values, marital status, etc. etc.
The parade violates the right of decent members of the public to access to New Zealand’s premium street without being offended…
Of course to look at law as solely the expression of “individual rights” is shallow and simplistic. But I’ll play your game for a bit…
August 21st, 2006 at 9:37 am
AJ, what you are proposing makes no differentiation between the state, god and the law. That’s no better than Iran.
August 21st, 2006 at 9:44 am
Iran, Chesswas – wadda ya reckon ?
Now theres a religious paradise.
August 21st, 2006 at 9:57 am
Gooner, yay, someone made the connnection. Not before time I might add.
August 21st, 2006 at 9:58 am
“It is official – the police are completely out of touch with the moral, hardworking, everyday New Zealander.”
Sorry AJ but this proves that unlike you and your small band of zealots the Cops are in touch with the moral hardworking everyday New Zealanders.
I note that despite the words last week the council looks like its not going to withdray its approval either – sanity returns!
Anybody know what time it is on on Wednesday?
SB
August 21st, 2006 at 10:02 am
You would hope that the law and the state reflected reality would you not, Gooner?
And reality tends to reflect the nature of God one would presume…
Do you think that the law in Iran is reflective of God Gooner? Do you think that Iran have a realistic approach to law and politics ChickenLittle?
Personally, I haven’t made a study of Iran. Maybe you could tell me how it is relevant to what we are discussing, and what are the merits and pitfalls of their approach. Otherwise try to remain specific to the topic…
August 21st, 2006 at 10:02 am
Chess – I still don’t see any moral difference between male and female breasts being on display, and you have failed to show any.
August 21st, 2006 at 10:20 am
Aj, it was in regard to this comment:
“There’s no difference between the principles of morality, ethics and law…”
You propose the executive arm of the state should monitor and police morals which are, in turn, set down by the parliamentary branch which in turn, according to you, get their guidance from god.
August 21st, 2006 at 10:37 am
Sounds good Gooner, although I suspect you are still talking with a deficient understanding of “morals”…
and mikeybill, I’m not going to bother talking about the symbolism of female breasts in comparison to manbreasts, and why the former are sacred and deeply personal of the human person, and the latter more public and profane…
You’ve got a brain. Use it. Perhaps you’ve never been challenged to think that deeply about sexuality. Morality isn’t just rules, there are deep and powerful principles involved…
August 21st, 2006 at 10:42 am
Chess – they are just body parts, different cultures view them differently. Depends on what stone-age set of superstions you follow I guess.
August 21st, 2006 at 10:49 am
Righto mikeybill… Give us a run-down on the different cultural views of breasts, and why they are all equally valid. Once you’ve finished your survey you might find that British culture values modesty for very good reasons, and decide you need to get yourself along to Sunday School…
August 21st, 2006 at 10:56 am
Careful Mikeybill, some people might think that your “stone-age set of superstitions” refers to Iran and hence to islam. That would be deeply offensive and racist.
Of course if you were only referring to christianity that’s OK.
August 21st, 2006 at 11:08 am
Chesswas: sorry to burst your bubble, but the Bible doesn’t have force of law in New Zealand. Even more offensive than Boobs on Bikes for me – an issue which doesn’t really excite me, frankly – is your insistence that others live by *your* moral code.
And, as a practical matter, the Police operate under “thin blue line” constraints, so simply lack the capacity to prosecute everyone who so much as dares to transgress your moral code, let alone to commit statutory offences. It seems like, in your blue-sky world, Sunday School-style incarceration is the new black for the immoral among us, like MikeyBill?
August 21st, 2006 at 11:13 am
Who said anything about The Bible Graham? I know the good book pretty well, and I’m pretty sure there’s no rule anywhere saying “Thou shalt not expose your bosoms”…
It is not “my” moral code I refer to, it is THE moral code… In this case there is plenty of legislative empowerment for the police to prosecute, because THE moral code has traditionally been recognised in this country. The interpretation of the police on this occasion is groundbreaking and revolutionary, and worse, unnecessary and without mandate…
August 21st, 2006 at 11:16 am
” The interpretation of the police on this occasion is groundbreaking and revolutionary, and worse, unnecessary and without mandate…”
Yeah right!
August 21st, 2006 at 11:17 am
“In this case there is plenty of legislative empowerment for the police to prosecute, because THE moral code has traditionally been recognised in this country.”
*Buzz*
I presume the proverbial bank robbery fits within the prescribed exceptions to *the* moral code? I reiterate my point about the Police operating under “thin blue line” constraints. Which is a greater priority for you – bank robbery or Boobs on Bikes?
August 21st, 2006 at 11:21 am
But AJ THE moral code for a society does change over time. Are you unable to see this – its not a static thing.
40 years ago Boobs on Bikes would have been regarded as immoral but most people would not regard it as so today.
SB
August 21st, 2006 at 11:26 am
Which is a greater priority for you – bank robbery or Boobs on Bikes?
Bank robbery, obviously. But in this case Police have actually taken the time to give approval to the parade and monitor it. You give the impression that by voicing their disapproval they would expend more resources than actually approving and facilitating it.
“40 years ago Boobs on Bikes would have been regarded as immoral but most people would not regard it as so today”
Back this up with some evidence, because “most people” I know would consider it immoral, as do “most” Auckland City Councillors and “most”, in fact last time I checked ALL citizens who have emailed them!! Laughable… do some research before wasting our time with groundless self-fulfilling speculation…
August 21st, 2006 at 11:40 am
Sorry AJ, unlike you I do do research before commenting.
Since this started I have questined approx 40 people about this – at least 10 of them women none of them objected to it though I got some comments about how cold they would be.
You have no evidence to back up your statement “in fact last time I checked ALL citizens who have emailed them’ because the office has actually reported that approx 30% of emails they are receiving are PRO. Additionally I know of 3 people (including myself) who emailed pro messages to Dick H. I even received a personalised response from him. (well one of his staff if you get picky but she did say he had seen my message)
So tough luck AJ not much support for you stance! BTW *most* does not mean just your church group – you should try and get out sometime to see what real New Zealanders think.
You havent replied indicating that you understand that morals change over time?
SB
August 21st, 2006 at 11:41 am
Hmmm… let’s try a different tack that doesn’t involve the moral relativity that “offensiveness” and “indecency” both imply.
Last year there was a hullabaloo when the Police lent their support to a Hikoi across the Auckland Harbour bridge, inconveniencing a significant number of motorists. Converting a major public roadway into a pedestrian track for fun is, one presumes, a fairly straightforward breach of the road code and THE moral code. And yet it was considered by some to be a legitimate form of public protest under the Bill of Rights Act 1990.
I presume that supports of Boobs on Bikes regard it as an exercise in freedom of expression – again under the Bill of Rights Act 1990. Whether that freedom is appropriately expressed is a matter of individualised subjective judgment.
Chesswas: your thoughts?
August 21st, 2006 at 11:50 am
Hey AJ, why not try venturing out of your Agrarian “utopia”, and retry your survey in a city where the bulk of the poulation lives.
One has to suspect that by “most people”, you mean “most people” that you speak to. One also has to assume that the people you speak to are either from “Agraria”, or are members of your church. I make this assumption because you truly do not seem to comprehend that your opinion is not in line with the majority – that doesn’t make it invalid, but it does invalidate your claim that you are part of a moral majority. You are the vocal minority – which is tough, but so is life in the 21st century.
What’s bizarre is that you don’t even seem to see the comparison with those wanting to institute Sharia law… Are you in favour of stoning for homosexuality, or would a less serious punishment be acceptable?
Oh, and there is no such thing as “THE moral code”. Morals are personal. Mine say that homosexuality, and public nudity are fine. Yours say they are not. Ain’t diversity fun? Ethics tell us that even though something offends our morals – in your case Homosexuality, it would be unethical to discriminate on that basis. I don’t tell you how to live your life, and you don’t tell me how to live mine.
Peace and Boobies.
August 21st, 2006 at 11:54 am
SB, I got that info from a Family First interview, perhaps it is dated now – the Councillor he interviewed said she had not received any emails in support of the parade… So either the Councillor was dishonest or ignorant, or you and the office workers are, or things have changed since then…
Still, 30% is not “most people” which were the words you used… And please don’t presume you know how wide my circles are; you might be embarrassed if you knew. Would you like me to presume you’re a sheltered and ignorant Gen-Xer or Y-er totally surrounded by people who “think” just like you…?
When you say “morals change over time” you mean behaviour changes over time. Your definition of morality seems entirely postmodern. I cannot say with one breath that morality is eternal, and with another that they change over time…
Mr Miller, please explain how allowing a grieved indigenous group the opportunity to demonstrate and celebrate a worthy cause, along a vital piece of infrastructure, is inconsistent wtih the principles of a moral and ethical society. You say it is a brach of the moral code but you don’t say why. If you want to know how the “Boobs on Bikes” parade is not acceptable you can read DPF’s last post on the subject…
Weizguy, I still haven’t seen any proof that I am in the minority… and guess what you have a different definition of morality than the Oxford Dictionary. Go find a new word.
August 21st, 2006 at 12:06 pm
AJ,
You seem to be having english problems. “Still, 30% is not “most people” which were the words you used” no thats not what I said.
I did not say that was the basis for saying *most*.
I still stand by my statement that *most* people either are PRO or dont care’ only a very SMALL minority object. Only a very *small* number think it breaks THE moral code.
The office (including the women) have just decided that we will go along Krd to watch on Wednensday shall we save you a spot?
SB
August 21st, 2006 at 12:07 pm
Don’t I have a right not to have ‘Boobs on Bikes’ forced in my face?
August 21st, 2006 at 12:07 pm
A.J. Chesswas wrote:
in fact last time I checked ALL citizens who have emailed them!! Laughable… do some research before wasting our time with groundless self-fulfilling speculation…
Really? I e-mailed Mayor Dick, and politely suggested that he should remove his head from his rectum and start doing the job he was elected for. I think the majority of decent, hard-working Aucklanders thought they’d elected a civic leader not another Panty-Sniffer General. Oh, and here’s another thought: I suspect most folks will be too busy working on Wednesday to cover the rates bill – they seem to be inflating faster than a porn starlet’s chest.
August 21st, 2006 at 12:12 pm
JimD:
“Don’t I have a right not to have ‘Boobs on Bikes’ forced in my face?” yes you do and I have the right to have ‘Boobs on Bikes” forced in my face if i want it! (can’t beleive I just typed that!)
JimD, there will be a short parade of topless girls on Wednesday in queen street – if you don’t want to watch it be somehere else.
SB
August 21st, 2006 at 12:17 pm
SB, it doesn’t matter if you…
“still stand by my statement that *most* people either are PRO or dont care’ only a very SMALL minority object. Only a very *small* number think it breaks THE moral code.”
you are still talking out of your rear end and will continue to until you give me some valid stats… I know what I know and I know who I know, I’m not going to allow some anonymous blogger to tell me what people think…
August 21st, 2006 at 12:22 pm
Jim D wrote:
Don’t I have a right not to have ‘Boobs on Bikes’ forced in my face?
Um, if anyone is going to force you into Queen Street so a complete stranger can smother you with her boobies, I recommend you contact the Police and press charges for kidnapping and common assault.
August 21st, 2006 at 12:23 pm
Chesswas wrote:
“Mr Miller, please explain how allowing a grieved indigenous group the opportunity to demonstrate and celebrate a worthy cause, along a vital piece of infrastructure, is inconsistent wtih the principles of a moral and ethical society. You say it is a brach of the moral code but you don’t say why. If you want to know how the “Boobs on Bikes” parade is not acceptable you can read DPF’s last post on the subject…”
Good God – you’ve just proved my point that what you refer to as *the* moral code is in fact a reference to *your* moral code. Your reference to “grieved indigenous group” and “celebrate a worthy cause” imply a subjective judgment on your part – that’s *precisely* my point! “Offensiveness” and “public indecency” come in shades of grey – what’s offensive for you might be business-as-usual for others.
So… a case of get with the programme perhaps?
August 21st, 2006 at 12:29 pm
So, Mr Miller, you’re telling me that justice for the oppressed is a subjective taste and not a universal moral imperative? It is little wonder with a conscience so seared you would support one of the most corrupt, perverted and manipulative inustries the world has ever known.
August 21st, 2006 at 12:33 pm
Hmmmm… I have a different definition from the Oxford dictionary – which one? My shorter oxford lists a number of different definitions, none of which provide a useful answer to the question – how do morals differ from ethics?
Your definition of morals arises from an outmoded belief system. It was once “moral” to own people. You claim that morals do not change. Are you saying that it is still moral to own people?
Or, are you saying that morals are always constant, and that we just discover that we were wrong about them later. If so, why does that apply to slavery, but not boobs?
Morals pertain to the particular set of beliefs of what is right and wrong for a particular group of people. Hezbollah, those fighting in the crusades (on both sides), IRA terrorists, and people involved in the Spanish inquistion believed they were doing what was “moral”. Based on the moral code of the day, on their side of the fence, they probably were. However, I don’t think you can argue that all fit “THE” (read your) moral code.
BTW – first rule of statutory interpretation: Dictionaries are nothing but a starting point.
August 21st, 2006 at 12:42 pm
Thank you weizguy, that was a useful post. I really think you’d be better off using the word “generally acceptable” instead of moral. And then, it is very hard to judge whether things like slavery, terrorism, war are accepted because people think they are good things, or rather because those more powerful force it on them and they conform out of fear.
My definition of morals does not arise from an outmoded belief system. If people didn’t believe in imperative universal values anymore then the United Nations would not exist. Of course I am saying that morals are always constant, and that we different people at different times simply diverge away from them. They err. They do wrong. They sin. And largely out of fear.
Now how this pertains to boobs is explained in DPF’s last post on the topic. It comes back to respect for women, for marriage and for modesty…
August 21st, 2006 at 12:43 pm
Chesswas: your reference to “universal moral imperative” only serves as further proof that you sit in judgment of others – by your own moral code.
“It is little wonder with a conscience so seared you would support one of the most corrupt, perverted and manipulative inustries the world has ever known.”
I rest my case.
August 21st, 2006 at 12:44 pm
And your problem with that is…?
August 21st, 2006 at 12:50 pm
Think back to your earlier comment: “[Y]ou’re telling me that justice for the oppressed is a subjective taste and not a universal moral imperative”.
I’m not oppressed. Claiming to be oppressed in circumstances which, as Craig rightly points out, would require you to be forcibly marched to Queen St under duress, is a subjective judgment.
As is proclaiming a “universal moral imperative” – as interpreted by you – which you would seek to have the Police impose on others. I live under New Zealand law; your moral code does not have force of law in New Zealand.
August 21st, 2006 at 12:53 pm
Is anyone else coming to the conclusing that “THE moral code” of Mr. Chesswas is akin to Lewis Carroll’s Humpthy Dumpty?
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
August 21st, 2006 at 1:25 pm
Aj you really crack me up.
You just posted “you are still talking out of your rear end …’ but on a previous thread you said could tell what a person was like by their manners. To quote my mother who fully understood THE moral code – you are very rude and that does tell everybody here what you are really like.
As for your point – “until you give me some valid stats” fine what are those stats and how do you sugest they are collected and validated?
“I know what I know and I know who I know, I’m not going to allow some anonymous blogger to tell me what people think…” thats right you know whats going on because you listen to those little voices in your head – the ones nobody else can hear….
Sb
August 21st, 2006 at 1:30 pm
AJ said:
I really think you’d be better off using the word “generally acceptable” instead of moral.
except that’s not the argument i’m making. I don’t think people thought it only “generally acceptable”, I think they thought it was “moral”. Why were they wrong – why are you right (when you seem to be following a similar premise)?
It seems to me that your definition of morals is at least as PoMo as mine. Your seem to be rewriting history, claiming that those poor simpletons were misguided about their morality, and that their penchant for slavery was simply a misguided misrepresentation of what appear to be fairly clear bible passages. Who is to say that your understanding of morality is not as confused as theirs was?
Finally, fundamentalist elements of Islam require that women must cover up for reasons of modesty – derived from their moral code. Why is their moral code (which differs from yours) wrong?
The United Nations doesn’t arise from a moral code – it arises from an ethical code. Let’s look at two things that I suspect are part of your moral code:
1. Murder
2. Torture
One of these (Torture) is classed as “jus cogens” or universal law – ie: it is one of the actions that is never condoned. The other (Murder) is not.
Murder is part of the ten commandments – which I assume is the source of at least part of what you call “the” moral code. Torture is not, but is more protected.
August 21st, 2006 at 2:09 pm
Mr Miller, you may not feel oppressed, but the fact is the pornographic industry is more oppressive than it is edifying (it is not at all edifying), and thus demands our criticism. It is oppressive and demeaning to the women involved, and to women everywhere. It encourages harmful and demeaning attitudes towards women in the minds of men. It manipulates men in their weaknesses and results in addictions and moral torments those men would rather not have. May I reiterate – pornography oppresses masses of people, and edifies none.
“My moral code”, which you harp on about, is simply this: Human dignity and justice. In this nation we have a tradition of upholding these important principles with our law and our civil institutions. Woe to us the day we call that which is bad “good”.
I am not the Humpty Dumpty. I am conservative in my use of the English language – to be fair in the use of language one must be conservative. To engineer new meanings for words so as to confuse the less sophisticated is to assign oneself to the same class of people as pimps and pornographers.
And for your information SB it was Redbaiter who said you could tell a person by their manners. I agree, but there comes a time where the importunity of the message requires stronger rhetoric. Even Jesus knew that, and I’m not going to start calling you the spawn of Satan!
Weizguy, for a start you were talking about whether or not those actions were moral, now you’re talking about whether or not the people doing them THOUGHT they were moral. Sure, some of them may have thought they were moral actions, but does this mean that they were? Tell me, is there a word other than moral I may use that would speak to you of an objective universal moral imperative?
If I was to talk in your language I would say that yes, in those times those things were moral, but that does not mean they are universally morally imperative. As I said, true morality is grounded in human dignity and justice. It is, has and always will be. There may be different ways of interpreting these principles, but I am yet to see an interpretation that would support the pornographic industry.
“Your seem to be rewriting history, claiming that those poor simpletons were misguided about their morality, and that their penchant for slavery was simply a misguided misrepresentation of what appear to be fairly clear bible passages. Who is to say that your understanding of morality is not as confused as theirs was?”
Actually, Weizguy, I have not made a judgment on those past actions. All I was saying was that IF they were wrong; IF they were not motivated by human dignity and justice, then they were as immoral as they would be today.
As for your question about fundamentalist Islam, surely they have gone too far, to an extreme. Can we find a middle ground rather than going to an extreme in the other direction? A ground that values female beauty without demeaning it…
I didn’t quite understand your last comment. Are you telling me that murder is sometimes condoned by the UN? And as I said, human dignity and justice are the source of my understanding of the moral code, not the 10 commandments. They are important, but more important (as Jesus taught) are the principles behind them.
August 21st, 2006 at 2:24 pm
From AJ own blog in his own words. He describes himself as:-
“I wouldn’t say I’m obsessed with sex. I’m just another 26-year old chaste batchelor struggling away in a culture shaped by and made for the sexually active.”
Well that explains A LOT, AJ is like he is because he is not getting any!
SB
August 21st, 2006 at 2:36 pm
SB – a revelation straight out of the moral code!
August 21st, 2006 at 2:37 pm
I think this comment sums it up.
” As I said, true morality is grounded in human dignity and justice. It is, has and always will be. There may be different ways of interpreting these principles, but I am yet to see an interpretation that would support the pornographic industry.”
There may be different ways of interpreting these principles? That doesn’t sound like a moral absolute to me. That sounds like what i’ve been arguing all along. That we agree that morals are grounded in justice, but that our interpretations of those principles can be quite different. I don’t agree with dignity, because there are many actions that are quite undignified that can be moral.
Your definition of morals requires you to make a subjective determination of whether you think something is dignified and/or just. This is not “THE moral code”, but merely A moral code – yours.
Tell me, is there a word other than moral I may use that would speak to you of an objective universal moral imperative?
No – because I don’t believe such a thing exists. I believe in universal ethics, but they must be applied on a case by case basis.
“Can we find a middle ground rather than going to an extreme in the other direction?”
I guess the question to that is: Why do you get to define the middle ground? As fundamentalists, they don’t consider their position extreme at all. They consider it moral – a subjective belief. My set of morals is considerably less conservative than yours, but that doesn’t mean I respect women any less than you do. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that I respect women more than you do, because I treat them as equals capable of making their own decisions and facing the consequences of those decisions.
You seem to think of women as a concept, and not as individuals. I consider it disrespectful to patronise women. I love women, but I don’t think of them as sacred, I think of them as peers.
Are you telling me that murder is sometimes condoned by the UN?
Not condoned – accepted. I don’t personally agree with it. You may have noticed the tactic of assassinating enemy leaders for political gain (Castro etc…). This is murder, and is accepted as part of life. I think it’s immoral, but potentially ethical (if it prevents more deaths than it causes – not the case with castro, but potentially the case with certain terrorist figureheads).
August 21st, 2006 at 2:44 pm
Graham, come on get it right you have been here long enough – everybody knows its
THE moral code.
SB
August 21st, 2006 at 2:48 pm
wow, what a lot of chat about harmless pieces of fat. ZenTiger, beleive it or not there virtually is a pot smoking Parade. Every year Norml holds a gettogether at Albert park for a smoke up. The Police usually turn a blind eye as long as no one gets too obvious. I guess their eyes will be wide open though for the boobs Parade!
August 21st, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Weizguy, there may be different ways of interpreting principles of human dignity and justice, but there will be WRONG ways. As with language, good interpretation will always carry something of the substance (dignity & justice) that is being interpreted. And yes, there will be undignified acts that are moral, but they will be moral because they achieve a higher moral good.
Now it’s all very well to say you believe in universal ethics rather than a universal moral imperative. But please tell me, what principles are those “universal ethics” guided by?
And do tell me, how many Muslim fundamentalists consider their opinions “moral”? How many of them think that deeply about their opinions? How many of them have that much integrity? How many of them feel sorry for their wives deep down, but are too scared to do anything about it?
As I mentioned in the last past, I respect peoples’ dignity more than I respect their intelligence. It seems, Weizguy, that you respect their intelligence more than their dignity.
Points to ponder:
*Perhaps we are not all equally intelligent
*Perhaps not all choices are made as a result of intellectual application
*Perhaps some choices are motivated more by pride, greed, or conversely depression and/or low self esteem. Perhaps to affirm these choices serves merely to confirm they are persons not worthy and/or capable of human dignity.
I understand your point about the UN now. The point at which murder ceases to be murder, and is merely “killing” is probably one of the greatest moral quandaries. This is why guiding principles are so much more important than the law.
So again I ask, how is the pornographic industry compatible with principles of human dignity and justice?
August 21st, 2006 at 3:22 pm
Chesswas – I can only reiterate that you’re judging others by the standards of your moral code. It’s called moral relativism.
August 21st, 2006 at 3:27 pm
As I mentioned in the last past, I respect peoples’ dignity more than I respect their intelligence. It seems, Weizguy, that you respect their intelligence more than their dignity.
Fine – to me, that’s respecting the concept of a person rather than the actual person. That’s respect in a vacuum. I have serious concerns about the nature of power in the porn industry, but don’t believe that the morality of porn is an absolute.
Universal ethics – to me, are guided by justice. They are objective tests applied to individual situations.
And do tell me, how many Muslim fundamentalists consider their opinions “moral”?
Probably all of them. That’s what makes them fundamentalists. That’s what makes them willing to kill or die to protect their way of life. I don’t know if you’d be willing to go that far to force your morals on someone else. They have far more conviction than we do – even though I completely disagree with the subject of their conviction.
I agree absolutely with your three points to ponder, but not with your implication. you seem to be saying that people involved in porn are either less smart, haven’t thought it through, or have been forced into that decision. I simply don’t agree that we can be that sure.
So again I ask, how is the pornographic industry compatible with principles of human dignity and justice?
If a person chooses to pose naked for money, that is their choice. With choices come consequences. There is nothing moral about using power over another to force them into a profession. There is nothing immoral about choosing to sell your image for money.
August 21st, 2006 at 3:28 pm
It’s a moral code a lot of people recognise Graham. That’s called moral universalism. Even your expectation that I submit to your “moral relativism” is in fact a form of moral universalism!
August 21st, 2006 at 3:31 pm
AJ
In order to be moral “universalism”, it needs to be universal. It’s not, as posters on this thread have demonstrated.
Your sample group seems to exclude those of other religious groups. I have pointed out that the Muslim moral code is far stricter than the Christian. How can you be talking about universals when less than half the world agrees with your moral code (and that’s assuming that all christians agree, which is a leap in itself).
August 21st, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Chesswas wrote: “Even your expectation that I submit to your “moral relativism” is in fact a form of moral universalism!”
Nice try at a deflection! I fail to see how my insistence (and that of others here) that morality comes in different shades and hues can in any way be interpreted as a form of moral universalism. I don’t seek to impose my views on you, Chesswas – I simply ask you to respect my right to hold a contrary view.
August 21st, 2006 at 4:11 pm
The thing is Weizguy, I prefer friends who respect my dignity more than my intelligence. Why? Because I know I’m fallible. And I know that especially on the subject of myself I can be biased. My dignity actually means a lot more to me than my intelligence. When someone rebukes me, honouring my dignity above my judgment, I don’t say “stop treating me like a concept”.
Now if these “universal ethics” you subscribe to are guided by the principle of justice alone, then tell me (to risk sounding like my primary school teacher!); If the entire human race willingly decided they should all equally jump off a cliff at the same time you would have to deem it morally good as there is no inequality and no “injustice”.
What is your definition of justice?
As for your idea that Islamic terrorists generally act on the basis of moral conviction; Are you really serious? Have you not seen groupthink in action? Have you never felt the pressure from families, clans, peer groups, to conform to the majority rule out of fear rather than understanding? S.T.I.G.M.A. How do you know “they have far more conviction than we do”? And, interestingly, if they do – why do you think that is?
You say “there is nothing immoral about choosing to sell your image [body?] for money. But again, I ask, what good does it bring to the producers and the consumers, and to the wider community? And if we cannot think of a good that results, or that good is insignificant when compared to the tragic grievances it causes, why should it be accepted? Why should it be sanctioned? Why should it be allowed?
I do not believe the dissent of posters on this thread prove the morality I talk of is not universal. An opinion means very little without some sort of philosophical depth and logical argument. Nobody has shown why human dignity and justice are not suitable guidelines for morality, and no-one has illustrated how pornography contributes a single good to our communities in spite of its disturbing ills. My only conclusion can remain that this is a thread full of ignorance and/or dishonesty, and not on the part of myself.
Weizguy, nothing that anyone has said has proved that “less than half the world agrees with your moral code”.
Graham, sure, you have a right to hold a contrary view. But I also have a right to show you how it is wrong. I even have a right to prevent you from putting it into practice
However, for you to tell me I have to respect your right to have an opinion, without telling you it is wrong and oppressing you with the philosophical weight of my arguments, is to put on me a universal moral imperative. It is the classic PoMo contradiction and it is beautifully deconstructive!
August 21st, 2006 at 4:28 pm
Parading breasts not indecent say police
New Zealand Herald
August 21, 2006
A.J.Chesswas
Kiwiblog
August 21, 2006
The Second Coming
WB Yeats
January 1919
August 21st, 2006 at 4:31 pm
Well if they are going to have a parade anyhow, why not ask Angela Bloomfield ( voted best boobs in Aotearoa} to lead it,maybe she could be crowned Queen of the Boobs at the end.
August 21st, 2006 at 4:36 pm
The thing is Weizguy, I prefer friends who respect my dignity more than my intelligence.
And that is your right – I prefer to be respected for intelligence over diginity. Much of dignity is posturing – it’s without substance. You can be as dignified as you like, and empty. I don’t claim to be infallible, but I put more stock in intelligence and reason than I do in having good manners. Not that there isn’t a place for manners…
I make no moral judgement on the human race’s choice to suicide. As far as I can see from your hypothetical, it’s a completely amoral act. There is no right or wrong, just a waste. It’s not an issue of morals at all.
As for your idea that Islamic terrorists generally act on the basis of moral conviction; Are you really serious?
I find it ironic that a christian is questioning islamic fundamentalism on the basis of groupthink… I believe they think they are as “right” as you do. Personally, I believe you are both wrong about many things. The difference between me, and you and the fundamentalists, is that I don’t think my belief system is infallible. My morals are derived from my experience. My application ethics arise from my sense of justice. I may get them wrong, but with an intellectually consistent system, I can adapt – or evolve.
Your concept of a fixed moral code doesn’t allow for other societal groups. I’m not sure why you can’t see the correlation between your brand of fundamentalism, and the islamist kind…
But again, I ask, what good does it bring to the producers and the consumers, and to the wider community?
It brings the producers, the performers, and the workers money and work. It brings the consumers pleasure. That is a good. You then ask whether it does more harm than good. In some cases it does. In others – you’d have to ask the participants. Porn is one of the few industries where women have all the power – Men get paid far less, and have far less say about what they do. Compared to a profession that you would call “moral” women are far better off. Of course, there are plenty of valid concerns that can be raised about the true power held by women, but that still doesn’t make the “wrongness” of porn a moral absolute. At best it’s a grey area.
I do not believe the dissent of posters on this thread prove the morality I talk of is not universal.
Define universal. My understanding is that universal is best defined as “accepted by all”. That is the position of jus cogens in international law, and it’s a definition that applies here. Note that when the majority of posters don’t agree with this argument, it’s probably hard to claim universality.
Weizguy, nothing that anyone has said has proved that “less than half the world agrees with your moral code”.
Your moral code is based on a Christian Agrarian view of the world. You might be aware that there are thousands of religions/gods, and that adherents of said religions have different moral codes to your own. Hence – less than half of the world. Or do you seriously believe that everyone else is simply misguided.
August 21st, 2006 at 4:49 pm
Sorry weizguy gota call you on this one
“Porn is one of the few industries where women have all the power – Men get paid far less, and have far less say about what they do.”
Men get paid much more than women in the porn industry.
Its a simple matter of supply and demand. Many more women can be sucessful porn stars than men.
Many men think they would make great porn stars but very few men can actually measure up!
Sb
August 21st, 2006 at 4:52 pm
Sorry SB – I think you’re wrong on this one – and I ain’t going to start searching at work… However, i’m basing this on TV documentaries, so it could be wrong…
August 21st, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Well my info is approx 7-9 years ago so it could have changed. Would be interested is seeing anything newer.
At that time IIRC for a shoot a male got 2000-3000 and for the same shoot the female would get 300-400.
Would be good it the girls have got parity.
SB
August 21st, 2006 at 5:02 pm
I think we’re not going to get anywhere on our divergent understanding of morality. If you are willing to make the statement that the suicide of the human race would be an amoral act then you are too far gone to bother taking seriously.
However, I would like to know why you think my approach to ethics is not grounded in experience? What makes you think I wouldn’t adapt my views when I found them to be irrelevant and unrealistic? I said in my last post that I’m open to rebuke because I accept my fallibility, and care more for my dignity.
So pornography brings workers money and work? Are there other forms of work they could engage in that would bring more good to them and to their communities? Could they make a more honest living rather than exploiting and manipulating human weakness? How much power do porn actors really have? Do they not possess the same human spirit as the rest of us? How can you say they have power when they spend their lives engaging in such demeaning and derogatory behaviour?
“Compared to a profession that you would call “moral” women are far better off”.
Since when did we measure a person’s quality of life by the amount of money that they make?
“My understanding is that universal is best defined as “accepted by all”.”
Why use a concept that is demonstrably unachievable. Given the nature of the human creature, you will never find anything for which you gain confessing universal human “acceptance”.
When I use the word universal I mean “universally applicable”, or “universally valid”. We can’t just accept the honesty and integrity of every Tom, Dick & Harry who contributes to a philosophical/political argument. If an idea cannot make sense to us, why should we accept it as valid?
Finally, this post is not about the entire Christian Agrarian worldview package. It is about the morality of pornography. I have not made a conscious study of the number of people who in some way confess to or practice a Christian agrarian model. I am not going to speak to the universality of such a model today.
However I bet you will find very few religions or cultural traditions that would approve of pornography. Christian, Muslim, Jew and Buddhist are generally united on the topic, as is much (if not all) of the Hindu tradition. I would be very interested if you could prove otherwise.
August 21st, 2006 at 5:07 pm
“Have you not seen groupthink in action? Have you never felt the pressure from families, clans, peer groups, to conform to the majority rule out of fear rather than understanding?”
hands up who can tell me what other popular faith based movements that this statement can also apply to?
AJ – ok, im not going to have a go – you seem to have copped a lot of flak in this thread already.
But let me try and work something out.
You have a moral code that you live by and try and structure your view of the world around?
This view is derived largely from your own personal interpretation of a faith and beleif in god and the teachings of jesus?
There are many people who either, have a different interpretation of this faith, a different faith altogether, or their just good ol atheists?
Regardless of which faith (or not) that others follow they are still capable of being good people with good moral behaviour, who care about their society and its inhabitants?
Due to the fact that we, as humans, are forced to interpret the world in a completly subjective manner, (ie: we evaluate what we observe based upon our own previous experiences or the previous experiences of a group that we belong to), does this not point to the concept that there is no “one moral code”?
in short, how can there be one moral code? how can you get the whole world to agree? who decides what the code is? you? your god?
Where does that leave the rest of the world who think that faith in god is some kind of shared lunacy?
dont all the above questions point to the concept that morals and ethics (yes they are two seperate things – simillar and intertwined, but seperate)can only ever be subjective?
–
Christainity does not hold the patent on morals, and this notion, that those who dont prescribe to one groups view of the world are immoral heathens who would do well to just get in line, is pure unadulterated BS.
August 21st, 2006 at 6:05 pm
Finally a topic I can speak of with some authority!
Male porn stars used to be highly paid – they were called woodsmen – because well-endowed guys who could consistently perform in front of a large group of people for several hours were something of a rarity. Now they have viagra, none of those problems exist anymore and male porn-stars are simply out of work aspiring actors, same as the girls.
August 21st, 2006 at 6:11 pm
Wel I m not reading all the comments – or getting into the morals – but suffice to say I forwarded a letter written by Family First to the NZ Herald ( It was not written by Me as the Herald claims) purely because I saw a legal inconsistancy with allowing topless women to parade on the street, but not allowing topless women standing on the side of the street to watch it.
That’s all. Who is game to watch the parade topless. It will be interesting to see if you get arrested. If the police was consistantly upholding the law you would not be arrested.
August 21st, 2006 at 6:17 pm
Do you watch porn AJ? Read Romans chapter 2.
August 21st, 2006 at 6:48 pm
I would just like to add that I love tits.
August 21st, 2006 at 7:03 pm
“Now they have viagra, none of those problems exist anymore and male porn-stars are simply out of work aspiring actors, same as the girls.”
Good I always thought that the previous system was unfair to the women – against THE moral code.
Also meant I still have a chance…………..
SB
August 21st, 2006 at 7:20 pm
now listen..lots of you aren’t going to be able to make it for the parade on wednesday..
so i’m going to ’steel’ myself…and ‘go down amongst the bosoms…’for you..
purely in the service of journalism…you understand..
i’ll go and watch and see what turns up..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 21st, 2006 at 7:27 pm
A couple of things.
First someone brought up Iran. (Hi Gooner!) In Iran, the punishment for Boobs on Bikes would most likely be death by hanging or stoning for all female participants, lashing or a warning for the males. All supported by Islamic law.
Iran is not “bad” because religion and state is entwined. Iran is “bad” because the religion the state is entwined with is pure evil. So, in order for what AJ is proposing to be “no better than Iran”, he would have to be calling for an Islamic revolution with Sharia law instituted for the law of the land.
Second, someone else brought up Islam and morality and how Islam is stricter with it’s morality than Christianity.
Yes, Islam is stricter. Transgressions of morality are punished, while as Christians just consider them sins. Christians may try and prevent moral standards (as defined by them) from being breached, but they won’t kill people for breaching those moral standards.
The other definition of “stricter” that I took from that was that there was some sort of sliding scale of morality with Muslims on an extreme end and Christians somewhere close by. The implication being that Muslims are more moral than Christians.
As an example, Muslims can require their women to be so completely covered as to totally obscure their identity. Christians just require their women to be clothed without showing too much cleavage, arm and leg.
However, the difference between the two is not a sliding scale. The Muslim woman is so completely covered as to obscure her identity, to make it difficult for anyone to recognise her, to communicate with her, to know her. She is so totally hidden from society, that she becomes owned. While as the covered Christian woman can still be recognised (faces are the primary means of recognising individuals), people can still communicate with her (most communication is non-verbal, an uncovered face is neccessary for complete communication).
The Christian woman is only covered in a way that doesn’t turn her into a sexual object, the Muslim woman is covered in order to be a non-entity.
So, to assume that to be more covered is to be more moral is asinine, because you can see that once covering gets beyond a certain point, it works to hide the individual from society. How anyone can infer that the Muslim woman is more moral by being more covered is beyond me. And anyone that tries to equate the fundamentalists of both religions is proving themselves ignorant of both.
August 21st, 2006 at 7:47 pm
um..readers should keep in mind lucyna is speaking from the extreme rightwing pro-israel/anti-muslim view..
(so read her words with that filter/qualifier in mind..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 21st, 2006 at 8:14 pm
for those who will be watching, the parade start at 12 in K rd
SB
August 21st, 2006 at 8:22 pm
That was beautiful Lucyna. These guys could learn a lot from your approach to communication, and to morality. I don’t know if Lucyna is necessarily Christian, but she certainly has a better understanding of the Christian faith and/or conservatism than those I am arguing with. Lucyna illustrates so well the fact that you cannot assign me to the same box as a Muslim fundamentalist. I know you want to, that way it wouldn’t matter how logical I was you could just label me as an extremist. You guys are talking like you never knew your own grandparents…
But did you see how Lucyna used reason, along with principles of justice and human dignity, to show that Shariah Islam is in fact less moral despite being “more modest”. That was brilliant. And it shows how useful it is to actually have an understanding of the universality of morality. Bravo!
Now Fraser, thanks for your more tempered approach. It is true that people can similarly conform to a Christian lifestyle as a result of groupthink rather than personal integrity. I guess that’s why there’s so much corruption and hypocrisy in “churches”. MY views on the other hand, while I have been informed as discipled by Christian parents, and churches, I have done my darnedest to be as authentic as possible and to be true to what I believe. This meant I spent over a year, while at university, questioning (actually “giving up” – although not rejecting: “opening my mind”) my faith in Christ’s divinity etc., hanging out with Muslims, Mormons, Agnostics, Sikhs and the like, and doing a lot of reading and soul searching over the matter. Fear of peers and family was not an issue. My sister and her friends concluded prematurely I’d become a Muslim, and a lot of my church relationships became a lot more distant as a result.
My deepest personal beliefs are in God’s goodness and grace, in spite of our obvious rebellion, and in spite of our obviously corrupted spiritual condition. The gospel and teachings of The Lord Jesus Christ are simply the mystery of God’s grace revealed in detail. Unmatched by any other philosophical or religious system. Unmatched by any other life, person or story. Both compellingly historical, and compellingly immanent.
The reason my moral code clashes with many of the social and market forces active in our country today is because I still believe in the dignity of humanity. I believe in our potential, our ability to live lives of excellence and glory, our ability to build communities, nations, Kingdoms that are full of life and vitality.
These beliefs and values are not merely personal values. I see them in every person I meet. In every social institution that exists. But of course a see a psychotic mix of both this good nature and the corrupted nature. Again, what can explain this better than Christianity?
These beliefs and values are not merely relative values. When applied to any and every life they result in peace, love, joy, righteousness and holiness.
You are right, regardless of which faith (or not) others follow they are still capable of being good people with good moral behaviour, who care about their society and its inhabitants. I must admit though, it is rare to observe authentic examples of such selfless behaviour in those that know not of God’s grace. Even Splanblather admitted her own selfishness in her political activism in a recent post.
However I do not see how the fact we are bound to subjective interpretation infers that there can be no objective truth. Can there not be right interpretations and wrong interpretations? The whole world does not need to give their verbal assent for there to be an objective and universal moral code. If there is one then surely it transcends human concoction.
I mean who really believes there is no universal moral code? How on Earth could you ever accept such an idea? And what thinking person would consider faith in God a shared lunacy? If you profess to be such a person, then I would sooner suspect YOUR honesty, integrity and sanity rather being suspicious of such obvious existential truths.
“Christianity does not hold the patent on morals, and this notion, that those who dont prescribe to one groups view of the world are immoral heathens who would do well to just get in line, is pure unadulterated BS.”
I never said Christianity holds the patent on morals. I never said that those who do not “prescribe” to “Christianity” are any less moral. I have never made this post about Christianity or religion; my opponents have. All along I have been talking on the basis of reason and human dignity; it is the opposition that has been waffling on about religion. All that says to me is that whenever they’re actually challenged about their moral understanding they can’t help but think about their creator. That speaks volumes, and only serves to reinforce my convictions.
Haha Phil do you have to make it any more obvious? Redbaiter was right, you guys are all the same, and it is glaringly obvious from this thread. You make no attempt to engage in reasoned argument, and constantly resort to thinking that by labeling people (ie “Christian”, “Agrarian”, “Extreme right wing”, “Pro-Israel” you can isolate us from readers with opposite sympathies.
Lame.
Lame lame lame lame lame…..
And since we’re all getting prepared to head down to the parade, I hope there are Aucklanders with enough energy, zeal and stupidity to head down there and form a human blockade or something
August 21st, 2006 at 8:29 pm
What a lot of fuss about a bunch of titties!
Must be a lot of bottle-fed blog readers!
August 21st, 2006 at 8:29 pm
This talk of universal moral codes is a complete red herring. Even *if* there is a universal moral code, and that is by no means certain, exactly what that code is will still be the subject of exactly the same disputes. Whether Boobs on Bikes is right or wrong is still a matter for dispute.
AJ Chesswas would like people to think that because morality may be universal, then somehow that means his view on morality is right. But actually the only thing that follows from his not particularly profound point is that his morals are ‘either right or wrong’. And in the Boobs on Bikes issue, I suggest he is wrong.
In fact, universal morality, if it exists, would say so too, in my opinion. It would say that his outrage from whereever the hell he is, a long way from Queen St by the sounds, does not outweigh the rights of the parade to display it’s wares.
Don’t be fooled by this kind of sophistry. Morality is not a simple issue, and people who wish to make it seem simple because they have strong convictions, are merely pigheaded. Even if moral imperatives exist we still have the extremely difficult job of discovering what they are.
August 21st, 2006 at 8:57 pm
A.J.Chesswas
A.J.Chesswas
The Koran
August 21st, 2006 at 9:01 pm
AJ: “Since when did we measure a person’s quality of life by the amount of money that they make?”
Are you joking AJ, or did the whole consumer capitalist thing just pass you by?
August 21st, 2006 at 9:11 pm
And that’s what happens when you take hurriedly made remarks out of context. Heck, I even had the decency (in a previous post on my blog) to understand Jacqui Grant was not guilty of expressing bias against Christians in her outburst a couple of years back.
What I meant in this case, obviously, was the the judgment and practice of Shariah Islam on the clothing of women is less moral than contemporary [conservative] Christian judgment and practice. I was not saying that Muslims are any less moral as a people. I judge not the morality of a person, only the morality of a judgment, idea or opinion.
“We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” – 2 Corinthians 10:5
As for Ben’s comments, they are generally true and consistent with what I am saying, apart from his assertion that I am wrong. But then he hasn’t given any reasoning behind why a parade of pornstars has is a good thing, so his opinion doesn’t actually mean a heck of a lot.
Basically it’s up to you, the reader; Do you really believe all this postmodern rubbish that there’s no such thing as truth and/or morality? Or are you, like me, sick of sitting down, shutting up and conforming, and ready to speak up for justice and human dignity. Can you, like me, see past the facade to the destructive commercial, political and narcissistic forces that are destroying are society?
Come on New Zealand, it’s time to stand up and be counted.
August 21st, 2006 at 9:28 pm
AJ, people have given you reasons why “But then he hasn’t given any reasoning behind why a parade of pornstars has is a good thing” however you have chosen to ignore them.
“Come on New Zealand, it’s time to stand up and be counted.”
just who are you talking to AJ?
SB
August 21st, 2006 at 9:31 pm
So what’s your problem AJ? Porn is good, it gives me something to jack off to. Can you say that you don’t masturbate, or that you don’t masturbate with naked women in mind? If your objection, as stated above, is that women aren’t treated right in the porn industry, the solution is to improve the employment standards in the sex industry, not ban something that brings so much joy to mankind.
August 21st, 2006 at 9:32 pm
A.J.Chesswas
Deuteronomy 22:5
August 21st, 2006 at 9:45 pm
And glory to God the day women are liberated from the bondage that is the uniform of Levi Strauss!!
Now what were those reasons again SB? I must have missed them, and I can’t seem to find them anywhere.
Oh look, Average Kiwi has actually finally given us a reason. “It gives me something to jack off to”. Finally, an honest social liberal!!
Now, Mr Kiwi, surely your own sense of dignity would improve if you weren’t so prone to masturbation. Surely, then, you’d be all for criticism of, and the elimination of, pornography… Don’t tell me we’re going to get into a philosophical debate about the benefits and pitfalls of masturbation lol…
August 21st, 2006 at 11:27 pm
AJ, it was not my purpose to give an argument, just to show that you haven’t. You seem to concede this point. We can get to the argument now the straw man is dead.
I don’t know why you think anyone who disagrees with you or thinks Boobs on Bikes is postmodern. There’s simply no connection. You could be a postmodern prude, or a modern liberal (like me). And by liberal I mean that I value extremely highly the right of individuals to make up their minds about what they see, hear, watch, do. I therefore find your wishing to block this parade offensive to my *moral code*.
Naturally you don’t care a fig for my moral code, only your own one, which you have been trying to hold up as the only one. It is not, your position is prudish, old fashioned, interfering and by no means ‘universal’. So, as you say, it’s up to the reader. Which makes a mockery of your ‘universal morality’ point, don’t you think? That’s why I say your simplifications are pigheaded snake oil.
I don’t say a parade of pornstars is a good thing. I just say it should be allowed. If you don’t like it, don’t attend. Our society is good like that, you can do stuff if you want, or bugger off and do something else. In your case, that buggering off only involves not sticking your nose into other people’s affairs, since you’ve made it clear you’re not even in Auckland. It’s hardly a big ask. You stick to your bible classes and the kleenex brigade can have a gawk on Queen St, and we’ll all get along.
August 21st, 2006 at 11:31 pm
AJ, I think you are shouting into the storm here. The ‘consensus’ is for titillation. Let em rip. Forget the barricades, pray for rain. My understanding of scripture is that God could care less about our morals, high or low, they are a symptom of what we are. To quote Pilate, “what is truth?” To quote Jesus “I am..”
Theres the rub, you beleive it and all with it, or you don’t. It’s binary. You change or you don’t according to that belief. You pays your money and you makes your choice.
The idea of God being troubled by a consensus of bloggers is a joke in itself. Is he downhearted about a public display, considering he sees a lot worse in private, I don’t know. It does seem outwardly the human garbage heap is getting higher. Will fire descend from heaven? who knows. The good folk of Auckland have sat around their 50-odd volcanoes on their cross-leases without harm for a while now. Chances are it will continue.
The parade to eternity rocks on, bands playing, flags flying, Colours displayed, bayonets fixed, slags on bikes. Maybe there’ll be a lolly scramble, or knowing these chaps, a condom one. What fun, the Freedom of the City, a moral furball.
Danyl, good post, you should have quit with Yeats.
August 22nd, 2006 at 4:41 am
sheesh aj…what have you got against jerking-off..?
(do you rely on ‘nocturnal emmissions..?
y’know ..in your own personal fight against the scourge/evils of onanism.?)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 22nd, 2006 at 8:05 am
AJ, you know what they say about teaching pigs to sing..
August 22nd, 2006 at 8:52 am
Let’s strip this back to basics AJ. You said that Boobs on bikes is immoral – you made the assertion, now provide the evidence.
Secondly, my disagreement with you is not about boobs on bikes, it’s about the existence of a single moral code. Morals are individual things. Mine are different from yours.
Fundamentalism is all about a continuum. The methods you use to enforce your beliefs on others are simply details.
Oh, and I do believe in absolute truth. Just not in one set of morals.
Seeing as you seem to believe you know THE moral code, can to tell us what it is? I don’t want to do something against THE moral code, so can you please advise…
August 22nd, 2006 at 9:24 am
Ben, I think our opinions are diverging because you have more faith in individual autonomy than I do. That much is obvious; after all you are a self-confessed “liberal”.
Asking the reader to make their own judgment by no means makes a mockery of universal morality. It actually illustrates how deep my faith is that it exists. I am asking the reader to trust their conscience – the same conscience that was given me – and trust its universality, rather than accept your PoMo (I don’t care what you say it is PoMo) claptrap.
I mean, you even admit “I don’t say a parade of pornstars is a good thing”. As a conservative I accept my duty to protect those with weaker consciences, with weaker volition, from those perverse activities that you would permit by your apathy. You might claim my approach is oppressive and patronizing – I would rather call it compassionate. You might think you’re such a caring person by respecting people’s “choices”. I would call you lazy, apathetic and heartless. A true PoMo.
Weizguy, I have already shared the moral code a number of times, and shown how the pornstar parade is, basically, an abomination. The moral code is grounded in the principles of human dignity and justice. Pornography and topless parades are inconsistent with this because they demean the dignity of women, who are related to on the basis of their sexuality (and a very meager representation of their sexuality) rather than the intellectual and emotional aspects of their personality. They are related to on the basis of their ability to satisfy the male sexual appetite, rather than on the basis of who they are. They are exploited rather than edified.
Furthermore, pornography exploits males. One thing liberals seem to ignore is that the human mind is not actually uniform in its decision-making process. A man does not desire to consume pornography or gawk at womens’ breasts without any contrary desire. The human will always walks a tightrope between shallow, unproductive, carnal desires and more edifying, productive and beneficial desires. When a man chooses to consume pornography he acts on one desire in spite of those other desires. And when pimps, pornographers and porn actors flood the market with their products and services they merely make it harder for men to make the right choice, and easier to make the bad choice. As I inferred earlier when addressing Graham; very few people can sustain such an assault on their conscience without finding it completely seared.
Finally, George, my persistence is not because of my concern for God, but because of my concern for Ben, weizguy, Miller, SB, and the rest of them that would take a fancy to these liberal PoMo ideas.
“Look up at the heavens and see; gaze at the clouds so high above you. If you sin, how does that affect him? If your sins are many, what does that do to him? If you are righteous, what do you give to him, or what does he receive from your hand? Your wickedness affects only a man like yourself, and your righteousness only the sons of men.” – Job 35:5-8
August 22nd, 2006 at 9:33 am
AJ wrote: “As I infered earlier when addressing Graham; very few people can sustain such an assault on their conscience without finding it completely seared”.
And then AJ preached:
“Finally, George, my persistence is not because of my concern for God, but because of my concern for Ben, weizguy, Miller, SB, and the rest of them that would take a fancy to these liberal PoMo ideas”.
Good God – I have neither a seared conscience, nor a need for your concern, but thanks anyway. For you to presume that you can judge me, without knowing me, is the height of arrogance.
I’m not sure how Ben, Weizguy, SB and others, myself included, can get the message through to you: you are judging others by your own moral code without accepting that each of us lives by our own god-foresaken moral code. What part of that can’t you understand or accept?
August 22nd, 2006 at 9:36 am
Again – you have either misunderstood or deliberately avoided the question. This is not about the particular example – this is about the existence of THE moral code. What is it?
You stated:
The moral code is grounded in the principles of human dignity and justice.
But you haven’t said what it is. If it is codified, then you will be able to reproduce it. Perhaps you could start by giving me answers to the following questions.
Is homosexuality immoral?
Is BDSM immoral when conducted by two consenting adults?
Is suicide immoral?
Is MTV immoral?
Are string bikinis immoral?
Is copying DVDs immoral?
I know what I think about these things, but I suspect you will tell me I am wrong about a number of things. If you believe you have the answers, and you truly are concerned about me, you’ll enlighten me.
August 22nd, 2006 at 9:38 am
Yo AJ, do you have a similar problem with say boobs on the beach? Topless chicks at the beach being one of the great blessings of summer :p
August 22nd, 2006 at 9:57 am
There we are – I was thinking that AJ was a Christian but it turns out that he is just another control freak….
Sad………..
SB
August 22nd, 2006 at 10:04 am
It’s obvious you live by a different moral code than I do Graham. All I’m saying is mine is right and yours is wrong. Mine deserves to be recognised by law, governance and police – yours doesn’t!
And why the heck are you harping on about a moral code Weizguy? If I was going to address all of the different behaviours you listed there the comments on this post would end up in the hundreds. We are talking about pornography and topless parades. What’s important, then, is not every detail of a moral code, but the principles by which we judge the morality of an action.
When Jesus was asked what was the greatest commandment he answered;
“Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. And the second is like it; Love your neighbour as yourself. In these commandments is summed up all the law and the prophets.”
August 22nd, 2006 at 10:10 am
“It’s obvious you live by a different moral code than I do Graham. All I’m saying is mine is right and yours is wrong. Mine deserves to be recognised by law, governance and police – yours doesn’t!”
*Buzz*
Is this your best (or lamest) attempt at persuasion? My immediate reaction was to praise THE moral code that you’re nowhere near the reins of power. The golden rule is to use reason and logic in order to persuade; your hissy fit suggests that you’ve used neither reason nor logic… and I’m not persuaded!
A very simple (but profound) question for you: what is your moral code and in what specific ways is it different to mine? Please discuss!
August 22nd, 2006 at 10:21 am
AJ,
“Love your neighbour as yourself” you haven’t yet shown how porn breaks this rule.
You have said that you think it does but not why?
I would have no problem about appearing in a porn movie, so why would I have a problem with other people doing so?
SB
August 22nd, 2006 at 10:22 am
AJ’s presence on the blogosphere has convinced me, once and for all…
There is no God.
August 22nd, 2006 at 10:25 am
AJ,
You’ve now come out and stated that you KNOW that your moral code is right and billions of people all over the world are wrong.
How do you reconcile this with the fact that countless buddhists, muslims, hindus, jews and athiests the world over also KNOW that their moral code is the one true one, and that everyone elses is wrong?
You might argue that they are merely deluded, while you have thought hard about the issues and decided that you are correct. But they will merely reply that THEY have thought hard about the issues, and they have decided that THEY are correct.
You’ve stated above that:
The gospel and teachings of The Lord Jesus Christ are simply the mystery of God’s grace revealed in detail. Unmatched by any other philosophical or religious system.
And you surely KNOW this to be true. But Buddhists will simply reply that they KNOW that the teachings of the Buddha are unmatched by any other philosophical or religious system. Muslims KNOW that the Koran is the fundamental truth – not just a book, but an aspect of God, like his pity or his wrath. Jews KNOW that the Torah is the divine word of God. They KNOW that they are right and you are wrong, just as confidently that you believe that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
In short, there is not a single argument that you can employ to promote the superiority of your moral code above all others that a devout buddhist, muslim, hindu or whatever can’t also put forward as ‘proof’ of the superiority of THEIR moral code over your own.
August 22nd, 2006 at 10:27 am
It’s obvious you live by a different moral code than I do Graham. All I’m saying is mine is right and yours is wrong. Mine deserves to be recognised by law, governance and police – yours doesn’t!
BINGO!
Thank you for confirming my suspicions. THE Moral code is no more than your subjective moral compass, and your evidence of its correctness is no more than an assertion.
You are arguing from a position and attempting to add reason, rather than arriving at a position through reason. Your moral code is unprincipled and so far un-evidenced.
What’s important, then, is not every detail of a moral code, but the principles by which we judge the morality of an action.
No. It’s not. Principles can be interpreted differently depending on the individual. You have made a leap from generally accepted principles to outcomes without the reasoning in between. Your talk of THE moral code suggests that it is codified – and thus, a code. You then retreat from that position. Which is it?
August 22nd, 2006 at 10:36 am
Graham & SB, did you miss my explanation of the moral code and how pornography and topless parades are not consistent with it Graham? Read my earlier comment on the matter, and if you want to dispute it do so. If you think it’s unreasonable show me why.
Danyl, who are these “billions” of people who are passionate about the moral virtue of the porn industry? Why can’t anyone get it into their thick empty skulls that when I am talking about my moral convictions in this post it is in relation to the depravity of pornography, and the virtue of human dignity and justice? If you want to tell me there are billions of people on this planet who don’t share even an iota of these convictions then you really need to see a specialist.
Why can’t you guys talk about morality without getting into all this stuff about religion? Values of human dignity and justice transcend all religions. The benefits and the ills of porn is the topic. Stay focused or I’ll quit wasting my time.
So again,
“I have already shared the moral code a number of times, and shown how the pornstar parade is, basically, an abomination. The moral code is grounded in the principles of human dignity and justice. Pornography and topless parades are inconsistent with this because they demean the dignity of women, who are related to on the basis of their sexuality (and a very meager representation of their sexuality) rather than the intellectual and emotional aspects of their personality. They are related to on the basis of their ability to satisfy the male sexual appetite, rather than on the basis of who they are. They are exploited rather than edified.
Furthermore, pornography exploits males. One thing liberals seem to ignore is that the human mind is not actually uniform in its decision-making process. A man does not desire to consume pornography or gawk at womens’ breasts without any contrary desire. The human will always walks a tightrope between shallow, unproductive, carnal desires and more edifying, productive and beneficial desires. When a man chooses to consume pornography he acts on one desire in spite of those other desires. And when pimps, pornographers and porn actors flood the market with their products and services they merely make it harder for men to make the right choice, and easier to make the bad choice. As I inferred earlier when addressing Graham; very few people can sustain such an assault on their conscience without finding it completely seared.”
That there is my speaking to the topic, showing how my moral judgments in this matter are universally sensible and applicable. Someone refute me without having to talk about “moral codes” and religion. Liberals are meant to be good at situational ethics.
August 22nd, 2006 at 10:47 am
“Graham & SB, did you miss my explanation of the moral code and how pornography and topless parades are not consistent with it Graham? Read my earlier comment on the matter, and if you want to dispute it do so. If you think it’s unreasonable show me why.”
Actually, no, we’re asking you to reveal the contents of THE moral code so we can then judge for ourselves whether our position on various matters is consistent with THAT moral code. The onus of proof is on you, my friend, so please don’t disappoint us.
“Why can’t you guys talk about morality without getting into all this stuff about religion? Values of human dignity and justice transcend all religions. The benefits and the ills of porn is the topic. Stay focused or I’ll quit wasting my time.”
Your contributions to this thread have been layered with religious overtones – and certainly selective quoting of the scriptures. Forgive us if we mistook you for a religion in search of a moral highground.
“That there is my speaking to the topic, showing how my moral judgments in this matter are universally sensible and applicable. Someone refute me without having to talk about “moral codes” and religion. Liberals are meant to be good at situational ethics.”
You can’t proof a universal norm by quoting a selective viewpoint (your own). You are clearly not very good at situational ethics from any viewpoint other than your own.
Shall we consider it “an open and shut case” – or would you like to continue this discussion while you’re on a losing streak?
August 22nd, 2006 at 10:52 am
You’ve made that VERY clear. What you’ve failed to do is articulate the source of THE moral code – except, of course, for your extensive biblical quotes which make your latest demand:
Someone refute me without having to talk about “moral codes” and religion
rather risible.
August 22nd, 2006 at 10:54 am
“Why can’t you guys talk about morality without getting into all this stuff about religion?”
lets check who in this thread is quoting from the scriptures?
Oh its you AJ – so why are you asking this strange question? Why are you unable to discuss morality without bringing religion into it?
SB
August 22nd, 2006 at 10:55 am
By the way The Mayor will be having lunch at a venue about 150 metres off Queen St at 12 noon Wednesday No doubt those present will report is he sneaks a peek at the parade
August 22nd, 2006 at 10:56 am
Let’s just sum up this argument:
AJ – The parade should be banned because its against the moral code.
Everyone Else – What moral code?
AJ – THE Moral Code!
Everyone Else – Where can we find out about the moral code?
AJ – Oh can’t SOMEBODY refute me without referring to the moral code???
August 22nd, 2006 at 11:03 am
Dou you guys agree than human dignity and justice are good things or not? I quote Jesus because he’s very quotable, not because he’s religious.
August 22nd, 2006 at 11:09 am
“”Dou [sic] you guys agree than human dignity and justice are good things or not? I quote Jesus because he’s very quotable, not because he’s religious”.
We all aspire to human dignity and justice. But, equally, there may be legitimate differences of opinion as to whether any particular matter or issue offends those norms (human dignity and justice).
And quoting Jesus without preaching a religious moral code to us is not unlike, say, feeding a dog a meatless bone… it leaves us hankering for more meat and a more substantive argument!
August 22nd, 2006 at 11:12 am
OK, so if you aspire to human dignity and justice show me how those principles can be interpreted to give approval to a topless parade of pornographic actors down the main street of our nation. I’ve shown how it is inconsistent.
August 22nd, 2006 at 11:15 am
So THE moral code is now to be an artificial construct of “human dignity and justice”.
I reiterate my comment above:
“But, equally, there may be legitimate differences of opinion as to whether any particular matter or issue offends those norms (human dignity and justice).”
Others may have a very different view to you, AJ, as to whether a topless parade of pornographic actors offends THE moral code, which now appears to mean no more than “human dignity and justice”.
For starters, one presumes that those waving their boobies around in a public place would see themselves as acting in a very humanly dignifified manner – and they don’t seem to be complaining about injustice.
And we haven’t even got to the spectators who intend to be there…
August 22nd, 2006 at 11:21 am
Graham it is not a new thing that I speak of “human dignity and justice”, I have referred to it throughout these two posts. It is all very well to say that some people MAY be able to interpret pornography in a way that is consistent with human dignity and justice. But until you can show HOW this is possible it will remain a hypothetical and useless opinion, and we will be resigned to deem the inudtry IMMORAL.
August 22nd, 2006 at 11:24 am
that should have read *industry*, although I prefer not to glorify the phenomenon such normalised terminology. Also, sorry for posting twice….
August 22nd, 2006 at 11:24 am
Dou you guys agree than Human dignity and justice are good things or not?
Dignity derives from the latin root “worthy” how would you choose who are worthy and who are not,
The question that comes up is what do you do with those that are not worthy or will not ascribe to your code, ignore them, compulsory re-educate them, kill them.
Unless you give *everyone* the opportunity to have a say on what is in any moral code that provides this justice and respect, you are simply removing the rights of elf-determination of people, something that would appear to go against your code
August 22nd, 2006 at 11:26 am
Dignity derives from the root word “worth”, not worthy. The imperative is to act according to our worth. Your dichotomy of the worthy and the unworthy is completely irrelevant and misconstrued. I guess that’s why you’re “anonymous”…
August 22nd, 2006 at 11:30 am
AJ, again you throw up this postmodern red herring. Do you even know what it means? I sure don’t and I’ve studied it at length. I don’t claim to be postmodern – you claim that I am. I claim to be modern, and liberal. Perhaps you could shed some light on why you think my views are postmodern.
You talk of universal conscience without even acknowledging the blatantly obvious *fact* that our consciences are quite different. This thread is an example of that. I don’t get hot under the collar about the idea of topless women promoting the sex industry. You do.
You say I’m apathetic because I ‘admit “I don’t say a parade of pornstars is a good thing”’. But that’s because I think it’s morally neutral. Neither good nor bad. Or perhaps good for some people, bad for others. For me, neither. That doesn’t make me ‘lazy’, nor do I think your misguided energy in this matter is virtuous just because it’s energetic.
Your moral arguments are extremely weak. You assert that topless parades ‘demean the dignity of women’. I disagree. The female form is beautiful and public displays of beauty are not demeaning. Your only argument for that statement is that women are related to on the grounds of their sexuality rather than ‘intellectual and emotional aspects of their personality’. So what? Why is that demeaning? Sexuality is an enormous part of being a women. I’ve got no problem with them having an intellectual and emotional parade too, in fact these things happen all the time, where people express their ideas or their skills. But pure appreciation of their bodies is not immoral, it’s natural, it’s normal. I’m sure you do it too. Don’t be the one percent of people who can’t bring themselves to be honest about their carnal desires even anonymously. Their bodies are part of ‘who they are’. And in the case of pornstars, it’s pretty much the biggest part.
Then you move into the weakest part of your case, the damage that pornography does to men. You imply that our minds are shaped by evil forces seeking to exploit, rather than simply provided with a service. I don’t see it. Porn is there because men like it, they want to see it (some women too). They choose to see it. If they don’t like it, they don’t buy it, don’t download it, don’t look at it. It’s not hard to make the ‘right’ choice. If you dislike porn it’s extremely easy to avoid. Unless you are an addict of some kind? A recovering pornhound? I seriously think that even if you are, that’s your problem and you should seek professional help if you can’t get over it.
Your comeback to some of the other posters that they shouldn’t go on about moral codes and religion is *extremely disingenuous*. You brought both of these things into the debate. You sign off with quotes out of the bible and talk about God as a source of your moral judgements. You. Noone else. You talked first and longest about moral codes, so don’t go getting all bitter when people hold you to it and say what a quack your views are, how they pretend to be well thought out and intellectual but are just manifestations of your prejudices. You throw about terms like ‘postmodern’, ’situational ethics’, ‘univeral moral codes’ and so on, but it is clear that you have a shaky grasp on what they mean.
Your moral conscience is not infallible, it is not universal, and you need better arguments if you are to drag me out of my liberal apathy where it concerns events that don’t actually affect either me or you. And no, quoting scripture ain’t argument.
August 22nd, 2006 at 11:32 am
“All I’m saying is mine is right and yours is wrong. Mine deserves to be recognised by law, governance and police – yours doesn’t!”
bwahhh ha ha!
nuff said
August 22nd, 2006 at 11:32 am
How is it possible?
Here’s a lesson in situational ethics:
(1) You believe there is a single objective standard of human dignity and justice.
(2) It is an exercise in moral relativism to include human dignity and justice in any moral code – that is because there are subjective interpretations of what that single objective standard should be; (incidentally, this is why religious doctrine generally takes a universalist view).
(3) Anyone who, on reasonable grounds, considers that a parade of topless pornographic actors does not offend human dignity and justice may not share your single objective standard, but they are surely entitled to live by their own single objective standard.
It’s as easy as 1-2-3!
And then you come up with this clanger:
“But until you can show HOW this is possible it will remain a hypothetical and useless opinion, and we will be resigned to deem the inudtry [sic] IMMORAL.”
I leave it for others to form their own view – but until this point I have seen your opinion as not just hypothetical and useless, but unwavering and uncompromising due to your consistent refusal to even acknowledge that other opinions may just have a shimmer of legitimacy about them.
August 22nd, 2006 at 11:46 am
cheesy said..
“..stay focused or I’ll quit wasting my time..”
oh..please do..please do..cheesy..
and what is this crock about exploitation/dignity/morals around pornography..?
yes..there is a lot of that there..
but ..tell me where it isn’t..?
show me how (say) cleaners and their employers have a relationship/dealings noted for dignity..a lack of exploitation..and ‘morality’..
and this applies to most employment situations..
there are the exploited..and the exploiters..
with not a lot of feckin’ dignity anywhere..
so lets put those straw-man arguments on the bonfire..eh..?
now..what was it about..?
oh..that’s right..the mammary gland and the downfall of civilisation..eh..?
and what to do about it..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 22nd, 2006 at 12:16 pm
Looks like AJ has gone to ground.
It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with a Kiwiblog gangbang against his universal moral code? *Beep* Gangbang is not humanly decent and is definitely unjust. Does a public orgy of this kind offend THE moral code? *Beep* Orgies are most definitely humanly indecent and are unjust.
August 22nd, 2006 at 12:25 pm
Mr Wilson, I’m going to start with you.
Postmodernism is a funny thing. It is actually totally related to modernism, the logical progression when modernism is taken to an extreme. Modernism = rejection of anything that cannot be objectively known with certainty. Postmodernism = realization that nothing can be objectively known with certainty. Modernism = because morality cannot be proven objectively it should not be imposed on anyone. Postmodernism = because nothing can be proven objectively with certainty we should refrain from imposing anything on anyone. What is crucial to both is the belief in the autonomous, uniform and individuated human mind.
The divergence in our views does not prove your conscience differs from mine. It merely shows how isolated from your conscience you have become.
Thank you, though, for actually speaking to my argument. I agree that the female form is beautiful, and there may actually be occasions when a topless woman can be observed in an aesthetic and edifying way without offending anybody. Generally because she behaves in, and is observed with, good taste. A parade, on the back of motor bikes, down Queen Street, by porn actors, promoting an erotica expo on the other hand…
I suspect, Mr Wilson, that you are a consumer of pornography, and that yur conscience is so seared and mind so full of trite arguments that you no longer have an inner conflict over your consumption. However, there are those of us who value our consciences, and have frankly had enough of the attempts of pornographers, the media and marketers to manipulate our sexual appetites and entice us into the market as consumers. To say “If men don’t like it they don’t buy it, don’t download it, don’t look at it” to to display an incredible amount of ignorance. How about getting to know some blokes outside of your pseudo-macho liberosphere.
August 22nd, 2006 at 12:28 pm
Graham, give him credit for addressing quite a lot of the calls. But perhaps he found that he really wasn’t in quite company he thought he was, on either side of the political fence. If so, then some good came of all this typing. I wouldn’t expect him to change his mind, but at least he’s aware that alternative opinion exists and has a voice.
August 22nd, 2006 at 12:32 pm
I agree Ben – but it is so exasperating when my opinion and those of others count for nothing – while he purports to express the definitive opinion. And then, when we attempt to engage in argument with him, the goal posts shift and the sands sink. Where did we go wrong in our attempt to reason with him?
August 22nd, 2006 at 12:35 pm
Mr Miller, dealing with you is a somewhat easier task. On the one hand you said those who approve of a parade of topless pornographic actors should be free to live by those standards, but at the same time you qualified that with “on reasonable grounds”. Who judges whether or not those grounds of reasonable? And what happens when it seems obvious there could be no reasonable grounds? Because guess what, this is one of those moments…
August 22nd, 2006 at 12:36 pm
And then there’s the Whoar… but I suspect we all agree there’s no need to take that man seriously…
August 22nd, 2006 at 12:39 pm
“Who judges whether or not those grounds of reasonable? And what happens when it seems obvious there could be no reasonable grounds? Because guess what, this is one of those moments…”
Are you (a) judge; (b) jury; (c) executioner; or (d) all of the above?
You presume to elevate your subjective opinion to an objective standard that, in turn, rules supreme over all other subjective opinions. On what philosophical basis do you justify this approach?
Dealing with this point, which I have put to you many times now, seems to be no easy task for you!
August 22nd, 2006 at 12:40 pm
Graham asked “Where did we go wrong in our attempt to reason with him?”
The answer being in attempting to reason with him. AJ was/is not here to reason, or to enter an actual debate, he is hear to sermonize. His purpose is to convert, thus you should consider him a missionary and see his correspondence in that vein.
August 22nd, 2006 at 1:10 pm
August 22nd, 2006 at 1:12 pm
“However, there are those of us who value our consciences, and have frankly had enough of the attempts of pornographers, the media and marketers to manipulate our sexual appetites and entice us into the market as consumers.”
So as somebody asked before and you never answered – what are you going to do about it AJ?
SB
August 22nd, 2006 at 1:15 pm
AJ could always run naked down Queen St to make a spirited protest – but that might breach his moral code… and offend our sense of public dignity.
August 22nd, 2006 at 1:17 pm
Ugh. HTML typo. Let’s try that again.
In New Zealand it appears to be the police. And they’ve made their decision.
And I couldn’t help but make this observation:
A.J.Chesswas
A.J.Chesswas
Luke 6:41
August 22nd, 2006 at 1:30 pm
“AJ could always run naked down Queen St ”
No No ! that completely against THE moral code.
SB
August 22nd, 2006 at 1:35 pm
Graham, I trust my own judgment. Do you not also trust yours? I get the impression from this thread you trust your judgment I am wrong. Or perhaps you don’t anymore…
Mine might be subjective, but I assure you it is well-informed, ernest and honest. I cannot be assured that the same is true of yours. This is why I look to use logic and reason to illustrate why my opinion is right. Apart from Ben, I am yet to see any of you even attempt to do this.
And I am afraid I can no longer trust the ability of our police to make good decisions. How sad is that?
Danyl, I may have question ed the health of Mr Wilson’s conscience on the matter of pornography, but I am not condemning him as a totally immoral and reprobate individual. And don’t you worry, I am certainly dealing with the log in my eye. And that good thing about that is, in doing so I can see more clearly to remove the speck from my brother’s eye (read the next verse… amazing what a bit of context can do)…
And SB, I did answer. I emailed Councillors, emailed the mayor, emailed the police commissioner and the Minister of Police. I have emailed a number of friends and contacts and encouraged them to do likewise. Heck, I even encouraged a bit of civil disobedience on my last post. And, of course, I have spent hours of my precious time explaining to you why such an opinion is valid, and hopefully edifying readers with similar sympathies. I am only sad will not be present in Auckland to make a political statement in public. Something along the lines of Mr Miller’s suggestion perhaps…
August 22nd, 2006 at 1:37 pm
No No ! thats completely against THE moral code.
What moral code?
THE moral code!
Where do we find THE moral code?
Why do you keep asking me about the moral code? Are you so stupid you can’t argue with me without always bringing up the moral code?
Then how do you justify your position?
You idiot! On the basis of human dignity and justice set down by THE moral code, of course! It’s the code I live by – the one that means I would never judge another human being, you pathetic empty-headed moron!
August 22nd, 2006 at 1:40 pm
hey Danyl Mclauchlan, in response to your post on August 22, 2006 at 10:25 AM – here is a helpful article written by Ian Wishart which explains why Christianity is different from all the other religions theologically:
http://www.insidelook.co.nz/features/8-may-2004.pdf
as for the topless parade, i believe that it should not go ahead, as there is potential exposure to minors. this is a purely legal argument and has nothing to do with morals – the law is based on allowing private individuals to do what they want so long as it doesn’t harm (to an extent) themselves and others. because the display will be in a public arena, arguably this is no different from having pornographic posters on the streets. if the city wishes to permit this event then in order to be consistent it must change the law so that children under 18 are able to view pornographic images
regarding Jesus – the Bible says if you wish to spend eternity with God then you must admit your sins and be willing to repent from them. this does not mean that everyone who does become a Christian will be perfect in doing this, but the difference is that a Christian will ask for forgiveness for their lust whereas a non-Christian does not see anything wrong with it. ultimately God gives us a choice whether or not to accept that and if we don’t then we bear the consequences by not having an afterlife. rather than trying to save people from Hell by sheltering them i think we ought to allow both sides (subject to the harm principle) and let them decide, ie. the law ought to allow freedom of choice so long as it does not impinge on other peoples’ rights, and in my opinion this breaches the law as it is in a public place and minors without full capacity to consent are potentially subject to it. if you have a problem with that or disagree with me then you would have to change the law so that minors can log on to porn sites legally, be exposed to nudity by other adults, etc. at whatever age, as opposed to 18. regardless of moral views, the correct application of the law as it current stands would be for the event to be held in a private place with restrictions on entry for minors
August 22nd, 2006 at 1:40 pm
Look, Danyel, if you can’t comprehend human dignity and justice it really is your loss…
“Look up at the heavens and see; gaze at the clouds so high above you. If you sin, how does that affect him? If your sins are many, what does that do to him? If you are righteous, what do you give to him, or what does he receive from your hand? Your wickedness affects only a man like yourself, and your righteousness only the sons of men.” – Job 35:5-8
August 22nd, 2006 at 1:48 pm
Mine might be subjective, but I assure you it is well-informed, ernest and honest. I cannot be assured that the same is true of yours. This is why I look to use logic and reason to illustrate why my opinion is right. Apart from Ben, I am yet to see any of you even attempt to do this.
Is this a parody? Your opinion is right because it’s your opinion? So why does that make my opinion wrong?
You speak in the language of “my opinion is right” without distinguishing between fact and opinion.
Look, I’m not sure how much further we can take this – but the parade is going ahead. You have the choice to stand on the side of Queen St and gawk and topless women… or you can make prior arrangements to be elsewhere. It’s your choice… in this free world.
August 22nd, 2006 at 1:51 pm
Um, Stan, I’m not sure where you got your law degree – from the University of Phoenix, perhaps – but comments such as “this is a purely legal argument and has nothing to do with morals” without reference to relevant statute and case law is not going to pass muster in any court of law.
Sorry dude!
August 22nd, 2006 at 1:56 pm
AJ, like I said, your understanding of postmodernism appears to be very shaky. But we can go with your very private definition. At least I now know what you mean by this elusive, confusing term. To you it appears to mean relativism. I utterly disagree with you about modernism, however. To me, modernism simply means that we believe we *can* solve problems, and we are attempting to do so. This applies across all of society, from morals and ethics to practical matters. So you are modernist in your ‘moral code’ because you really think it forms the building blocks of a good society. I’m also modernist, I just argue that different building blocks are better.
Postmodernism has always seemed to me to be a rejection of this, a belief in the futility of that attempt or a belief that the modernist means are insufficient. I don’t really profess to know exactly what postmodernists think about most things, they disagree amongst themselves so much and they really do talk cryptically. So when you attempt to put them in a box and say what they think about porn I really think you’re talking rubbish. Many feminist authors claim to be postmodern and are at least as bitter as you on things like this parade.
So again I say that your talk of postmodernism is a red herring. I have heard very little from the critics of you on this thread that sounds the least bit postmodern, except for the throwaway lines, which abandon reason and attempt to make you understand their point via ridicule.
Back to the topic, your only contribution to a modernist attempt to pursuade me any further is:
“A parade, on the back of motor bikes, down Queen Street, by porn actors, promoting an erotica expo on the other hand…”,
in which you merely reiterate your point. You think it’s wrong. Why? That’s what I want to know. What is it about this particular combination exposing the beautiful female form that you object to so strongly? Do you have a problem with motorbikes where you live? Or are you bitter there’s no erotica expos out there? Or are porn actors people of shame who should hide? Or is it that money will be made?
Your final point is merely speculative psychobabble. I admit I indulged in it a bit myself, so fair’s fair. Yeah, I have consumed porn in my life, and I’m sure you have too. Otherwise you really must be talking about what you have no knowledge of. But I don’t defend it because I have used it. I defend it because I don’t think it’s wrong. I’m not going to the parade, man. I’m merely defending the right of people to have those kind of parades, no matter what remote wowsers think about it.
August 22nd, 2006 at 2:03 pm
Stan,
If you think that a topless parade down Queen street will harm minors then you better not let you kids onto the beaches in summer or you will see the same thing without the bikes.
Are you really saying that you can’t see a difference between a parade on Queen street and a hardcore porn web site?
Lets be clear I am not for letting under 18’s see porn images however I have no problem with the parade as I don’t regard it as porn.
SB
August 22nd, 2006 at 2:07 pm
Graham, you cannot possibly tell me that you’re so ignorant that you need a legal statute or case law to back up the statement that it is an offense for minors to view pornography? or for pornography/adult nudity to be exposed to minors in a public place?
i can’t be bothered looking for the relevant statute or case law, but i am willing to bet $10 (cheque and postage paid) that what i have stated above is fact, and in order to prove me wrong i challenge you to visit http://www.legislation.govt.nz and find a statute which allows for children under 18 to watch porn in a public place. clearly the topless parade falls under the category of pornongraphy and not art
looks like you couldn’t rebut my argument regarding the event’s legality and therefore tried to set up a strawman by casting doubt on my references to throw it the point at hand off course because it invalidates everything you’ve posted on this thread in support of the parade (not that i had time to read through all the posts)?
August 22nd, 2006 at 2:11 pm
I can’t be bothered looking for the relevant statute or case law, but i am willing to bet $10 (cheque and postage paid) that what i have stated above is fact, and in order to prove me wrong i challenge you to visit http://www.legislation.govt.nz and find a statute which allows for children under 18 to watch porn in a public place. clearly the topless parade falls under the category of pornongraphy and not art.
Uh oh… another lame attempt at throwing the onus of proof onto someone else.
Let’s try again:
[A]s for the topless parade, i believe that it should not go ahead, as there is potential exposure to minors. this is a purely legal argument and has nothing to do with morals – the law is based on allowing private individuals to do what they want so long as it doesn’t harm (to an extent) themselves and others. because the display will be in a public arena, arguably this is no different from having pornographic posters on the streets. if the city wishes to permit this event then in order to be consistent it must change the law so that children under 18 are able to view pornographic images.
This was YOUR “legal argument” – now you come up with the legal reasoning to support it.
August 22nd, 2006 at 2:14 pm
in fact, i did actually write an e-mail to Police Commissioner Howard Broad putting forward this argument but it appears he just replied with a standard e-mail that he wrote for people like AJ without actually addressing any of the points i made. he addressed the issue of a topless parade not being an “indecent act” under the Crimes Act but did not make any reference to the legality of exposure of nudity to minors. pornography is not indecent in the eyes of the law, but is illegal if shown to people under the age of 18. that is not moral reasoning, but a purely legal application of the law. whether or not the law itself is moral is up to Parliament to decide, ie. if they want minors to be allowed to be exposed to pornography, as the majority of the people in this thread would be indirectly allowing in their support for the parade, then the age requirement of viewing nudity should be abolished. if AJ’s moral standpoint is to be taken, then the capacity to view pornography should be set at never as opposed to 18
August 22nd, 2006 at 2:15 pm
Don’t bother Stan. You might notice that time and again through this thread I have explained how pornography and topless parades are immoral, yet Miller takes things out of context and says things like “Your opinion is right because it’s your opinion?”, completely oblivious to the explanations I have provided. Of course he hasn’t once shown why it could be considered a good thing. He’s so hung up on allowing people to make their own judgments that it seems he’s unsubscribed from his own brain.
August 22nd, 2006 at 2:17 pm
i have no idea what you’re on about Graham. the legal reasoning is because the age to view pornography is 18. that is not a moral judgment, but the law as it stands
as for the statement “i believe it should not go ahead” – what i meant was legally i believe it should not go ahead, just as if it was a crime to drive your car on a Tuesday (as it used to be for some during the Muldoon era) i would say “i believe you cannot drive your car on a Tuesday”. that’s not my moral viewpoint, it is what i believe the law to be as it is made by Parliament
August 22nd, 2006 at 2:19 pm
Yes I got the same email Stan. Unfortunately Mr Broad didn’t provide any references for the supposed case law that supports public nudity.
By the way, this is comment 150 looks like we’re going to match the last post… and Ben, I will respond in time…
August 22nd, 2006 at 2:21 pm
Gee AJ – ad hominen alert.
Don’t bother Stan. You might notice that time and again through this thread I have explained how pornography and topless parades are immoral, yet Miller takes things out of context and says things like “Your opinion is right because it’s your opinion?”, completely oblivious to the explanations I have provided.
Hmmm… I guess everyone else took things out of context and are also completely oblivious to your explanations? Or could it be that your explanations were unconvincing?
Now, AJ, how about ADDRESSING some of my points about subjective/objective standards?
August 22nd, 2006 at 2:21 pm
“clearly the topless parade falls under the category of pornongraphy and not art”
Hi Stan, its not clear to most people why you are saying this. Its not art but most real New Zealand people would not regard it porn either.
Do you want to try and explain why its porn?
SB
August 22nd, 2006 at 2:24 pm
At least Ben attempted to show why my reasoning was unconvincing. And why should I address your points when you’re not even willing to address the ones I have raised. And mine are actually directly addressing the topic of this post.
August 22nd, 2006 at 2:25 pm
as for my own personal opinion, Graham and AJ, pornography creates in me a lustful desire, but i choose not to be subject to it because i value and have faith in God’s promise that lust should be reserved until marriage, and most importantly out of respect for God’s wisdom and guidance. it is like saying you could spend $100 on buying your favourite computer game, but your father says to you spend that money on charity instead. sure i would derive pleasure from playing the game, but i trust that what my dad tells me to do with the money is righteous. and in the end i will be compensated for choosing love for my wife over lust for pornstars, you can argue that there is nothing wrong with lust for pornstars, an opinion you are entitled to, but if the Bible is true then you are not storing up your treasures in Heaven, and if that’s not what you want (ie. an afterlife with God) then go ahead and watch porn, but i know that for myself i do want to be a Christian. so that’s my moral viewpoint. but as for the topless parade, i oppose it communally (ie. preventing it from going ahead publically as opposed to privately) on a legal and not moral basis, and oppose it individually (ie. they can do it if they like, but i personally won’t be a part of it) on a moral basis
August 22nd, 2006 at 2:26 pm
Stan I think when you use the word “lust” you mean “sexual desire”. To lust is to desire something you have no right to. Like coveting. You can’t lust after your wife!
August 22nd, 2006 at 2:27 pm
hey SB, i consider it “porn” because the event organiser Steve Crow admits it is promotion for the Erotica event, ie. a pornographic event, and also from studying sexual offenses in criminal law at Canterbury University where it is illegal for men to be in parks showing their genitals to young girls, whether directly or indirectly (ie. the illegal exposure argument)
August 22nd, 2006 at 2:27 pm
I’ll leave it for others to judge whether I attempted to address your points. But I’m certainly prepared to defend my position that you haven’t addressed mine.
As I said… the parade is going ahead with or without your support. Or do you have other ideas?
August 22nd, 2006 at 2:32 pm
note: my computer is almost out of batteries so this will be my last post, at least until later on tonight
Biblically you must love your wife AJ, yes, however we do not deny that we cannot always control our lust. lust is accepted on the basis that it is a part of human nature, as we are imperfect, but it cannot be the dominant focus of the relationship between married partners
1 Corinthians 7:1 Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. 2 But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. 8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. 10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
August 22nd, 2006 at 2:36 pm
Stan
Let me point out the problem with your “legal” argument.
Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 (Reprint as at 24 August 2005) 042
8: Offences
127 Exhibition to persons under 18
(1) Every person commits an offence against this Act who exhibits or
displays an objectionable publication to any person under the age of 18 years.
The legislation you are referring to applies to the publication of objectionable material. Being topless is not a publication. Are you saying that breastfeeding women are participating in pornography?
Oh and AJ… Are you being deliberately obtuse or do you really not understand what is being discussed here?
What is being questioned is your assertion of “THE moral code”. No-one has a problem that you have a differing opinion about Boobs on Bikes. We have a problem with your assertion that you are right and everyone else is wrong, without any attempt to provide evidence to support the assertion.
August 22nd, 2006 at 2:39 pm
Me:
“I have already shared the moral code a number of times, and shown how the pornstar parade is, basically, an abomination. The moral code is grounded in the principles of human dignity and justice. Pornography and topless parades are inconsistent with this because they demean the dignity of women, who are related to on the basis of their sexuality (and a very meager representation of their sexuality) rather than the intellectual and emotional aspects of their personality. They are related to on the basis of their ability to satisfy the male sexual appetite, rather than on the basis of who they are. They are exploited rather than edified.
Furthermore, pornography exploits males. One thing liberals seem to ignore is that the human mind is not actually uniform in its decision-making process. A man does not desire to consume pornography or gawk at womens’ breasts without any contrary desire. The human will always walks a tightrope between shallow, unproductive, carnal desires and more edifying, productive and beneficial desires. When a man chooses to consume pornography he acts on one desire in spite of those other desires. And when pimps, pornographers and porn actors flood the market with their products and services they merely make it harder for men to make the right choice, and easier to make the bad choice. As I inferred earlier when addressing Graham; very few people can sustain such an assault on their conscience without finding it completely seared.”
Qualified with:
“I agree that the female form is beautiful, and there may actually be occasions when a topless woman can be observed in an aesthetic and edifying way without offending anybody. Generally because she behaves in, and is observed with, good taste. A parade, on the back of motor bikes, down Queen Street, by porn actors, promoting an erotica expo on the other hand…”
and
“there are those of us who value our consciences, and have frankly had enough of the attempts of pornographers, the media and marketers to manipulate our sexual appetites and entice us into the market as consumers. To say “If men don’t like it they don’t buy it, don’t download it, don’t look at it” to to display an incredible amount of ignorance.”
The closest Graham Miller came to addressing my points:
“Your contributions to this thread have been layered with religious overtones – and certainly selective quoting of the scriptures. Forgive us if we mistook you for a religion in search of a moral highground.”
Miller’s latest comment:
“I’ll leave it for others to judge whether I attempted to address your points.”
I would be especially interested if someone could point out the religious and scriptural overtones in my argument.
August 22nd, 2006 at 2:40 pm
I would be especially interested if someone could point out the religious and scriptural overtones in my argument.
Oh well – now I see the limited extent of your writing comprehension!
August 22nd, 2006 at 2:41 pm
Weizguy see my last comment for what you call “evidence”. Stan, I would still use the word “sexual desire” rather than lust.
August 22nd, 2006 at 2:42 pm
wow that was really convincing Graham
August 22nd, 2006 at 2:43 pm
So I’m assuming stan is a law student? Seems there’s a little bit missing from his understanding – say a few more years…?
Your example of indecent exposure has been shut down by the police – it’s a very different statute to the pornography example you gave.
AJ
i thought we’d resolved your confusion about “lust” – Some time ago. I’m pretty sure we agreed there was a difference between sinful lust, and appropriate lust.
August 22nd, 2006 at 2:44 pm
I just don’t see myself explaining to my [hypothetical] wife how much I lust after her. I’d tell her how much I desire her…
August 22nd, 2006 at 2:46 pm
Take it right back to the top:
You would hope that the law and the state reflected reality would you not, Gooner?
And reality tends to reflect the nature of God one would presume…
Posted by A.J.Chesswas | August 21, 2006 10:02 AM
August 22nd, 2006 at 2:48 pm
still not convinced…
August 22nd, 2006 at 2:53 pm
AJ your comprehension of the concept of evidence seems to be lacking. You’ve explained why you believe than porn is immoral. What you haven’t explained is why your opinion = THE moral code.
You keep talking about bad choices and wrong choices, but never say why they are wrong and bad choices. Are you used to discussing these things with people who have the same set of beliefs as you?
I don’t think i’d tell my [actual] wife how much I lust after her, though I might call her “lusty” – More for shits and giggles than anything else, but neither would I tell her that “I desired her”… Maybe that’s your problem?
I have already shared the moral code a number of times
No. You haven’t. You’ve said that: “The moral code is grounded in the principles of human dignity and justice. ” You’ve never told us what THE moral code is. My personal morals are derived from justice, and less from dignity, but they are very different to yours.
What is THE moral code?
August 22nd, 2006 at 2:53 pm
If you squint your eyes and hold your tongue the right way you might be able to see it in posts like:
My deepest personal beliefs are in God’s goodness and grace, in spite of our obvious rebellion, and in spite of our obviously corrupted spiritual condition. The gospel and teachings of The Lord Jesus Christ are simply the mystery of God’s grace revealed in detail. Unmatched by any other philosophical or religious system. Unmatched by any other life, person or story. Both compellingly historical, and compellingly immanent.
August 22nd, 2006 at 3:06 pm
OK Ben:
You’re right, the postmodern thing just confuses things. Those I’m arguing with here aren’t necessarily PoMo in the true sense of the word. I should know better than to use labels anyway, a bit hypocritical of me really!
The reason I oppose pornography and the proposed parades is because by it the sacred female form, more specifically those sacred aspects of female sexuality, are made profane by their indiscriminate publicity.
And sorry to bring up personal stuff like that, if it makes you better I’ll admit it is a huge struggle for me (which should be obvious to any reader anyway). What I was saying is the desire to consume pornography on the part of males is not as phsychologically unanimous (for want of a better word) as people make out. We tend to be in two minds over it, the little dude with the fork on one shoulder saying get amongst it, the guy with the halo saying don’t do it! My concern is that by allowing and approving of such things we make it that much harder for men trying to live a decent life but prone to weakness.
Weizguy:
I really don’t know what you want. The evidence that human dignity and justice are the basis of the moral code is in its internal coherence, its common-sense practicality, and resonance with the human spirit. I’ve illustrated how it applies in this instance, and done so beautifully, unmatched by any example to the contrary. That’s good enough for me. If not for you then henceforth our paths diverge. It will not stop me believing in my convictions though, and in their universal applicability and political sensibility.
Danyl:
What you quote there was something I shared about my personal background and beliefs, because someone accused me of being sheltered and socially conditioned. How does believing in God’s goodness and grace and human freewill, and an appreciation of the Christian faith, disqualify someone from public debate?
August 22nd, 2006 at 3:18 pm
August 22nd, 2006 at 3:19 pm
How does believing in God’s goodness and grace and human freewill, and an appreciation of the Christian faith, disqualify someone from public debate?
Oh God – now you’re being deliberately dense.
A number of people have engaged in a public debate with you (and a very entertaining one at that) as to the substance of your arguments. It’d be overly simplistic, and unfair, to summarise your arguments as thinly-veiled religious incantations. But the simple fact is that you have made repeated reference to the Bible in support of your position. That doesn’t necessarily make your contributions wrong or somehow less worthy of consideration.
But it’s intellectually disingenuous for you to now resile from the fact that your position is, to a greater or lesser extent, based on a religious standpoint.
I’ve already quoted you as saying “[y]ou would hope that the law and the state reflected reality” and that “reality tends to reflect the nature of God one would presume”. Others can scroll up and read your other references to Biblical verse for themselves.
August 22nd, 2006 at 3:25 pm
My point “nature reflects the reality of God” is true whether you believe in God or not. I made it when someone was trying to say there was a difference between morality and ethics. The thing is, my arguments don’t really rest on whether or not that is true, but you’d be suprised how many people actually believe in some sort of universal spiritual force. But then maybe you wouldn’t be so suprised…
So, show me where I have used a Bible verse, and nothing else, to prove a point…
August 22nd, 2006 at 3:27 pm
that should [obviously] have read “reality reflects the nature of God”…
August 22nd, 2006 at 3:38 pm
Request for a special favour:
I would be especially interested if someone could point out the religious and scriptural overtones in my argument.
Don’t wish for something – you just might get it:
The reason my moral code clashes with many of the social and market forces active in our country today is because I still believe in the dignity of humanity. I believe in our potential, our ability to live lives of excellence and glory, our ability to build communities, nations, Kingdoms that are full of life and vitality.
These beliefs and values are not merely personal values. I see them in every person I meet. In every social institution that exists. But of course a see a psychotic mix of both this good nature and the corrupted nature. Again, what can explain this better than Christianity? These beliefs and values are not merely relative values. When applied to any and every life they result in peace, love, joy, righteousness and holiness.
Posted by A.J.Chesswas | August 21, 2006 8:22 PM
Now what part of “religious and scriptural overtones in my argument” was it that you didn’t understand?
August 22nd, 2006 at 3:45 pm
The evidence that human dignity and justice are the basis of the moral code is in its internal coherence, its common-sense practicality, and resonance with the human spirit.
Oh dear… You really don’t understand do you. What does that sentence even mean?
I’ve illustrated how it applies in this instance, and done so beautifully, unmatched by any example to the contrary.
Again, you’ve demonstrated why you think it’s immoral in this situation. However, you have not provided any evidence that your moral code is either universally accepted or even universally applicable.
It will not stop me believing in my convictions though, and in their universal applicability and political sensibility.
You can believe in it as much as you like, but unless you provide any evidence of universality, you will not convert anyone. You made the assertion, it is up to you to provide the evidence. In that you are lacking. Consequently, you have failed to demonstrate the absolute truth of your opinion. Consequently, it remains a baseless assertion.
Again I ask – is this a comprehension issue, or are you being obtuse?
August 22nd, 2006 at 3:48 pm
OK what I am addressing here, again, is that my beliefs and values are not a result of my Christianity. My Christianity is a result of my beliefs and values.
People say, “well you’re a Christian, you’re biased”. What if I said I’m not going to listen to you talk about morals because you’ve shared with me your story, and it turns out you’ve rejected God and become an Atheist?
It is not that my morality has Christian overtones; it is that my Christianity has moral overtones.
But keep on looking into the corners of this thread that are as far off topic as possible. Keep on plucking comments out of context and using them to distract people from the real argument I summed up just before, which Mr Wilson politely and kindly addressed. The rest of us will remain depressingly entertained by the futility of a man trying to argue against morality.
August 22nd, 2006 at 3:52 pm
The reason I oppose pornography and the proposed parades is because by it the sacred female form, more specifically those sacred aspects of female sexuality, are made profane by their indiscriminate publicity.
What part of this statement is not universal?
All females are sacred. The sexuality of every female is sacred. The exposure of the phsyical aspects of female sexuality in a public place profanes the sacred, and is always and everywhere immoral.
August 22nd, 2006 at 3:54 pm
Someone give this man a copy of National Geographic.
August 22nd, 2006 at 3:56 pm
What if I said I’m not going to listen to you talk about morals because you’ve shared with me your story, and it turns out you’ve rejected God and become an Atheist?
I didn’t reject anything, I simply don’t believe in your god, just like I don’t believe in Allah, Cthulu, Ra, Thor, Zeus, and thousands of other gods.
OK what I am addressing here, again, is that my beliefs and values are not a result of my Christianity. My Christianity is a result of my beliefs and values.
I have to call bullshit on this – not that it matters. Are you saying you believe in god because you developed what you say is a universal set of morals, and that most closely fit Christianity? I have to ask when you became a Christian. One suspects your religion had more to do with your morals than your morals have to do with your “choice” of religion.
Regardless – it doesn’t matter. You still haven’t said why your moral code is correct while the Islamic one is incorrect. The suspicion about your religion has come from your inability to see shades of grey in what is a far from clear cut area.
August 22nd, 2006 at 3:57 pm
Read closer Danyl, you’ll notice the word “indiscriminate”…
August 22nd, 2006 at 4:01 pm
“You still haven’t said why your moral code is correct while the Islamic one is incorrect”
Do you realise what a massive undertaking this would be Weizguy? Even to define what is th Christian moral code beyond “Love God love neighbour” would be a feat in itself. And to define Islam would be similarly difficult. Why don’t we just stick to case-by-case debates on the grounds of human dignity and justice?
August 22nd, 2006 at 4:01 pm
The reason I oppose pornography and the proposed parades is because by it the sacred female form, more specifically those sacred aspects of female sexuality, are made profane by their indiscriminate publicity.
Which part of this is not universal?
1. Women are not sacred – they are human. They are people and not concepts.
2. Which aspects are sacred and why? Why do you come to this conclusion?
3. Why is enjoying the female form profane?
More assertion without evidence. We aren’t arguning from the same standpoint. I disagree – tell me why i’m wrong?
August 22nd, 2006 at 4:05 pm
1. Women are not sacred – they are human. They are people and not concepts.
Sorry, I didn’t realise humans weren’t sacred. Shall I start swearing at you and abusing you now?
2. Which aspects are sacred and why? Why do you come to this conclusion?
The more that is sacred the better, because it creates a deeper bond for the marital relationship (woops did I use the word marital…. lol… guess what, marriage has been around a lot longer than religion…)
3. Why is enjoying the female form profane?
Enjoying the female form is not profane. Enjoying it without a relational context is.
August 22nd, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Its becoming abundently clear that AJ needs a girlfriend. A few weeks of mood swings, manipulation, emotional blackmail and hormone induced temper-tantrums will cure you of this ‘all females are sacred’ bullshit real quick.
August 22nd, 2006 at 4:10 pm
The rest of us will remain depressingly entertained by the futility of a man trying to argue against morality
This is comical – I nominate you for the title of chief court jester! You’ve provided us all with enough entertainment to have earned this title many times over!
You challenged us to point out the religious and scriptural overtones in your argument. I have done so and others have also obliged.
To which your response is:
But keep on looking into the corners of this thread that are as far off topic as possible. Keep on plucking comments out of context and using them to distract people from the real argument I summed up just before.
That speaks volumes!
Now, since we’re all distracted, where might we find this summary of your argument that you speak of? I would like to read this summary as a stand-alone text, disregarding any superfluous comments, so you’ll need to explain where your argument begins and ends.
August 22nd, 2006 at 4:10 pm
And there it is, thank you Daryl. As I said, if you cannot agree with me about the sacredness and dignity and females, and the need for us to treat them justly, and stand up for the oppressed, then I cannot take you seriously.
I used to think feminism was the problem. I cannot believe how wrong I was. All this talk about a day of equal rights is a cover-up for a nation that is mysogynistic it makes me feel sick.
August 22nd, 2006 at 4:13 pm
“Read closer Danyl, you’ll notice the word “indiscriminate”…”
What, so societies where it is the standard for women to remain topless at all times are in fact being discriminating about their publicity?
I agree with weizguy. Women are no more sacred of their being female than I am sacred by dint of my maleness. Similarly, am I to find their boobs sacred for some reason but not, say, their hair, feet or faces? Should those remain covered at all times too to avoid offending The Moral Code Of Which You Speak?
August 22nd, 2006 at 4:13 pm
Again, for Mr Miller:
Me:
“I have already shared the moral code a number of times, and shown how the pornstar parade is, basically, an abomination. The moral code is grounded in the principles of human dignity and justice. Pornography and topless parades are inconsistent with this because they demean the dignity of women, who are related to on the basis of their sexuality (and a very meager representation of their sexuality) rather than the intellectual and emotional aspects of their personality. They are related to on the basis of their ability to satisfy the male sexual appetite, rather than on the basis of who they are. They are exploited rather than edified.
Furthermore, pornography exploits males. One thing liberals seem to ignore is that the human mind is not actually uniform in its decision-making process. A man does not desire to consume pornography or gawk at womens’ breasts without any contrary desire. The human will always walks a tightrope between shallow, unproductive, carnal desires and more edifying, productive and beneficial desires. When a man chooses to consume pornography he acts on one desire in spite of those other desires. And when pimps, pornographers and porn actors flood the market with their products and services they merely make it harder for men to make the right choice, and easier to make the bad choice. As I inferred earlier when addressing Graham; very few people can sustain such an assault on their conscience without finding it completely seared.”
Qualified with:
“I agree that the female form is beautiful, and there may actually be occasions when a topless woman can be observed in an aesthetic and edifying way without offending anybody. Generally because she behaves in, and is observed with, good taste. A parade, on the back of motor bikes, down Queen Street, by porn actors, promoting an erotica expo on the other hand…”
and
“there are those of us who value our consciences, and have frankly had enough of the attempts of pornographers, the media and marketers to manipulate our sexual appetites and entice us into the market as consumers. To say “If men don’t like it they don’t buy it, don’t download it, don’t look at it” to to display an incredible amount of ignorance.”
August 22nd, 2006 at 4:15 pm
Do you realise what a massive undertaking this would be Weizguy?
I do, which is why I asked. You have made a claim – I disagree with you. It is for you to provide the evidence.
Sorry, I didn’t realise humans weren’t sacred. Shall I start swearing at you and abusing you now?
Why? That would be a bizarre response. Humans are human – surely being sacred isn’t required for someone to be polite? If something isn’t sacred, do you start swearing at it?
The more that is sacred the better, because it creates a deeper bond for the marital relationship
Seeing as i’m married, and there’s nothing sacred about the union, i’ll thank you for not judging my relationship. I wonder who knows more about the marital relationship… Hmmm…?
Enjoying the female form is not profane. Enjoying it without a relational context is.
Why?
Why don’t we just stick to case-by-case debates on the grounds of human dignity and justice?
Because that’s not what you asserted. You asserted that there was THE moral code, and that you knew what it was, and that you were right and I was wrong.
Don’t try to sneak out now. This is just getting good.
August 22nd, 2006 at 4:16 pm
You need to lighten up when dealing with women AJ, otherwise you are never going to get laid.
SB
August 22nd, 2006 at 4:18 pm
Err, some cultures have a better record in their treatment of women, and their ability to build strong healthy families and societies, than others. When Danyl mentioned National Geographic I thought he was talking about articles on anatomy, not anmthropology.
Weizguy, lets not get into the psychology of why breasts are attractive, and are considered more integral to a woman’s personality than her feet or her face. Hair, there is some link there, which is why some women prefer to have their heads covered…
August 22nd, 2006 at 4:21 pm
My moral code I meant the principles of human dignity and justice (how many times do I have to day this). What difference would it make if I told you my moral opinion on any and every matter under the sun?
August 22nd, 2006 at 4:24 pm
I would rather remain a virgin for the rest of my life than ever take advantage of a woman SB. But then again, you don’t believe in morality so wouldn’t expect you to understand…
August 22nd, 2006 at 4:25 pm
Maybe that was a bit obscure. NG used to be famous for its photo-essays of African tribes in which the women went about bare-breasted. Presumably they didn’t have any chaste 26 year-old guys around to tell them that their breasts were sacred and that it was profane to show them in public.
August 22nd, 2006 at 4:27 pm
How many tribal African women do you know Danyl?
August 22nd, 2006 at 4:30 pm
Enough.
August 22nd, 2006 at 4:38 pm
“Weizguy, lets not get into the psychology of why breasts are attractive, and are considered more integral to a woman’s PERSONALITY than her feet or her face.”
lol that should have read SEXUALITY…
and that’s 200 comments…
August 22nd, 2006 at 4:43 pm
“I would rather remain a virgin for the rest of my life than ever take advantage of a woman”
What a strange world you live in AJ. I have never regarded making love as taking advantage of her?
If anybody is taking advantage of anybody is her of me!
And as I have made plain I do believe in morality
if anything I believe even more than you, however my morality and yours are different a point you seem to be unable to comprend.
I believe in a moral code just not THE moral code.
SB
August 22nd, 2006 at 4:45 pm
“You need to lighten up when dealing with women AJ, otherwise you are never going to get laid.”
I interpreted this statement to mean that I need to stop thinking so highly of women in order to “get laid”. I mean who even uses that terminology in a reasoned debate. I find it hard to believe that in your sexual relationships you are the one being taken advantage of…
August 22nd, 2006 at 4:47 pm
Man who even says that? What woul she think if she knew you told people she was taking advantage of you? That is quite strange…
August 22nd, 2006 at 4:59 pm
“What would she think if she knew you told people she was taking advantage of you?” she would laugh, then laugh some more probably spilling her drink, then she would slap me and tell me I am a silly P*i*k and laugh again. With luck later she would drag me of to take more advantage of me……and she would love it ,love it all………
But rereading you posts I have realised something AJ, something disturbing, your approach is all a smoke screen, you really hate women don’t you.
They say the wrong things, they wear the wrong clothes, they go to the wrong night clubs, watch the wrong videos, ride on motorbikes (topless)without asking your permission. They make decisions you don’t approve of,they have sex with men without getting married first, they perform in porn movies that are against THE moral code, the list is almost endless……..
I fear for any women near you.
SB
August 22nd, 2006 at 5:01 pm
My moral code I meant the principles of human dignity and justice (how many times do I have to day this). What difference would it make if I told you my moral opinion on any and every matter under the sun?
No. You didn’t. You said there was a universal moral code that was based on the principles of human dignity and justice. You then failed to explain what the moral code was.
You claim to care about me, because I don’t follow the code, and then do nothing to help me. I hate to say that it’s typical of the Christian response. Patronise, claim to care, and then leave dangling.
The simple fact is that you are arguing from position, rather than from principle. You have a twisted perception of love, women, and relationships, and this seems to be hampering your ability to relate to women.
I’ll have to go home tonight and tell my wife that I took advantage of her, despite the fact that she pretty much made all the first moves.
There’s still a number of questions you haven’t answered, which seems to be your Modus Operandi… Did you miss them, or are you avoiding them?
August 22nd, 2006 at 5:06 pm
Actually, SB, it is men liek you who ae the problem. Men liek you only notice their wives when they’re wearing the wrong things. Men like you only give them attention when they go to the wrong night clubs, men like you notice the women in those videos more than their own wives, men like you hire women to ride topless on motor bikes. Men like you con women into having sex with them without giving them the security of marriage. Men like you consume the porn movies that are against the moral code…
Libertarians like you are all the same. Behind teh smokescreen of choice, individual autonomy and human rights is the confidence you can manipulate women into making the choices you want them to make, making a mockery of their autonomy and their human rights. If you don’t understand think of George Bush and Iraq – he promises them freedom, democracy and human rights, but in effect is simply establishing an order that helps him get what he wants – oil, and copntrol of the Middle East…
Sorry, we’re not that stupid…
August 22nd, 2006 at 5:17 pm
Oh dear – AJ has finally reviewed a pride-and-prejudice perspective.
I wouldn’t go so far as to put you in the camp of Graham Capill, who fell spectacularly from grace, but it’s always struck me as ironic that those who preach the gospel of human decency and morality, on closer examination, turn out to prone to allegations of hypocrisy.
In your case, AJ, I would say you’re prone to allegations of blissful ignorance in your masculine-framed worldview of women.
August 22nd, 2006 at 5:32 pm
is cheswas only 26..?
feck..!..he reads like he’s the other way around…about 62..
(betcha he’s got wild taste in music/movies ..eh..?…)
’sound of music/streisland/houston/bolton..?
whaddayareckon..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 22nd, 2006 at 5:50 pm
I think it’s time to give AJ a rest. He’s trying to give too many people responses and his entire case has fallen to pieces.
An unmarried virgin preaching about women’s sexuality is like a child trying to tell a mechanic about how a car works – very long, and mostly wrong.
I’m not the least bit surprised you have a fixation, AJ. You need to get some. It’s really that simple. And whatever you do, don’t get married just for that, or your life will become a misery. Whoever you marry, you’ll be having sex with for the rest of your life, so take care that the sex is worth it. You’ll need to have sex in order to grace the Lord with children, so you really do need to be able to get it up.
Or don’t have any sex, if that’s your bag. But seriously man, you’re in a really tiny minority if you reckon that’s a good idea. Why do you think God gave you balls? It wasn’t so they could be kicked around on forums.
August 22nd, 2006 at 6:25 pm
lol well my case hasn’t fallen apart, and I know how I would answer that last question – times like this I realise the good Lord’s provision isn’t always for the reasons we would prefer…
August 22nd, 2006 at 6:32 pm
I am perplexed why AJ does not just come out and say he bases his morality on biblical scripture, and the counter bloggers have a morality based on ??? The contra resent standards based constraint, even though somewhere they will have their own inate line in the sand. Even jailed murderers and rapists will thrash a child molester because they beleive he has crossed a line between right and wrong. Its a question of degree. Hence the appeal to ‘whats legal’ as the cop explained some 200 posts back. Relativism versus objectivism.
A rosy and respectful view of women is his and good for him, but go work with a mob of them for a while and that should peel off. You can’t live with and you can’t live without them. But don’t let me put you off AJ. Good luck to you.
August 22nd, 2006 at 6:33 pm
oh weizguy, just noticed your post..
sorry if I promised to deliver a moral code based on the principles of human dignity and justice. I didn’t mean to. That would be a very stupid promise. Perhaps you misinterpreted me.
Look if you can’t comprehend those vital principles, of human dignity and justice, then don’t start crying to me. You can’t really expect me to provide you with a whole moral code here in this post, tonight. C’mon, I know it might not seem like it but I do have other things to do. The Bible is pretty much generally accurate, so if you really need to know get stuck into the gospel of Matthew.
August 22nd, 2006 at 6:53 pm
So many of these people are such low IQ narrow insular morons AJ, you deserve a medal for your patience..
August 22nd, 2006 at 7:18 pm
Cheers Redbaiter…
Who is this Graham Miller guy? Flip he’s the most trying of the lot. Doesn’t even read the comments and then wags on as if he knows what he’s talking about…
August 22nd, 2006 at 7:28 pm
aj..just taking another tack here..
what have you got against using pornography…?
when (for the user)it’s the safest sex there is…?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
btw…you never answered my earlier question..
how do you ‘handle it?’…
or do you rely on nocturnal emmissions..?
(spilling your seed upon the sheet..
as it were..)
(isn’t there some biblical injunction against that..?..
the spilling of the seed upon the sheet..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 22nd, 2006 at 7:39 pm
LOL AJ, are you suggesting your balls actually are for getting kicked around on this forum? But then, since God forsees all, it seems so.
August 22nd, 2006 at 7:50 pm
I don’t know AJ, but this ranting small minded idiot Phil U is one of the most worthless of all. I’m not religious myself but I have no problem with Christians and regard them as a net positive for society. As opposed to narrow simple fuckwits like Phil, so ignorant they couldn’t even get close to thinking about the real issues, and so desperate to be seen as part of the socially ascendant class they will say and do anything before they would ever think of swimming against the socialist stream. He reminds me so much of that saying, “its the dead fish who travel with the flow”
The rank intolerance for Christianity that is so widely prevalent in NZ is another social characteristic that really disappoints me. Such bigotry is just another manifestation of the overall Marxist mood that is so socially ascendant here. The same weak minded and trendy mood that generates the sappy assumption that to embrace pornography, and be socially liberal, is somehow akin in principle to classic liberalism, when it isn’t, and never has been. The classic liberal sees wimmin in a way that is much closer to your own perspective. These people cheering for the money grubbing little creep Steve Crow and his dumbfuck harlots are by and large just shallow trendy morons. I wonder how many of them are family men.
August 22nd, 2006 at 7:53 pm
One of my favourite cities in the world is Copenhagen, not least because in the summertime the office girls sunbathe topless in the Kongens Have gardens.
Sadly the lovely sophisticated girls of Denmark don’t have AJ to tell them that this behaviour is ‘an abomination’ but if they did I think the conversation would go something like this:
AJ You need to cover your breasts.
LISE Why?
AJ Because they’re sacred and publically exposing them is profane.
LISE My breasts aren’t ’sacred’.
AJ Yes they are.
LISE I don’t think so.
AJ Well you’re wrong.
LISE Who are you to tell me that I’m wrong?
AJ Ah! (Proudly) I happen to know that there is a universal moral code derived from principles of justice and dignity and this code tells me that I am right and you are wrong.
LISE Is this, like, a religious thing?
AJ Not at all. Like I said, it’s derived from universal truths emanating from principles of human dignity and truth.
LISE So what does this non-religious moral code look like?
AJ It’s identical to Christianity in every respect. You can read all about it in the Bible.
LISE Hey! This IS a religious thing!
AJ (Sighs) Not at all – my argument has NOTHING to do with religion. This is about a universal moral code! (At this point AJ quotes a passage from scripture after speaking each sentence)
LISE So YOU aren’t religious . . ?
AJ Yes. I am. Deeply religious. I’ve thought long and hard about this and concluded that Christianity is simply the one true religion, and that its moral teachings are the divine word of God and that his son Jesus died on the cross to save us from our sins.
LISE (Sceptical) So how do you know that your beliefs are right and those of all the other religions are wrong? Aren’t their beliefs just as valid as yours?
AJ (Confidently). Of course not. I’ve come to my conclusions about religion and morality through reason and logic, while all those people in those other religions have just been brainwashed. It’s all groupthink. They only believe that nonsense because they’ve been bought up with it.
LISE So you weren’t actually raised as a Christian?
AJ Of course I was. So . . . as I was saying, the one true code of morality dictates that you have to cover your breasts.
LISE But your morality is just religious and I don’t believe in your religion!
AJ It is NOT religious! This has NOTHING to do with religion! I mean, when did I ever even mention religion?
LISE Just before!
AJ When? Tell me! Give me one example!
LISE All that stuff you said about the Bible and Jesus, and all those quotes from Job . . .
AJ Listen Lise, you can go off on these irrelevent tangents all you want. The point is that you have to cover your breasts because I say they’re sacred and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong.
LISE Listen. You only THINK I’m wrong. But they’re my breasts and I . . .
AJ You are wrong, because I’ve thought about what the one true morality is and I’m right.
LISE So all the other thinkers and philosophers and prophets throughout history who have reached different conclusions to you . . .
AJ . . . Are all wrong. (PROUDLY) Yes – I’m rather pleased with myself as well, having solved the greatest philosophical problem in human history by the age of twenty six.
LISE But all the other people who have different beliefs think that THEY’RE right and YOU’RE wrong, so how can you . . .
AJ But I AM right and they’re ALL wrong. Can’t you understand that? You’re not very bright, are you Lise? So, anyways, as someone who has absolute knowledge of what is and is not moral I’m also an authority on the subject of sexual morality . . .
LISE Have you ever actually had sex?
AJ No. Why do you ask?
LISE No reason.
AJ So as an absolute authority on sexual matters I’m telling you that you HAVE to cover your breasts.
LISE And what will happen if I don’t?
AJ . . . ?
August 22nd, 2006 at 7:55 pm
lol… *in stitches* even though I’m a Christian, I love your use of language… so sinful of me!
August 22nd, 2006 at 7:59 pm
That last comment was for Redbaiter, but you gave me a good laugh too Danyl!
August 22nd, 2006 at 8:01 pm
WOW I cant believe it, this thread has exceeded
30,000 words.
August 22nd, 2006 at 8:43 pm
The classic liberal sees wimmin ???????
Chalk one up for the leftie troll theory.
August 22nd, 2006 at 8:47 pm
Who is this Graham Miller guy? Flip he’s the most trying of the lot. Doesn’t even read the comments and then wags on as if he knows what he’s talking about…
*Sigh*
Ad hominem does not an argument make. But as Ben rightly points out, this thread has already been done to death.
And, Danyl, that was actually very witty of you – well done
August 22nd, 2006 at 8:52 pm
Ben Wilson, he’s not “preaching about women’s sexuality”, if he’s preaching at all it’s that many men see nothing wrong with porn-stars parading through Auckland topless on the back of motorbikes. That’s so far from “women’s sexuality”, I’ve got to ask the question – are you a virgin as well?
August 22nd, 2006 at 9:05 pm
Just in case you thought it was over…
Danyl did make me look like an idiot with that comment, but only because he misrepresented me a number of times, as well as misrepresenting other people and groups…
MISREPRESENTATION # 1
LISE So what does this non-religious moral code look like?
AJ It’s identical to Christianity in every respect. You can read all about it in the Bible.
The word Christianity can be interpreted a number of ways. It is my opinion that the purest definition of the word is the teachings of Christ as recorded in the gospels. If this is the Christianity Danyl is referring to then yes the universal moral code is consistent with “Christianity”. Come on, show me one teaching of Christ’s that could be considered immoral.
But here’s the key point. Morality is not morality simply because the human Christ said it was and some people wrote it in a book. All he did was point out that which was already true, and understood already by many. This is why I don’t like to consider my morality “religious”, because people tend to understand “religious” to mean “superstitious”, “groundless”, even “biased”, especially “not applicable to the ‘secular realm’. A poor definition of religion I know, but one so commonly held its best not to use the term.
MISREPRESENTATION # 2
AJ I’ve thought long and hard about this and concluded that Christianity is simply the one true religion, and that its moral teachings are the divine word of God and that his son Jesus died on the cross to save us from our sins.
Likewise, this statement while true, needs to be qualified with my definition of Christianity above, and my subsequent points.
MISREPRESENTATION # 3
LISE (Sceptical) So how do you know that your beliefs are right and those of all the other religions are wrong? Aren’t their beliefs just as valid as yours?
“All those other religions” actually tend to be consistent on maters of morality and human dignity. Where they aren’t, one CAN use reason and logic to differentiate that which is true, or at least better. Lucyna illustrated this well with the difference between fundamentalist Muslims and conservative Christians on the matters of modesty. She has since reproduced those same comments on a separate post over at Sir Humphreys:
http://sirhumphreys.com/lucyna/2006/aug/21/fundamental_differences_between_islam_and_christianity
MISREPRESENTATION # 4
AJ (Confidently). I’ve come to my conclusions about religion and morality through reason and logic, while all those people in those other religions have just been brainwashed. It’s all groupthink. They only believe that nonsense because they’ve been bought up with it.
Again, much of the rest of the world’s “religions” is consistent with the conscience, and with pure Christianity. But yes, the crazy ideas and doctrines are simply that, and I do think groupthink can account for people holding such crazy ideas. Have you actually looked into what Mormons believe, for example?
FUNNY BIT
AJ Listen Lise, you can go off on these irrelevent tangents all you want.
That bit especially made me laugh
Fair representation…
MISREPRESENTATION # 5
LISE So all the other thinkers and philosophers and prophets throughout history who have reached different conclusions to you . . .
Who are “all” these other thinkers and prophets who would disagree with me on matters of human dignity, particularly with regards to sexuality? However many it is, it would hardly be a consensus.
MISREPRESENTATION # 6
AJ So, anyways, as someone who has absolute knowledge of what is and is not moral I’m also an authority on the subject of sexual morality . . .
LISE Have you ever actually had sex?
AJ No. Why do you ask?
“A silly idea is current that good people do not know what temptation means. This is an obvious lie. Only those who try to resist temptation know how strong it is… A man who gives in to temptation after five minutes simply does not know what it would have been like an hour later. That is why bad people, in one sense, know very little about badness. They have lived a sheltered life by always giving in.” – C.S. Lewis (seeing as you don’t like me quoting The Bible)
30, 000 words – isn’t that like a thesis?
August 22nd, 2006 at 9:43 pm
redbaiter…as i am able to ring your bells/make you spit dummies.. on a regular basis..
do you think i have earned the title redbaiter-baiter..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
(see…i’ve just rung them agai
August 22nd, 2006 at 9:56 pm
t is my opinion that the purest definition of the word is the teachings of Christ as recorded in the gospels.
Rubbish. I read the Gospels last year and they don’t make the slightest sense. In terms of a coherant moral framework you guys are dead in the water without Pauls Letter to the Romans.
August 22nd, 2006 at 10:09 pm
oh, so they Gospels didn’t make sense to Danyl, therefore they are crap and that the millions of people who have read them all over the world must just be stupid?
well weizguy, according to your argument i could walk down the streets with my genitals showing under the guise of a “parade” promoting some event at my house, say a viagra exhibit. and it would be perfectly fine and i shouldn’t be arrested or anything for it because it is acceptable to society. regardless of your moral view, if you want to do that you have to change the law, not change the interpretation of the law. if you honestly think the police are legends at interpreting the law, well from my personal experience the ones i’ve had to deal with are some of the most stupid and ignorant meatheads i’ve ever met in my life who are completely out of touch with compassion for those who are going through crap in society
i mean i’m sure there are good cops out there, but i don’t see them as gods who know the law and that what they say about the parade MUST be correct just because they said it (which is the basis of your argument against mine)
as for the Films Videos and Classifications Act – you’re saying that is the statute to look to, therefore anytime someone decides to show some flesh in public, breast feeding or promoting pornography, so long as it is not in print it’s ok. i suppose you think if you make a death threat to someone verbally you look to the letter writing death threat statute and because the verbal threat was not in writing it’s ok?
August 22nd, 2006 at 10:14 pm
to adjust what i said above – what i’m basically saying is the police are humans just like you and i and you only have to look at their decisions for example not to prosecute the Labour government under public pressure to know they let their personal ideologies get in the way of their job. i’m assuming the majority of the police share the same views as you guys (ie. see nothing wrong with porn) and therefore let that dictate their interpretation of the law. i’m saying well if you do have that view, which you have a right to have, then you have to change the law first, then allow the parade, rather than mould the law to suit your view, because the police are not the lawmakers, Parliament is. if Parliament chooses to pass a law allowing public nudity and exposure to minors then make a law that says that, but the law as it currently stands does not allow for this but the police decide they want to play the judicial activists and so do the Christians who think they have the patent on the laws that can and cannot be passed
August 22nd, 2006 at 10:17 pm
bahaha!
AJ and Redbaiter buddying up!
where’s murray when you need him?
the holy trinity of blog comment trolls!
August 22nd, 2006 at 10:20 pm
re: Jamie – if you have an alternative answer that is as if not more convincing as Christianity is then i’m open to it. i think it’s more incredulous to just believe that there is nothing after life, and that we were born out of a big bang and that life is only science
August 22nd, 2006 at 10:55 pm
There is only one reality. True religion and true science would in principle perfectly harmonise. Regretably our understanding of both remains profoundly incomplete.
August 22nd, 2006 at 10:59 pm
Well stan, I’d like to tell you that you’ll probably be disappointed after death were it not for the fact that all the actual available evidence tends to suggest you’ll just be a bit rotting lump of meat.
August 22nd, 2006 at 11:15 pm
My God! I think this subject matter has had more posts than the deaths of the Kahu twins. What planet are you people on here??? Steve Crow is laughing all the way to the bank. And who said hypocrisy dosen’t pay..??!!
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:00 am
I think its time that Stan learned the truth about The Flying Spaghetti Monster!
August 23rd, 2006 at 5:24 am
yay…!….it’s boob-day…
see ya there….
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 23rd, 2006 at 8:34 am
as for the Films Videos and Classifications Act – you’re saying that is the statute to look to, therefore anytime someone decides to show some flesh in public, breast feeding or promoting pornography, so long as it is not in print it’s ok. i suppose you think if you make a death threat to someone verbally you look to the letter writing death threat statute and because the verbal threat was not in writing it’s ok?
Stan, your understanding of the law is clearly lacking. The thing is, we have many laws. Most of them are contained in statute, some come from the common law, some are enshrined in treaties, and are ratified through practice.
Let’s look at your comment.
therefore anytime someone decides to show some flesh in public, breast feeding or promoting pornography, so long as it is not in print it’s ok.
First, are you equating breast feeding with promoting pornography? Seems to be the implication.
Secondly, where did print come in? We’re talking about objectionable publications, like porn movies and magazines. There are other statutes that govern indecent exposure – they don’t have age limits. You’re trying to use the wrong piece of law… Keep on studying, you’ll get there one day.
i suppose you think if you make a death threat to someone verbally you look to the letter writing death threat statute and because the verbal threat was not in writing it’s ok?
Again, you’re way off. You were the one who made up the contents of a statute and got it wrong. Accept your mistakes, and chalk it up as a lesson.
Verbal threats could come under any number of statutes. It’s also common law assault.
Hit the books dude.
August 23rd, 2006 at 8:40 am
Me:
It is my opinion that the purest definition of the word is the teachings of Christ as recorded in the gospels. If this is the Christianity Danyl is referring to then yes the universal moral code is consistent with “Christianity”. Come on, show me one teaching of Christ’s that could be considered immoral.
Danyl:
Rubbish. I read the Gospels last year and they don’t make the slightest sense. In terms of a coherant moral framework you guys are dead in the water without Pauls Letter to the Romans.
Case & point. Can’t do it.
Mr Marsden, I think we all would agree that the murder of the Kahu twins was a tragic and IMMORAL act. I would not expect the morality of that murder to be the subject of a 250-comment debate.
Logix:
True religion and true science would in principle perfectly harmonise. Regretably our understanding of both remains profoundly incomplete.
Gosh, and you guys have me on for making lofty and unjustified generalizations. Does this statement even actually say anything?
August 23rd, 2006 at 8:43 am
Stan:
Convincing? Christiantity? You actually believe there God looking down on us judging whether we’ve been ‘good’ or ‘bad’, and deciding whether we go to heaven or hell when we die?
Okay, here’s my alternative answer, it’s fairy easy to follow: you live, you die, end of story.
Although, the Flying Spaghetti Monster does offer some convincing arguments…
August 23rd, 2006 at 8:48 am
weizguy – you were the one who was equating breast feeding with pornography, and you were the one who brought in the Classifications Act as the relevant statute (in your post at August 22, 2006 2:36 PM). i was pointing out the complete irrelevance in your arguments in my post by giving examples of how stupid your logic is, and in pointing out the flaws in those examples you’ve just rebutted yourself and your original argument
August 23rd, 2006 at 8:52 am
so you’re effectively closing your mind to anything else, like why we are even alive in the first place? whether there is any reason?
August 23rd, 2006 at 8:54 am
AJ i have no idea why you attacked Logix’s statement, i thought it was one of the most intelligent things that have been said so far. if you’re a Christian you have to watch your pride and stop giving praise to your own understanding, but to God
August 23rd, 2006 at 9:01 am
Thanks Stan…
But for what purpose does Logix say the following:
“Regretably our understanding of both remains profoundly incomplete”
Typical PoMo pessimism… we have more than enough to go on Logix…
August 23rd, 2006 at 9:01 am
No stan – you said:
i can’t be bothered looking for the relevant statute or case law, but i am willing to bet $10 (cheque and postage paid) that what i have stated above is fact, and in order to prove me wrong i challenge you to visit http://www.legislation.govt.nz and find a statute which allows for children under 18 to watch porn in a public place. clearly the topless parade falls under the category of pornongraphy and not art
The statute that prevents people exhibiting porn (objectionable material) to under 18s is the classifications act. Being topless is not a publication. QED
You really have no clue do you? You have to understand the logic before you rebut it.
As for your argument about the police being wrong about the legality of the parade, you don’t think constable pete down at the station wrote the statement do you? You think the poice might have legal advisors? Ones with actual law degrees?
Maybe you should use the $10 to buy a clue…
August 23rd, 2006 at 9:02 am
show me one teaching of Christ’s that could be considered immoral.
As a Christian Agrarian I’m sure you’ll concede that it’s immoral to lose your temper at a tree and kill it for a patently absurd reason.
August 23rd, 2006 at 9:04 am
lol… explain…? (I know the story, but I want to know why you consider that act immoral)…
August 23rd, 2006 at 9:10 am
1) lucky planet placement
2) evolution
3) then my daddy and my mummy loved each other very much…
Well, perhaps there is. Perhaps the Universe is some giant computing mechanism, a sort of internet, created by scientists from another universe. And knowing the uses our internet get sput to, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of it was dedicated to ‘adult’ movie storage. Maybe the Milky Way is, in fact, nothing more than a cosmic representation of a breast, designed to give our alternate universe creators a cheap thrill…
August 23rd, 2006 at 9:24 am
“The statute that prevents people exhibiting porn (objectionable material) to under 18s is the classifications act. Being topless is not a publication. QED”
no but YOU have turned it into an argument regarding publications. so it’s ok for two people have sex in the middle of the street because it’s not a publication? you have found a statute that deals with publications – not public nudity. and i was betting $10 that there is a statute dealing with that. you just turned it into an argument about publications
as for the police’s legal advisers – just because they are lawyers doesn’t make them right, why do you think we have lawsuits? i just don’t feel the need to waste my money to sue them. their legal argument says you can go down a street naked if it’s a parade promoting a pornographic event. so if that is your view and that it is correct then my above viagra example is valid and that someone doing that would not be arrested for it – yeah right! it’s only because this boobs on bikes thing is so novel that we’ve decided to not apply the law as it is. it’s like the Muslim cartoons – if say in an Islamic state the citizens no longer find it as offensive as their ancestors did, they would have to change the law saying that those who draw the cartoons should be stoned, not that because it’s not such a big deal today the law doesn’t apply anymore
August 23rd, 2006 at 9:31 am
Stan, apparently the police and the courts have deemed that the law dealing with “indecent exposure” relates only to genitalia… the only other area of legislation relevant is “objectionable behaviour” and they don’t deem being topless to be objectionable…
I heard an interview with Steve Crow and he said he challenged police that to rule against female exposure of breasts but not male would be discrimination…
Really, though, there is little equality in restricting indecent exposure to genitalia. A woman could probably get away with walking down the street fully naked yet claiming she wasn’t exposing anything. Bit different for those of us with outdoor plumbing…
The line is terribly blurry. I thought we had it right up until now, but the police don’t seem to agree…
August 23rd, 2006 at 9:33 am
Just as a sidebar, who actually owns the venue for the Erotica Expo – the Auckland Showgrounds? I may well be wrong, but I understand that it’s operated by a business unit of… the Auckland City Council.
If I’m right, is Dick Hubbard a flat out hypocrite (‘promoting pornography’ on Queen Street is wrong, but it’s A-OK to profit from that ‘vile, degrading’ industry hiring a civic asset) or just his usual, adorably clueless self?
Still, I have a solution – why doesn’t Dick Hubbard put up a by-law dictating dress standards for all women who want to enter his city? I’d sure like to ban the offensive sight of chicks with ‘muffins’ of fat oozing between the top of their bumsters and the bottom of their tank tops.
August 23rd, 2006 at 10:01 am
Stan
try to keep up. You are talking about something that is R18. The only thing that is R18 is the display of objectionable publications.
Your argument is as follows:
I say A (it is illegal to be naked in front of under 18s)
In order for me to be proved wrong, you have to find B (the statute that allows you to show nudity to under 18s)
(B doesn’t exist)
Therefore A is right
It’s rubbish.
Statutory rape/carnal knowledge/sex with a minor is not illegal with anyone over the age of 16 (in this jurisdiction). Are you saying that they are allowed to have sex, but not see nudity?
You’ve cobbled together a set of things that you think should be the case, claimed it’s a law, and then asked others to prove you wrong.
I pointed out the problem with your argument – by pointing out that R18 only applies to publications.
Is it okay for the two people to have sex in a public place? Read the police statement. Unless you plan to refute their position with legal arguments, your opinion isn’t worth much.
Stan: It’s illegal.
weizguy: Why?
Stan: Because there is a law that says it is.
weizguy: where?
Stan: You find it.
weizguy: The police have considered it, and their legal advice says it’s legal.
Stan: They’re wrong.
weizguy: why?
Stan: Because they’re stupid.
weizguy: Are they poo poo heads too?
Stan: …
What year are you at law school? I’m hoping not too far down the track – so much to learn…
August 23rd, 2006 at 11:19 am
I’d sure like to ban the offensive sight of chicks with ‘muffins’ of fat oozing between the top of their bumsters and the bottom of their tank tops.
Craig, far better for those women to be topless?
August 23rd, 2006 at 11:27 am
Well things have finally gone quiet around here.
Mr Graham Miller has finally taken the time to ponder my use of reason and logic (with no Bible verses whatsoever) to show that a topless parade of pornstars down New Zealand’s premier street is immoral.
Weizguy has realised that providing a whole moral code would make no difference to the application of principles of human dignity and justice in my judgment of the parade.
Danyl can’t be bothered doing the research that would be necessary to support his claim – that the gospels of Christ don’t make sense, and don’t identify a universal moral code.
Ben couldn’t refute my point that as men we don’t always choose porn or lust because we conclusively want it; that we are generally in two minds between our sensual and moral desires, and that the porn industry manipulate and exploit this condition of ours. He also helped me discover that a certain part of my anatomy is not necessarily unemployed despite my being a batchelor!
SB, Phil & George have shown clearly their views are grounded in their lack of respect for women, and obviously don’t agree that principles of human dignity and justice are a universal moral imperative.
No-one could identify one positive about pornography, apart from Average Kiwi who said it helped him “jack off”. And of course it is arguable that this is a good thing
And Phil, for your information, N.I. would be the most moral way of managing one’s testosterone…
August 23rd, 2006 at 11:40 am
And AJ has clearly missed the point of the dissent to his position. He’s failed to do any more than assert his position. In short, he’s sermonised, and converted no-one else to his way of thinking.
Ain’t it a bitch when other people think for themselves?
August 23rd, 2006 at 11:46 am
Seriously, it’s like coming off after a rugby match that you’ve lost by 50 points, and claiming that you won, because purpose of the game was to kick the ball out on the full the most times.
AJ’s not confused, he’s just playing a different game from the rest of us.
August 23rd, 2006 at 11:47 am
Lucyna:
I’ll repeat this in very small words: I don’t really give the proverbial flying fuck at a donut. The world is full of stupid and vulgar women making fools of themselves every time they leave the house – and I really have better things to do with my time and energy than try and elevate my aesthetics and morals into a general imperative. What a shame the spectacularly ineffectual and clueless Mayor of Auckland doesn’t feel the same.
August 23rd, 2006 at 11:51 am
As far as I could tell, the purpose of the post was to ponder whether the approval of “Boobs on Bikes” was a good decision or a bad decision. I’m probably the only one who really gave their opinion, and reasons for their opinion. You guys spent your time critiquing my approach, coming up with a whole lot of extra rules of how to play the games, what you’re allowed to say and what you’re not, what you quote and what you can’t etc. etc.
I enjoyed the game cos I had my hands on the ball most of the time. You guys were too busy going awww Ref. Just as well the Ref has a sense of humour…
“The Lord laughs at him, for He sees that his day is coming.” Psalms 37:13
August 23rd, 2006 at 11:56 am
“that we are generally in two minds between our sensual and moral desires”
or to put it another way…”Having testicles is like being chained to the village idiot. Sad, but there it is. And when we have solved every racial, political and economic problem, we will still be stuck with that one.”
shamelessly stolen from this guy
http://chasemeladies.blogspot.com/2005/01/non-kinky-sex-is-waste-of-time.html
August 23rd, 2006 at 11:56 am
“He also helped me discover that a certain part of my anatomy is not necessarily unemployed despite my being a batchelor!”
All those in favour of nominating this for my newly-introduced Kiwiblog Annual Award For Veiled Homoeroticism say aye!
August 23rd, 2006 at 11:57 am
“Ain’t it a bitch when other people think for themselves?”
weizguy you pathetic non capitalized little wanker, its the lot of you that aren’t thinking for yourselves. AJ right or wrong, is the only one with an independent viewpoint. You’re just swimming with the awfully trendy socially liberal Jerry Springer style stream…
August 23rd, 2006 at 11:59 am
As far as I could tell, the purpose of the post was to ponder whether the approval of “Boobs on Bikes” was a good decision or a bad decision.
I suspected you missed the divergence. No-one had a problem with you giving your opinion. People had a problem with you claiming that there was THE moral code – and discussed your inability to produce this moral code. You made claims and then retreated, and then acted like your opinion was fact.
In other words you missed the point of more than 200 of the posts.
You had your hand on the ball all the time, thing is, we’re just not sure whether it was your left one or your right one.
It’s like arguing with a five year old – “I know you are, you said you are, but what am I?
Are you seriously incapable of seeing the flaw in your argument?
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:04 pm
weizguy I never promised to produce a moral code. All I did was say that morality is guided by principles of human dignity and justice and that I interpreted this issue in that light. It is your inability to grasp this or dispute this that is the reason that this is post # 262.
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:08 pm
Oh redbaiter…
I’m not capitalized? Do you mean I’m not a capitalist, or that my worth hasn’t been paid out in cash, or something else?
Independent from what? His religion – apparently not. Go back to your corner and froth.
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:09 pm
It’s immoral based on the principles of justice and arborean dignity. If you can’t comprehend these principles then its your loss.
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:12 pm
Redbaiter wrote:
You’re just swimming with the awfully trendy socially liberal Jerry Springer style stream…
I reply:
Well, it would actually be nice if the ‘mind your own business and I’ll repay the courtesy’ strain of social conservatism came back into fashion. There also used to be a strain of conservative thought that believed we didn’t need Nanny State to solve every problem, but that seems to be a rapidly fading memory as well.
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:13 pm
You said that there was such a thing as “THE moral code”. Then failed to provide any evidence of it. Instead you talked about the principles behind morals – which are open to interpretation.
Go back to your favourite Oxford dictionary and tell me what code means:
Here’s some from the net.
A systematically arranged and comprehensive collection of laws.
A systematic collection of regulations and rules of procedure or conduct: a traffic code.
You claimed that such a thing exists for morals. I want to know where it is.
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Weizguy, why do you make the judgment that I am not “independent from my religion”? What does that even mean? In reality you’re asking me to be independent from my philosophy. Which makes no sense at all. Shall I ask you to be independent from yours?
Yes, I know, lets all through away those philosophical convictions we all cling to so dearly, and start having a discussion…
yeah, it’ll be a hoot.
It’s impossible, ok, you can’t even use language – not a single word – without being biased towards some hostorical, political, philosophical or religious ideology…
Man, why am I still taking you seriously? Oh that’s right, because it’s not just you who has these silly ideas… and for some reason when I was young I used to believe them – not because they were reasonable, but because thy were what my rebellious spirit wanted to hear…
Still, there was no-one confronting fools like you – and that’s why I am here today. And boy am I enjoying it…
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:16 pm
Lucyna, yes AJ was preaching about women’s sexuality. A lot. Read the thread and you will see. I know it’s long, boring and mostly silly, but it’s there.
As for my sexuality, I’m married with child. So no, not a virgin.
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:20 pm
Since AJ appears to have an extreme case of selective amnesia, or wilful blindness, or perhaps both, here’s a walk-through guide for those who weren’t able to join us yesterday:
The law is the external and political recognition of, and protection of, morality.
Posted by A.J.Chesswas | August 21, 2006 8:47 AM
Morality? Please discuss…
Gooner check out the latest post on my blog to find out that what you’ve believed all along is a lie. There’s no difference between the principles of morality, ethics and law…
Posted by A.J.Chesswas | August 21, 2006 9:07 AM
Morality? Please discuss…
Morality isn’t just rules, there are deep and powerful principles involved…
Posted by A.J.Chesswas | August 21, 2006:37 AM
Morality? Please discuss…
It is not “my” moral code I refer to, it is THE moral code… In this case there is plenty of legislative empowerment for the police to prosecute, because THE moral code has traditionally been recognised in this country.
Posted by A.J.Chesswas | August 21, 2006 11:13 AM
THE moral code? Please discuss…
It’s obvious you live by a different moral code than I do Graham. All I’m saying is mine is right and yours is wrong. Mine deserves to be recognised by law, governance and police – yours doesn’t!
A.J.Chesswas | August 22, 2006 10:04 AM
So toodle-doo to you too!
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:20 pm
Craig- I’m not talking about nanny state solving problems.. and if you’d taken the time to read my previous comments to the thread rather than bursting into print in a typically hurt liberal style knee jerk reaction, you’d have seen my true position…
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:21 pm
Weizguy, why do you make the judgment that I am not “independent from my religion”?
You claimed that you came to your position on morals independent of religion. I call bullshit. Simple.
Still, there was no-one confronting fools like you – and that’s why I am here today. And boy am I enjoying it…
Inflated sense of self importance anyone?
Here are some simple questions. I’ll number them for you so I can keep up with your biting logic.
1. What is THE moral code?
2. Where can I find THE moral code?
3. Why is THE moral code different from my morals?
4. Why are you right and everyone who disagrees with you wrong?
That’ll do for starters.
Maybe you should turn down the cognitive static a little…
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:33 pm
“It’s immoral based on the principles of justice and arborean dignity”
Shall I take you seriously Danyl? OK, if Jesus was not the Son of God, and just a man, and he decided to curse a fig tree by the power of his spoken word, and it died, and he did all this for no good reason – then yes it would be immoral, because the dignity of vegetation is important (no joke)…
However, in the gospels Jesus claims that he is the Son of God, or pretty much God. He uses the fig tree to communicate a message, and while the dignity of the tree is abused, a greater moral good is gained. Much the same as The Bible states that God “hardened Pharoah’s heart” when the Israelites were trying to get out of Egypt. And if Jesus is God, then he must be they guy who created morals – so he gets to have a bit of artistic license along with that…
But show me a general principle, or requirement of humanity, that could be considered immoral…
Now weizguy, re: “The moral code”. Mr Miller was the first to use the term in this thread, he accused me of “insisting that others live by *my* moral code”. I asn’t used the term, and had already made statements like “There’s no difference between the PRINCIPLES of morality, ethics and law” and “Morality isn’t just rules, there are deep and powerful principles involved”. When Miller said “your moral code”, given I’d been referring to principles rather than rules I thought he must be too. You’re right, though, the dictionary definition clearly talks about rules and regulations. But I’m sure we know that deeper than that “code” simply means “message”. But I do admit that by clarifying the matter earlier I could have saved us a lot of confusion!
And finally, if you’re going to call BS on me, can I call BS on you that your choice of “morals” and “lifestyle” would be the result of a thought-through understanding of life? After all, I have articulated the thinking behind my judgment, and you haven’t said a word.
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:41 pm
Since I’m repeating your own arguments back to you I find it amusing that you doubt their seriousness.
So what moral story is Jesus telling us by using the power of God to blast a fig tree? Well both Matthew and Mark make this quite clear – he’s saying that if you believe in God and pray to him he will do anything he wants you to.
In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. Peter remembered and said to Jesus, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!”
“Have faith in God,” Jesus answered. “I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, `Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.
Unfortunately, this is patently and demonstrably false. It seems clear to me that AJ believes in God very devoutly but no matter how hard he prays God will not make me a Christian.
I’d also like to point out that since Jesus is – effectively – God, then he could have made the tree bear fruit and demonstrated his point without robbing the fruit tree of its right to justice and dignity.
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:45 pm
This thread is ultimately about the Police’s non-prosecution stance in relation to the Boobs-on-Bikes.
Going right back to AJ’s first contribution:
When are the police, the media and David Farrar going to wake up and realise that moral standards have not changed one iota. In fact, those to profess not to believe in them seem to gain their most satisfcation in life from willfully rebelling against them, only further proving their eternal and universal spiritual reality.
Posted by A.J.Chesswas | August 21, 2006 8:30 AM
This introduces the language of spirituality and morality into the debate. And then, when asked to clarify your thinking on morals and morality, you said:
It is not “my” moral code I refer to, it is THE moral code… In this case there is plenty of legislative empowerment for the police to prosecute, because THE moral code has traditionally been recognised in this country. The interpretation of the police on this occasion is groundbreaking and revolutionary, and worse, unnecessary and without mandate…
Posted by A.J.Chesswas | August 21, 2006 11:13 AM
So why are you now trying to retreat from your original position that the police are acting contrary to THE moral code? If THE moral code has traditionally been recognised in this country, and provides legislative empowerment for the Police to intervene, but they choose not to, then the question remains: what are you going to do about it?
August 23rd, 2006 at 1:04 pm
OK with the fig tree, my understanding is it was a picture of Israel, and that because it did not bear the fruit (blessing of the nations with the knowledge of God) that he’d called it to, he would essentially focus instead on the church – Jew and Gentile under the headship of Christ. Consider the context – he also talked of the temple being destroyed (Matt 24), and of himself being rejected by Israel (Matt 21:33-46.
Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:
” ‘The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone;
the Lord has done this,
and it is marvelous in our eyes’?
“Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed.”
He chose to demonstrate and illustrate his point by curing the fig tree (a symbol of Israel), because he deemed it most effective. You might ask does God have a right to treat humanity the way he treated that fig tree. If he’s God, then of course he does…
And don’t go nuts saying I’m Anti-Semitic because I’ve talked of Israel being cursed. They bore God’s wrath for a time, but Romans 11 talks about the day they will be restored, and blessed by God, and surely we are living in that day.
Still, you’re right Jesus did use it as an example to his disciples of the power of prayer. And what Christ professes about prayer here certainly hasn’t been my experience. But then it’s pretty hard to pray for something without doubt in your heart – you’d have to be adamant it was God’s will in the first place. And according to Mark 11:25 you’d have to be in a position where you held nothing against anyone, a state of complete forgiveness.
Yeah, it is a shaky one, I will admit that much!!
Now Graham, how can we really have an opinion on whether or not the police prosecuted without bringing morality into the debate?
I am not retreating from my position that police are acting contrary to THE moral code. I’m just saying I don’t think it’s necessary to talk about an entire moral code in order to address one issue. The principles of human dignity and justice will suffice.
I think the concern isn’t really what I am going to do about it. You guys someone bigger to worry about than just me…
August 23rd, 2006 at 1:09 pm
I’m just saying I don’t think it’s necessary to talk about an entire moral code in order to address one issue. The principles of human dignity and justice will suffice.
But we’ve demonstrated that they aren’t enough for the kind of absolutism you’re preaching. Those principles allow us to come to different conclusions. Mine are different to yours. In fact, many people have come to different conclusions. Consequently, morals can’t be absolute, unless we’re all wrong.
Which leaves you with the question – why am I wrong? Why are you right?
August 23rd, 2006 at 1:13 pm
Well back from the parade, it was great if a little short!
Gota be 2-3 times as many people watching it as last year. The cheerleading by Major Dick and Bob McCoskrie in the Herald really worked a treat.
Crow is going to be laughing all the way to the bank.
I wonder if it will translate into more people at the Sexpo. I suspect it will, which in some ways is a pity as the halls were packed previous years.
Got some interesting pictures though with all the people there I got some shots of the back of peoples heads!
No protesters so AJ will be disappointed – noted approx 1 in 3 of the people watching were women.
SB
August 23rd, 2006 at 1:20 pm
Forgot to say somebody upstairs liked it, it was raining and grey until about 10 mins before then the rain stopped and the sun came out and it was a summers day!
Possible its not against THE moral code then?
SB
August 23rd, 2006 at 1:23 pm
Possible its not against THE moral code then?
No no no… it’s apparently about human dignity and justice. You need to bring yourself up to date, SB
August 23rd, 2006 at 1:27 pm
Graham: What! I thought THE moral code was “human dignity and justice”. They are changing their definitions so fast I can’t keep up.
SB
August 23rd, 2006 at 1:30 pm
here is a nunga report for you ..a.j.
now..in the interests of journalism..(you understand)..i went up to the staging area…deep in sodom..(cross st..newton..k. rd..shudder..!..)
and got right in amongst it…
so..aj…i was there when they let their ‘puppies’ out..and hopped on the bikes….
and after displaying a steely determination to cover all bases…i can report there were only two pairs of nungas i would walk over the road to see…
and they were quite small..and brown…perky nipples..
(very nice..!..)
(settle..!..aj…settle..!..)
but all in all..a.j…
it was a bit of an anti-climax..
and certainly not worthy of 30,000 something words..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz))
August 23rd, 2006 at 1:32 pm
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10397686
A massive crowd has turned out to watch the Boobs on Bikes parade on Auckland’s Queen Street this afternoon. The street was packed with a crowd of thousands which was thought to be bigger than that for the annual Santa Parade.
Uh oh…
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:01 pm
80% male, too.
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:17 pm
There were some topless male pornstars on the tanks to give the girls something to perv over.
I was in the middle of a group of approx 7 20’s something women (not on purpose!) and they had a good shout at the boys.
SB
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Weizguy, you haven’t shown us HOW you have interpreted those principles to arrive at the your conclusion that a topless parade of pornstars is not immoral.
That is why I would call BS on your call that you have used the same principles to come to a different conclusion. Give me some proof.
That is why, if this were ever considered official debate, I would be deemed to be the victor.
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:37 pm
I believe it’s immoral to presume that I can tell a woman that she must cover up her breasts. Her body belongs to her, not to me.
Justice is about the right to participate in society within guidelines set down by the legislature. If we disagree with those guidelines, we can lobby, or vote for a new set of legislators. I agree with the current legal position, so my view is in line with justice.
Human Dignity is less important to me, but not in this situation. The ability to choose is the most important dignity of all.
That is why, if this were ever considered official debate, I would be deemed to be the victor.
You are taking the piss right? My debate with you was not about whether boobs on bikes ws moral, but whether THE moral code existed – you have resiled from your original position – therefore, you have already admitted defeat.
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:49 pm
“80% male, too.”
Funny, that.
In other news, I saw a rather large group of women gawping at some firemen the other day. Didn’t seem to be many men doing it…
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:51 pm
Well I think that’s pretty well put, weizguy.
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:58 pm
You would have done well to forget about picking on THE moral code and focus on THE debate. There would have been NO debate if justice as a concept was so Foucaltian that it simply meant “the standards enforced by legislators and police in this day and age”. You can’t argue for something to be moral by saying “because the cops say so”. It’s as bad as saying “because The Bible says so”.
I will give you credit, though, for actually explaining why you think there is morality, justice and dignity in a woman displaying her breasts.
1. “It’s immoral to presume I can tell a woman she must cover up her breasts. Her body belongs to her, not to me”.
If by the use of my body I could offend someone, and that offence could be reasonably justified, then I have no right to follow through with that action. Explain to me a principle or an authority that would suggest otherwise.
2. “Justice is about the right to participate in society within guidelines set down by the legislature”
According to this statement there could be now such thing as an unjust law. I hope I never see you lobbying on Bills that are passed through parliament, otherwise I would have to call you a hypocrite.
3. “The ability to choose is the most important dignity of all”
What about the ability to live a good and moral life? Is it really just to exploit those weak in conscience and morality for the sake of their ability to choose?
Aaaah…. Finally…. THE debate
August 23rd, 2006 at 3:08 pm
“If by the use of my body I could offend someone, and that offence could be reasonably justified, then I have no right to follow through with that action.”
So what you’re saying is that all those nice Christian people who’ve tried to convert me over the years were actually violating the principles of justice and human dignity?
August 23rd, 2006 at 3:12 pm
You were arguing from a false premise. We could not continue until you’d either provided evidence, or retreated from you untenable position. You chose the latter.
If by the use of my body I could offend someone, and that offence could be reasonably justified, then I have no right to follow through with that action. Explain to me a principle or an authority that would suggest otherwise.
Of course you do. Women in the 50s offended many people by wearing bikinis. They had the right to follow through with that action. The question is really – why you should be able to dictate to another what they should do?
According to this statement there could be now such thing as an unjust law. I hope I never see you lobbying on Bills that are passed through parliament, otherwise I would have to call you a hypocrite.
And if you did so, you would be unfairly maligning me. Note that I pointed out the right TO lobby, and to vote in a different government. That’s part of access to justice, as is the right to judicially review decisions, and take private prosecutions. Your version of THE moral code doesn’t leave room for any challenge to your decision.
What about the ability to live a good and moral life? Is it really just to exploit those weak in conscience and morality for the sake of their ability to choose?
Sorry – the ability to choose comes first. But with that choice comes the potential of consequences. With the ability to choose comes the ability to choose to be “good and moral”. Without the choice to do so, being good is merely compulsion, and without moral character.
August 23rd, 2006 at 3:27 pm
“You were arguing from a false premise. We could not continue until you’d either provided evidence, or retreated from you untenable position. You chose the latter.”
The premise I was arguing from was the “moral code” of human dignity and justice. The use of the word code was not helpful, I admit. But to use the principles of human dignity and justice as a premise for arguing about morality is not false. You have actually accepted it, and you are using the same framework for making your current argument.
You still haven’t told me why I have more right to do something that causes offence, than the offendee has a right not to be offended. The difference in principle between the topless parade of pornstars and me trying to convert you is that the former does so not to edify you, but to exploit you, whereas I try to convert you to edify you, not exploit you.
“I agree with the current legal position, so my view is in line with justice”
The implication of this statement is that you think our current legislative position is just, and you are using the ruling of judges and police to back up your claim that you are right. If you want to have a relativist view of justice that’s your choice, but if you do then there’s not much point getting into a debate entitled “A Police Rulling I Don’t Disagree With”. Implicit in Farrar’s title is that there is a more authoritative source of judgment than the police. I think he still believes in the application of reason.
“Sorry – the ability to choose comes first. But with that choice comes the potential of consequences. With the ability to choose comes the ability to choose to be “good and moral”. Without the choice to do so, being good is merely compulsion, and without moral character.”
Well, I think you have a higher view of human nature than I do. And that is a typical difference between a liberal and a conservative. My experience, in observing myself and my contemporaries, is that no matter how hard we try, or how much we beg God to change us, we again and again stumble in ways that we regret. Sure, free choice is important, and I would never want to be ruled a commie or a totalitarian government. All I am saying is that there are some vices and temptations so difficult to avoid that it is worth doing all we can to protect ourselves against them.
August 23rd, 2006 at 3:29 pm
The difference in principle between the topless parade of pornstars and me trying to convert you is that the former does so not to edify you, but to exploit you, whereas I try to convert you to edify you, not exploit you.
A carve-out for Christianity from the moral standards which you would impose on others?
August 23rd, 2006 at 3:59 pm
Given the results of the B.O.B. today I would say that AJ initial post where he stated
“It is official – the police are completely out of touch with the moral, hardworking, everyday New Zealander.”
has proven to be wrong. The moral,hardworking New Zealanders came out and supported the parade.
The police were correct with their call and Dick H was wrong.
I don’t know how many thousands or people were out there today but it was orders of magnitude more than sent emails to the council.
I do hope this ends the talk about banning it next year!
SB
August 23rd, 2006 at 4:25 pm
SB, yes the world flows around the wowsers as they sit in remote virginal outrage. Fair enough, I remember feeling quite bitter when I was a virgin too. Fortunately their numbers are small. It’s one of those clubs where the bulk of the membership wish they weren’t, and only the strangest fools actually dig it.
August 23rd, 2006 at 4:47 pm
The thing is, you guys really do need to be a bit more considerate of us virgins. We could do with some encouragement and support in our commitment, rather than having to withstand the sexual saturation of our and media culture. Again, it’s about justice and equality. Keep it to the bedroom and quit flaunting it.
I feel sorry for the young people coming through our schooling system. Like me there are a number of them with a moral convction to wait until marriage. Yet they’re treated like gormless, hormone-controlled idiots and it is just expected they will do it. School teachers use the word SEX as an anagram to help them remember concepts and ideas.
Please, just get over yourselves and realise there are people who don’t have it as sweet as you, and haven’t met the right person for them yet, but still have to deal with the same desires and urges as all of us. We should do all we can to help people who make commitments to chastity, not make it hard for them.
August 23rd, 2006 at 4:56 pm
School teachers use the word SEX as an anagram to help them remember concepts and ideas.
Really? Come up with, say, three such anagrams that are in common usage. Otherwise we’re obliged to interpret your statement is hyperbole.
And could you please address my point above about a carve-out for Christianity from the moral standards which you would impose on others? Is the balance between the “right” not to be offended and the “right” to offend others appropriate struck if, on your reasoning, a Christian has the right to preach to others no matter how much they may find that offensive?
August 23rd, 2006 at 5:00 pm
“School teachers use the word SEX as an anagram to help them remember concepts and ideas”
This fact was relayed to me last week from a high school student that I know. I trust him, and given other things I know about the school I believe him. I don’t know, though, what the particular words were.
I didn’t understand what you meant by “a carve-out for Christianity from the moral standards which you would impose on others”. Could you explain?
“Is the balance between the “right” not to be offended and the “right” to offend others appropriate struck if, on your reasoning, a Christian has the right to preach to others no matter how much they may find that offensive?”
The question is a matter of why the person is offended, and the context in which that preaching is occurring. You will need to flesh out a bit more what you mean by “A Christian preaching to others”.
August 23rd, 2006 at 5:16 pm
I feel sorry for virgins. Most of them are not by choice. And they’re missing out on something good.
The few that claim not to have found the right woman can’t have been looking very hard – the world is quite literally full of women who could give you a taste.
Unless you really want to get married beforehand. That seems like the ultimate foolishness to me. Why go to all the trouble of a wedding if you then find she’s not your bag? I can tell you for an absolutely certain fact that there’s no point at all getting married to a woman who you don’t want to have sex with. Unless you are gay, too scared to come out, and she’s a willing beard. Is that what you’re after? Don’t bother man, just come out.
Sure I’m ‘tolerant’ of you AJ. But I don’t envy you. I don’t respect your choice or even understand it. And I sure as hell can’t stomach taking any kind of advice or sermonizing from you on a matter that you know almost nothing about. It’s like me giving Dan Carter pointers on goalkicking.
Do you know what an anagram is btw? Hint, with SEX, there are 6:
SEX
SXE
ESX
EXS
XSE
XES
I’m not sure what any of those could help in the remembrance of, but if they do, so what?
August 23rd, 2006 at 6:25 pm
Aj: “We could do with some encouragement and support in our commitment” if you want that then you have to explain what the point of it is?
I am a lot older than you and I can’t see what the point is. If you are looking for a madonna and keep on finding whores you have a problem.
If you wait for miss perfect to turn up you may never find her.
SB
August 23rd, 2006 at 6:32 pm
You wrote:
You still haven’t told me why I have more right to do something that causes offence, than the offendee has a right not to be offended. The difference in principle between the topless parade of pornstars and me trying to convert you is that the former does so not to edify you, but to exploit you, whereas I try to convert you to edify you, not exploit you.
The two sentences are in stark contrast. The first sets up a proposition. The second purports to explain why that proposition doesn’t apply in the case of religious edification. Sorry, but this immediately runs into the problem that the means (your religious edification) justifies the end (the offence) – as a matter of your subjective judgment.
We’ve now moved from a universal law of morality to a subjective law that can be applied over the opposition of others, depending on whether it is edification or exploitation, as judged by you. Not great progress, I’m afraid, but at least we’ve moved on from where we were yesterday.
August 23rd, 2006 at 6:47 pm
Statement
Explanation
eXample
Sex
Excellent
X-Men
August 23rd, 2006 at 6:52 pm
Ben, maybe ESX could be considered an abbreviation of Essex, which in turn could be considered to stand for Essex girls.
As for AJ…
“The difference in principle between the topless parade of pornstars and me trying to convert you is that the former does so not to edify you, but to exploit you, whereas I try to convert you to edify you, not exploit you.”
Really? Funny that the people getting exploited are the ones getting paid while those in receipt of your edification are likely to end up expending money and effort as a result.
Nice buildings, them churches. A lot nicer than those which house the offices of the Exotica expo…
August 23rd, 2006 at 6:55 pm
Yeah, and next I’ll be told that “BEDMAS” (a timeless classic in the mathematical realm) has something to do with getting laid…
August 23rd, 2006 at 7:34 pm
hey cheswa..it’s broom-time…
you need to tie your shoelaces together..and stick a broom thru them..
because you are on a code red…
in serious danger of disappearing up your own arse…
you are so feckin’ full of it..eh..?
and it is obvious you think …in your self-deluded little mind..that you are some force/voice for good/christianity..?
lemme tell you..you ain’t..
you personify all the smallminded/bigoted/irrational/fascist/ oppressive/sexist/controlling/mindlessness of the worst who nail their colours to that mast….
there is much in christianity and christian practices/teachings to respect/admire….
you ain’t it….cheswa..
you represent the ‘dark side’ of christianity…
the perverting of those (mainly humanist)teachings of christ into some vehicle for your (self-reverential) twisted/controlling bigotry…
you really are just a little man….
who just needs a good fucking..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 23rd, 2006 at 7:44 pm
Wow the TV is saying there were 20,000 people there! Q street must have been packed further down!
SB
August 23rd, 2006 at 8:00 pm
Ah, phil u …give it a rest. You and AJ are both more than entitled to express your opinions, but the intolerance is ugly. The gloating is not decorative either.
Religion and politics both have their own liberal and conservative traditions, and people who in their over-zealous committment to each, prove each other BOTH wrong, and BOTH loose sight of their actual purpose.
Now rather than persisting in this futile attempt at bashing each other into submission…how about trying a different tack…with the real purpose in mind?
August 23rd, 2006 at 8:15 pm
Ben…
“Why go to all the trouble of a wedding if you then find she’s not your bag? I can tell you for an absolutely certain fact that there’s no point at all getting married to a woman who you don’t want to have sex with.”
With that statement you are joining SB, Phil & George in the “no respect for female dignity” group of mysogynists.
“I don’t respect your choice or even understand it.”
What can’t you understand about respecting the privacy of a woman’s sexuality, and enhancing the meaning and bond of mariage?
“And I sure as hell can’t stomach taking any kind of advice or sermonizing from you on a matter that you know almost nothing about.”
There’s one thing I do know about that you know nothing about, and that’s trying to participate in a pseudo-macho sex-saturated NZ Society as a chaste batchelor committed to marriage and the dignity of women.
“Do you know what an anagram is btw?”
Woops, I think I used the wrong word. What’s the word for the linguitic device where all the letters stand for something?
SB…
Aj: “We could do with some encouragement and support in our commitment” if you want [encouragement and support in our commitment to chastity” that then you have to explain what the point of it is?”
The point of that would be a belief in the value of women, marriage, family, society and the future. The point of that would be a recognition of what you yourself would gain by contributing positively to the moral integrty of your world.
“If you are looking for a madonna and keep on finding whores you have a problem.”
You’re right, I have a problem, and that problem is blokes like you who have turned Madonnas into whores.
Mr Miller…
“Sorry, but this immediately runs into the problem that the means (your religious edification) justifies the end (the offence) – as a matter of your subjective judgment.”
Not at all. If I am helping you towards a greater degree of self-control and respect for women in my attmpts at persuasion, surely that is a better end than a pornographer’s attempts to manipulate your base desires in order to line their pockets.
Err…
Reading comprehension skills mate… Do you get paid to consume pornography? And that was a cheap comment about expending money. I’ve been “sermonising” (apparently) for more than 300 comments now, and I havent handed round a collection plate just yet.
Not quite sure what Mr Whoar’s comments achieved.
Finally, to answer a question raised a while ago, why does this joker from deep in the Taranaki, from the bustling metrpolis of Stratford, care abut what’s going happening on Queens Street? I find it a little ironic that the reason for this whole mess was born and raised just down the road in little old Inglewood. I am proud of my homeland, but we have produced one of the greatest liabilities our nation has ever known. On behalf of Taranaki I repent, ask your forgiveness, and endeavour to do all I can to reverse the work of Mr Steve Crow.
August 23rd, 2006 at 8:36 pm
What can’t you understand about respecting the privacy of a woman’s sexuality, and enhancing the meaning and bond of mariage?
This just gets better and better. What the hell do you know about female sexuality and the meaning of marriage? And why would you think for a second that you can lecture a bunch of married guys on the issue without looking like a deluded joke?
Woops, I think I used the wrong word. What’s the word for the linguitic device where all the letters stand for something?
Mnemonic. Eg. Kinky Pat Came Over For Great Sex.
There’s one thing I do know about that you know nothing about, and that’s trying to participate in a pseudo-macho sex-saturated NZ Society as a chaste batchelor committed to marriage and the dignity of women.
And if that’s what we were discussing then I’d be happy to your authority. As it is we’re discussing pornography, sex and female sexuality – topics on which you have admitted you are utterly ignorant of but also feel you are an unimpeachable authority on – and you apparently see no contradiction between these two positions.
August 23rd, 2006 at 8:37 pm
What can’t you understand about respecting the privacy of a woman’s sexuality, and enhancing the meaning and bond of mariage?
This just gets better and better. What the hell do you know about female sexuality and the meaning of marriage? And why would you think for a second that you can lecture a bunch of married guys on the issue without looking like a deluded joke?
Woops, I think I used the wrong word. What’s the word for the linguitic device where all the letters stand for something?
Mnemonic. Eg. Kinky Pat Came Over For Great Sex.
There’s one thing I do know about that you know nothing about, and that’s trying to participate in a pseudo-macho sex-saturated NZ Society as a chaste batchelor committed to marriage and the dignity of women.
And if that’s what we were discussing then I’d be happy to accept your authority. As it is we’re discussing pornography, sex and female sexuality – topics on which you have admitted you are utterly ignorant of but also feel you are an unimpeachable authority on – and you apparently see no contradiction between these two positions.
August 23rd, 2006 at 9:03 pm
If I am helping you towards a greater degree of self-control and respect for women in my attmpts at persuasion, surely that is a better end than a pornographer’s attempts to manipulate your base desires in order to line their pockets.
Thank you for confirming that the end DOES justify the means.
Just so we’re all clear about this: you believe that religious edification IS justified, and those of us who are offended with your attempts to “re-educate” us should take our punishment, if you would find an alternative scenario even more offensive.
If you don’t see this as paternalistic, then we’ll need to start with “P in the dictionary before playing jiggery-poke with mnemonics.
Nice work – NOW we’re making progress.
August 23rd, 2006 at 9:19 pm
To all those who have been trying to hold a serious logical argument with AJ for the last 300 or so comments, I have only one question – haven’t you ever invited the door-knocking, pamphlet-bearing lot, wossname, Mormons, in and tried to convince them that they’re full of crap? It’s the kind of thing you can only do once or twice before you realise it’s just easier to hit your head sharply against the wall a few times. I think it’s a sort of paradigm incompatibility – you’re not in the same universe, you’ll never introduce change to the other person’s views no matter what you do. In their minds, they always win. Your reason vs their faith, no contest – they’re just too damn invested. I know, I was there once myself (kinda). The only thing you can hope for is that reality (no AJ, I don’t mean “God”) gradually impinges and they come back to sensibility. Far too many I knew are now full time guests in mental hospitals or done some serious drug rehab post inevitable crash. No shit, I think the rubber band holding their wacky views and the real world together eventually snaps under pressure.
And before I get accused of religion-bashing, I have no major problems with religion (well, ok, there’s the “kill the unbeliever!” bit, and the “I’m right and you’re wrong” bit, and a few others, but forgetting them for the mo). If people want to belong to their preferred flavour of Invisible Friends Club, it’s not my place to intervene. Seems a bit silly to me, tho, from where I am now, having been a flag-waving hyper-pentecostal tongue-talking nutter, and a heavy-on-the-tradition cathedral dweller, and a few other flavours besides before realising life just isn’t that complicated.
BTW Danyl, core to buddhist views (and Gautama’s teachings I think) is an instruction not to just blindly believe what you’re taught, but to figure it out for yourself. Sorry, I realise that’s about 150 posts ago, but it had to be said. (Have to say buddhism would be my fave religion, although it’s debatable if it’s a religion at all, at the core). The smartest people I’ve ever come across are buddhists in some form or other.
And AJ, I could be a patronising git and tell you from where I sit you’re just a young, repressed fella who’s still ruled by fear and guilt, and there’s a whole nicer world out there, entry into which does not mean becoming evil and more loathsome. You too can love yourself. In fact, you too can have a firm comittment to justice, integrity and self-respect (which is kinda like dignity, but without the overtones of rank or position – y’know as in “dignitaries”) without needing the rest of the mental clutter. But that would be silly, because you probably wouldn’t hear me anyway. Best of luck. from what I’ve seen, you may need it.
August 23rd, 2006 at 9:49 pm
Danyl said This just gets better and better. What the hell do you know about female sexuality and the meaning of marriage? And why would you think for a second that you can lecture a bunch of married guys on the issue without looking like a deluded joke?
Danyl, pardon me if I’m wrong, but I got the very strong impression a little while ago that you were gay. So, if you are, aren’t you being just a touch hypocritical?
August 23rd, 2006 at 9:49 pm
The views and vehement being expressed here is a reminder to me of why wars start.
Sanctimonious individuals endeavouring to press their beliefs upon one another.
Greed, women and religion.
August 23rd, 2006 at 10:02 pm
AJ, I think acronym may have been the word you are looking for. Like BASIC=Beginners All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code. Perhaps mnemonic, like SOH CAH TOA in trig. The best acronyms are mnemonic.
You say I’m a misogynist with no respect for female dignity, because I say that getting married to someone you don’t want sex with is a stupid idea. I don’t see it. What is the purpose of marriage, in your view? Bible classes?
You talk of the privacy of their sexuality. I’m not suggesting rape, man, I’m suggesting consenting sex. They let you enter their ‘privacy’, and you find out if it’s to your mutual satisfaction. Nothing seems more stupid to me than marrying someone who you can’t do that with. You will certainly have a very messy divorce or a very unhappy and pointless marriage.
And yes, I do know nothing about what it would be like to be committed to such a ridiculous strategy. I’m not fond of making a cockup of my life so, yeah, I’m not really sure *exactly* what that would be like, other than that it would be bad. I’ve never tried buying a car without even having one test drive and at least a look under the hood, but I know people who have, and they’ve usually bought a lemon.
And in case you jump on your high horse over that statement, it’s an ‘analogy’, as distinct from an ‘acronym’, or an ‘anagram’ or any other of your vast list of malapropisms. It’s not postmodern or urban liberal, it’s just a way of explaining something to people who can’t grasp logical statements. I’m not saying women are cars, or indeed objects. I’m merely saying that when you undertake a big commitment you should establish whether the basic requirements are met. Otherwise you are stupid, stupid fool, and you will live to regret it.
August 23rd, 2006 at 10:24 pm
did anyone else see a.j. guesting on the sopranos tonight..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 23rd, 2006 at 11:05 pm
“Reading comprehension skills mate… Do you get paid to consume pornography?”
Oh, sorry, I thought you were talking about the dignity of women. So it’s actually my dignity that is shamed by a topless parade in Queen Street that I missed, yet which my girlfriend was rather amused by? So we’re down to “women should keep their tops on because it is degrading to men”? Yowch.
“And that was a cheap comment about expending money. I’ve been “sermonising” (apparently) for more than 300 comments now, and I havent handed round a collection plate just yet.”
Yeah, well, you’d have to successfully convert somebody to your viewpoint first wouldn’t you?
August 23rd, 2006 at 11:24 pm
btw..a.j….
where do you stand on the dinosaurs millions of years old vs. “they must have been running around with humans ‘cos everything is only six thousand years old..’cos that’s when the creation of everything happened..?…”…question…
basically..do you think carbon dating is a big con..?
and after that..could we have a quick squizz at that vexed subject of the ‘rapture..’
where do you stand on the ‘rapture’ question..?
a.j….?
August 23rd, 2006 at 11:36 pm
Danyl,
“What the hell do you know about female sexuality and the meaning of marriage? And why would you think for a second that you can lecture a bunch of married guys on the issue without looking like a deluded joke?”
Guess what, you don’t have to have sex with a woman to know how she thinks. That’s if you care how she thinks. What do I know about marriage? Funny you ask, both my father and my mother are married…. But then I guess that is pretty rare these days. Especially 27 years of it…
Mr Miller,
Of course I see my approach to you in argument paternalistic. It is difficult not to be patronising when a person can’t use reason in an argument, and has to have things repeated 3 or 4 times for them…
K1, welcome to the debate.
I agree, there is a paradigm incompatibility. These guys can’t call into question their belief in the self-sufficient and autonomous human being. Furthermore, although they admit that principles of human dignity and justice guide our understanding of morality, they cannot show how a topless parade of pornographic actors is consistent with those principles. Nonetheless they believe it could be possible to do so, and suspend judgment on Steve Crow, his buddies, and those who observed the parade.
The most significant difference is my belief that the numerous certain harmful effects of pornography outweigh the potential unknown positive effects, and thus am confident in deeming it immoral. In a sense it does take a step of faith, but only a very small one. It would take me a bigger step of faith to just ignore the phenomenon and consider it amoral. The evidence stacks up against pornography (broken marriages, addictions, effects on character & self-esteem, misogyny, offense to millions), not for it. Thus it is not their reason vs my faith, but their faith vs my reason.
There is this silly idea out there that somehow non-religious people are better at applying reason. I can see no evidence for this idea in this thread. And there is no way I will end up in a mental hospital, unless guys like these get in power and declares anyone who disagrees with moral relativism clinically insane.
And for your information, I am not ruled by fear and guilt. I am caught up into a beautiful vision of the universe at its optimum, and it pains me to see the state we are in today. I love myself more than you know (I think that’s probably obvious to most people)! I do not consider an understanding of sexuality that honours the bodies of women and the self-control of men “mental clutter”, and I fail to see how one could be truly committed to justgice, integrity and self-respect without such an understanding.
Finally, Ben…
Of course sex is a part of marriage, but you don’t go writing a person’s sexual ability off because of one bad performance. A bit of communication and a few tips should see you right, but then what would I know, I’ve never been married and never had sex!! I just can’t imagine it’d be that bad you would want to get out of your marriage. There must be counselors and therapists for that sort of thing. And if you end up with a basket-case then I guess that’s just life. Someone has to have her; why not you?
“Nothing seems more stupid to me than marrying someone who you can’t do that with. You will certainly have a very messy divorce or a very unhappy and pointless marriage.”
All I know is that there’s way more to marriage than sex. You don’t need to be married to understand this. And you are certainly not in a position to say “You will certainly have a very messy divorce or a very unhappy and pointless marriage”, after all you’re the one telling me I can’t be an authority on something I haven’t experienced.
“I’m not fond of making a cockup of my life so, yeah, I’m not really sure *exactly* what that would be like, other than that it would be bad.”
Same again. Sorry, you have no authority to comment, you have admitted it.
I understand your car analogy, but let me say one thing. If I was trying to sell you a new car I’ll let you take it round the block and up the road for 5 mins for a test drive, but I wouldn’t let you take it for a 6-hour road trip. If I let people take it out for 6-hour road trips it would pretty quickly lose its value. But the 5 min trip up the road should give you an idea of whether its general personality will sustain you for a road trip once you’ve purchased it. You might find out later it needs some tweaking and tuning to better suit your driving, but that shouldn’t be too big an issue.
“I’m merely saying that when you undertake a big commitment you should establish whether the basic requirements are met. Otherwise you are stupid, stupid fool, and you will live to regret it.”
Sounds to me you don’t care about the basic requirements. You want to know that your tastes and preferences are suited to a tee. Why? Because you’re selfish, and scared of change. If you’re going to spend the rest of your life with a woman, you better make sure you love her so much that it wouldn’t matter how bad the sex was.
Lol Phil lets not have a big debate on those questions, but…
DINOSAURS: No idea.
RAPTURE: No idea
August 23rd, 2006 at 11:42 pm
What I was getting at with the car thing: round the block and 5 mins up the road is dating (ie doing things other than sex), 6 hour road trip is sex…
August 23rd, 2006 at 11:51 pm
Of course I see my approach to you in argument paternalistic. It is difficult not to be patronising when a person can’t use reason in an argument, and has to have things repeated 3 or 4 times for them.
Indeed – we’re all noticed that you need to have things repeated 3 or 4 times for you. Now how about addressing my question. Or is that too hard?
August 24th, 2006 at 12:07 am
I just addressed your question;
“you believe that religious edification IS justified, and those of us who are offended with your attempts to “re-educate” us should take our punishment, if you would find an alternative scenario even more offensive”
I can’t see why you would be offended at someone insisting they are right and doing so in order to help you. The local JWs have taken a liking to me, they do it whenever they come around, but I don’t find it offensive…
However it it easy to see why people are offended by pornography…
So there you go, it’s not even paternalistic of me to think this, it’s just plain common-sense…
If you get offended every time someone thinks they’re right and you’re wrong you’re not going to learn a hell of a lot in life…
August 24th, 2006 at 12:11 am
The question:
And could you please address my point above about a carve-out for Christianity from the moral standards which you would impose on others? Is the balance between the “right” not to be offended and the “right” to offend others appropriate struck if, on your reasoning, a Christian has the right to preach to others no matter how much they may find that offensive?
It’s a really simple question – now how about answering it?
August 24th, 2006 at 8:10 am
I would disagree that a Christian has the right to preach no matter how much it is found offensive. Wherever you find the issue of offence dealt with in law and policy it is generally preceded by the term “reasonable”. If the offendee has good reason to consider themselves offended then surely they are well within their rights to ask the Christian preacher to shut up…
August 24th, 2006 at 8:31 am
Hello Lucyna. You are – as usual – totally wrong, but I’d be vastly amused to know where I gave you ‘the very strong impression’ that I was gay.
August 24th, 2006 at 9:15 am
“And if you end up with a basket-case then I guess that’s just life. Someone has to have her; why not you?”
Somebody in life has to empty the bins, too. I can give you a bunch of reasons why that shouldn’t be me: I can do other stuff that the guys who’re emptying the bins can’t.
Why shouldn’t I end up with a woman who’s totally uninterested in having a fulfilling sex life? Because there’s guys out there who are similarly disinterested in making an effort. They can go find one of them. Just because somebody has to end up in a shit situation doesn’t mean I shouldn’t make an effort to avoid it in my own life. There’s people like you to do it for me, thankfully.
Contrary to your comprehension of the situation AJ there are in fact plenty of women who enjoy an active sex life and have wide and varied interests. Some of these women will like things that frankly turn me off. I probably like some things that will turn others off. So, rather than forcing one of these poor women to spend her life with me in sexual dissatisfaction I’d rather make sure things are compatible on that level before committing to anything.
You’re right, there is more to a long-term relationship than sex. It’s possible to have a great sexual relationship with somebody you can’t have a great emotional relationship with. But a bad sexual relationship can be poison to a relationship. It’s like a house with rotting foundations. Sure, a house with great foundations and mould up the walls is no good either. You need it to be solid on all levels.
Finding the right person is not easy, because you have to find a person who fits with you on all of these levels. This takes time, and there’s a clock counting down.
Unfortunately for you AJ you’re likely running out of time, because your youth is when you are afforded the opportunity to learn and explore your sexuality in aid of finding somebody who is a good match to you on all these levels. As you get older women will stop seeing endearing innocence and start seeing woeful ignorance. Indeed, you’re old enough now that it’s probably passed that stage already.
August 24th, 2006 at 9:26 am
Just as well I don’t take advice from random cyberspace sleazeballs I have never met. Just as well I have seen example after example that contradict every word you have to say. Just as well I have a conscience…
August 24th, 2006 at 9:29 am
Also let’s just be practical… I don’t think there are many women who ahve the same faith in contraception that you have. The other reason for marriage is to give her that security to go ahead, knowing that if she becomes pregnant you will be there for her… NO MATTER WHAT…
But then. hey, these days it’s legal to kill a foetus so who cares…(NOTE: heavy, heavy sarcasm there)…
Abortion is criminal…
August 24th, 2006 at 9:30 am
Danyl,
Your involvement in the gay marriage debates on Sir Humphreys on the pro-side. There was something you said in particular soon before you were bannned. And all of the passionately pro-side were gay, so … but, anyway, if you say you are not, I’ll believe you. Just be careful with the arguments you get involved in. People watchers like me, notice.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:06 am
I think the thing is, if you didn’t do the whole virgin/chastity/marriage thing, then someone challenges you that maybe you should have, there would be very little person gain from sayign “yeah you’re right” because there’s nothing you can do about it now. Most of us like to be positive about our lives, and formulate our opinions and philosophies in accordance with the choices we have already made. No-one wants regrets, no-one likes to think they got second-best in their life. No-one wants to admit they have made mistakes…
I guess I’m advantaged in this regard… after all, I could be like you guys anytime I wanted, but you could never again be like me…
August 24th, 2006 at 10:11 am
Err, I’m inclined to agree with AJ on this one. Someone has to have the rejects. Why not him? He sounds like he’d be well satisfied with the yuckiest cold fish, and someone’s gotta take them out of the pool sure. Basically the first chick that shags him has got his sorry arse on a plate for life, and I’m damn sure she’ll make his life a misery.
AJ, so much to object to in your rebuttal!
One performance is not enough, sure. I’d suggest at least a few dozen. Better still, try living with them for a while.
A bit of communication and a few tips will NOT see you right. What would you know is exactly right. Some people have fundamental incompatibility. And there is a big difference between average ho hum lame sex and good sex. Not that you will ever know, unless you wise up real fast.
I am in a position to tell you that one of the main causes of divorce is sexual incompatibility. It’s a public fact. If you don’t want to have sex with your wife any more, then most men can’t see any further reason to have to put up with them.
Once again, there are some things you don’t have to experience to know they would be bad. Sometimes it’s blatantly obvious. But you are blind to the blatantly obvious. If you don’t want to have sex with a woman, then there’s no need to get married, is there? You could just be mates, hold hands and talk lovingly about the bible, or whatever it is rocks your boat. You could happily be a lifelong bachelor, never experiencing sexual release at all, except from unconcious nocturnal emissions, wherein your subconcious tell you what should be blatantly obvious to your concious.
I’m not sure what you think sex is if you think it’s to a date as a 5 minute test drive is to a 6 hour road trip. Personally I’ve never experienced sex that lasted 72 times longer than a date (or a number of dates in this analogy). I think a better analogy would be the date is the test drive, and the sex is putting your foot down.
This is a good analogy on many levels. Firstly, power not the only thing you want in a car, but it’s a very important thing. It makes the car fun to drive, it makes you want to get into it and let it rip. It becomes a car you get emotionally attached to. Secondly, a lot of salespeople don’t want you to do it. They usually use the reason that it will reduce the value of the car. But that’s bullshit unless the car is already stuffed. If you can’t put your foot down, you don’t want the car – they’re hiding something. Either it is stuffed and it will conk out, or more likely, you’ll be extremely disappointed with how weak it is. Thirdly, buying a car off a salesperson is a dumb idea anyway, unless it’s brand spanking new. I’d so much rather get it from the previous owner, ask them all the questions about it that the salesperson will just lie about because they don’t know, deal with a normal person rather than a con-artist, not be pressured into paying a lot more than it’s worth, even indebting myself. That is how you end up with a lemon that costs you heaps. With a woman you can magnify the cost about 100-fold, and the lemony bitterness if she’s the wrong choice.
Your last comment just has to be quoted in it’s naked stupidity:
“Sounds to me you don’t care about the basic requirements. You want to know that your tastes and preferences are suited to a tee. Why? Because you’re selfish, and scared of change. If you’re going to spend the rest of your life with a woman, you better make sure you love her so much that it wouldn’t matter how bad the sex was.”
Since marriage is meant to be for life, and I really do believe that – divorce is not something you should plan on, it’s a really bad scenario, a last resort – I think that wanting my tastes and preferences to be suited to a tee is not unreasonable. It’s not because I’m selfish, it’s because I’m not a stupid ignorant fool who settles for shit because he’s too scared to drive a better bargain. You’re the kind of guy car salesmen love, a real sucker. You’d buy a lemon and love it anyway. You’d spend your life savings trying to keep it going and shed a tear when it was finally consigned to the scrapheap that the dealer should have put it on in the first place.
Or more likely, you’d realize the error of your ways and set fire to the car in a rage one day. That’s the biggest danger of being as stupid as you advocate – that it fucks up the other person too. You would quite happily use your prudish ignorance to fuck up another person’s life, and I think that’s simply wicked. You can’t hide behind your bible when you do things like that, although I’m sure you’ll try.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:21 am
Lucyna, re: Danyl. Anyone can see you can be passionate about other people’s rights.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:31 am
I’m not sure what you think sex is if you think it’s to a date as a 5 minute test drive is to a 6 hour road trip. Personally I’ve never experienced sex that lasted 72 times longer than a date (or a number of dates in this analogy). I think a better analogy would be the date is the test drive, and the sex is putting your foot down.
Ben – that was hilarious!
I’m going to nominate you for an Oscar… services to good-taste humour
August 24th, 2006 at 10:35 am
“And there is a big difference between average ho hum lame sex and good sex. Not that you will ever know”
And that is exactly my point. So it will never even matter to me.
“If you don’t want to have sex with your wife any more, then most men can’t see any further reason to have to put up with them”
If this is true for “most men” then New Zealand really does have a problem. Here’s a reason to put up with them – she’s the mother of your children…
“If you don’t want to have sex with a woman, then there’s no need to get married, is there?”
Of course I want to have sex with a woman. But I trust that whoever I marry, no matter who they are, will be capable of satisfying that desire. If you truly love your wife, and know how to communicate, I don’t understand how it could be such the big deal you make it out to be.
“I think a better analogy would be the date is the test drive, and the sex is putting your foot down.”
The sex is putting your foot down for an extended amount of time. In the initial test drive(s) you learn enough about the person’s character and personality to be able to trust they will see you through every and any issue, including sexual issues.
“It’s not because I’m selfish, it’s because I’m not a stupid ignorant fool who settles for shit because he’s too scared to drive a better bargain.”
I’m no ignorant fool, I just prioritise a woman’s security and dignity over any whimsical sexual fantasy I might happen to have, which would be nil-few anyway in comparison to you – I say that because the amount of focus you put on the sex act says to me that you spend a lot of time fantasizing about it. You’ve probably seen all sorts of perverse things that you would have done well to stay away from…
So address these comments…
Also let’s just be practical… I don’t think there are many women who ahve the same faith in contraception that you have. The other reason for marriage is to give her that security to go ahead, knowing that if she becomes pregnant you will be there for her… NO MATTER WHAT…
But then. hey, these days it’s legal to kill a foetus so who cares…(NOTE: heavy, heavy sarcasm there)…
Abortion is criminal…
August 24th, 2006 at 10:45 am
Here’s the gay marriage thread Lucyna is referring to. Readers can decide for themselves whether or not my arguments are ‘gay’, and whether, based on the quality of her arguments in this thread anyone should care if a creepy little loser like Lucyna is watching them or not.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:50 am
Graham, surely you’ve felt that the thrill of a grunty machine is comparable to sex at times? That’s really the biggest problem with greenism – they underrate the sexual energy contained in powerful machinery, how strongly it binds to the human psyche. If they want people to rally to their cause they really need mean green machines. I’m personally waiting for the hybrid MR2.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:58 am
Danyl, it wasn’t just that one. There were a number. And consider what you said earlier on this thread:
Its becoming abundently clear that AJ needs a girlfriend. A few weeks of mood swings, manipulation, emotional blackmail and hormone induced temper-tantrums will cure you of this ‘all females are sacred’ bullshit real quick.
So far only you and Craig have said anything negative about women.
You did open yourself up to this scrutiny, Danyl, with your attacks on AJ’s virginity.
August 24th, 2006 at 11:05 am
So far only you and Craig have said anything negative about women
Not according to AJ, who’s sprayed the “misogynist” label around like fashionable confetti:
With that statement you [meaning Ben] are joining SB, Phil & George in the “no respect for female dignity” group of mysogynists.
Posted by A.J.Chesswas | August 23, 2006 8:15 PM
August 24th, 2006 at 11:05 am
And this is why I bother persevering into the hundreds of comments. The insights you get when you try and tackle these sorts of guys head on are profound…
August 24th, 2006 at 11:07 am
How did you miss out Graham? Wonder what your problem is…
August 24th, 2006 at 11:13 am
Here’s some more threads on Marriage for anyone that would like a broader context for the debate.
Danyl neglects to mention that on the thread he’s linked to in particular, my sensitivity to the Holocaust in Poland is linked to the fact that I am Polish and that my mother’s family were in Nazi occupied Poland during WW2 and my father’s family were deported to the Gulags (the real ones) by the Soviets, so this whole idea of a “gay holocaust” and “gays could easily be put back into the gas chambers” really doesn’t get my victim empathy going in any way.
August 24th, 2006 at 11:15 am
A surprising omission from your so-called list was “An Average Kiwi” who likes porn because it gives him something to jack off to. But, in any event, didn’t we establish yesterday that you shouldn’t judge matters about which you know, like, nothing? So who are you to pigeon-hole other people based on one or two throwaway lines? I’m sure Ben’s wife would be amazed to learn (from you) that she has a misogynist in her midst. So laughable.
August 24th, 2006 at 11:23 am
True…. Nothing is one of the few things I don’t know anything about…
August 24th, 2006 at 11:26 am
Don’t worry about that last comment, I misread yours…
But I asserted you don’t need to have had sex with women to understand them… In fact, if you spent more time trying to understand them rather than just having sex with them you might be able to come to the debate better informed…
August 24th, 2006 at 11:29 am
I neglet to mention it because its not true. The thread I’ve linked to has no mention of the Holocaust, Poland, Gulags or Nazis – which is rather unusual for a debate on Sir Humphreys.
The difference between commenting on AJs virginity and your allegation that I am gay, is that AJ IS a virgin, and he has stated as such many times on this thread, while I am not gay and you have failed (yet again) to produce any evidence to support your untrue allegation that I am. Do you see the difference there? I didn’t think so.
August 24th, 2006 at 11:33 am
Ben, for someone that writes as if he *knows* about male/female relationships, I’m not surprised you have to go for test drives. I’d be amazed if any woman could put up with you for long.
August 24th, 2006 at 11:42 am
I think we know now why women steer clear of David Farrar’s blog. I imagine these guys spend quite a bit of time romping around these parts. Few women would have the patience, tolerance and backbone that you have Lucyna…
August 24th, 2006 at 11:48 am
You’re not confusing Danyl with Ackers, Lucyna? He’s gay (or at least, said he is in one of those threads)
August 24th, 2006 at 11:52 am
I think you’ll find that Lucyna is actually a bloke. Or at least I assume she is . . . after all, all the other commentators on Sir Humphreys are . . .
August 24th, 2006 at 11:55 am
Is that some kind of joke? Cos if it is I don’t get it..
August 24th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
Lucyna, your amazement comes as no surprise to me, since your perceptions are awry on so many matters. I’ve been married for years, and was with my wife before that for years more. And I’ve had other long relationships before that. But you’re very quick to make zero evidence conclusions from your prejudices, so your being amazed is quite natural, and will continue for a long time.
August 24th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
Psycho, no I’m not.
Danyl, one blogger on another site and a commenter on our site has met me. So I am real, and I’m not a bloke.
August 24th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
I don’t think Ackers has said that, Psycho.
And look at the dim-troll work his magic! Has he called anyone Adolf Hitler yet?
August 24th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
lol not another “Adolf Hitler” labeller… always a sure sign one’s argument is lacking substance when they resort to giving people the Hitler label…
August 24th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
AL, he did. It’s where he says he’s also raised a boy to adulthood.
August 24th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
AL re Ackers desciring himself as gay:
I don’t think Ackers has said that
Ackers, in the linked thread: I am a gay man
AL re me: And look at the dim-troll work his magic! Has he called anyone Adolf Hitler yet?
Can you provide a link to a thread in which I’ve called anyone Hitler? Or better yet, can any of the Sir Humphreys clowns make ANY allegation for which they have the slightest evidence?
Lucyna, on why she thinks I’m gay:
Your involvement in the gay marriage debates on Sir Humphreys on the pro-side . . . And all of the passionately pro-side were gay, so …
So I wrote: I think you’ll find that Lucyna is actually a bloke. Or at least I assume she is . . . after all, all the other commentators on Sir Humphreys are . . .
And AJ replied: Is that some kind of joke? Cos if it is I don’t get it..
Which seems to sum things up nicely . . .
August 24th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
AJ, you persist in your completely uninformed comments about sex. When are you going to realize you’re like a child when it comes to this issue?
You mistake me terribly when you assert that sex is the most important issue to me. I’m merely saying it’s *an* important issue, something you’ve spent tens of thousands of words denying despite having no experience of it at all. You’re like the people who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope because it might refute their theories.
You are deliberately blind and trying to dress that as some kind of virtue. It isn’t, it’s just blindness. And there’s nothing more annoying than a blind man arguing with a sighted person about what colour something is.
August 24th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
What was that you said about “rejects”, Ben? You found someone that hasn’t run screaming for the hills. Good for you.
August 24th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
Hey Lucyna – how is it that you’ve found Ackers quote almost instantly but haven’t managed to find my ‘gay’ arguments? Having a little trouble there?
Maybe you could abandon the search and help AL prove his allegation about me making Hitler comparisons?
August 24th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
no..lucyna is a woman…but she does wander around wearing metal breastplates…
a la zena..eh?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 24th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
Danyl (aka DIM for the searchers out there),
I remembered the context. I didn’t find it. Just like I’ve remembered that you’ve said a number of things that add up to you being gay. I have one of those memories where I remember things about people. I find people interesting.
Now, trying to find exactly where something was said is a little more problematic, given that our site doesn’t recognise people’s names as a search term – it’s only if their name is mentioned in a comment or post that they can be found, or if they are a registered user. Which I notice, you never registered.
What’s also interesting is the number of times the word “lying” came in close proximity with the comments that were made to you – under the name DIM. Does it mean anything? Maybe.
As for the Hilter comparisons, AL travels around the blogosphere into places I don’t go. Who knows where he got that impression about you. For now, I’d be more inclined to trust him than you, even though he missed the “Ackers revelation”.
August 24th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
Given that I’ve been able to prove that you’re a liar in this very thread this is a rather ironic claim coming from you (I’ll give AL a little longer to try and justify his allegation, but I think we all know that he too will be shown to have been dishonest).
But let’s see these threads in which I’ve been shown to be a liar. Or is this yet ANOTHER case in which you’ll be unable to find them but insist that they’re out there somewhere?
Incidentally, I’d avoid using the slow, clusmy search feature on your site and use google instead. Simply prefix the search with site:www.sirhumphreys.com and then put in your search terms. Happy hunting . . .
August 24th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Ben, while I’m not qualified to speak on the quality of marital sex, I have countless numbers of friends and fellow churchgoers who are. The best marriages I have seen, where 50, 60, 70, 80 year olds are still smiling and in love like they’re 16, are those marriages where respect for the other person comes first and foremost, fidelity has been honoured (at least as far as we know), and the trauma you seem to face, of whether or not they’re having mindblowing sex, doesn’t seem to be an issue to them…
You really do need to get out more. I have had more than my fair share of people with attitudes like you, through my public schooling and my time at university. You give me the impression you have never met a decent moral human being ever in your life…
August 24th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
Lucyna, you don’t have anything to say, other than stupid speculation which is an attempt to annoy. Not sure what that’s about, I can only guess that you’re annoyed that I don’t fall to my knees when you make your periodic utterances like half of the regulars here do. Sorry about that – it’s part of what I call ‘feminism’ that I treat you equally badly to anyone who I think is talking shit.
August 24th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
And that is when feminism went wrong, when men started seeing at is this idea they should treat women the same way they treat women, and expect equally from women what they expect from men…
Have you noticed no wommen want to come near DPF’s blog Ben? Perhaps it’s time you rethought your anthropology, and started picking on people your own size…
August 24th, 2006 at 2:21 pm
AJ, what the hell do you know about the sex lives of your fellow churchgoers, how and why? Maybe they are having mindblowing sex and you’re just missing out.
Like Lucyna, you’re now speculating with psychobabble about who I’ve met, how often I get out etc. The real truth is you don’t like what I’m saying because it cuts too close to the bone.
You’re very happy to lecture people about the morality of something that you have childish ignorance of, and I sure met a lot of people like that at varsity too. But I didn’t make the mistake of thinking they were good people *because of that*. They may have been good people. All I had to go on was that they were annoying interfering people, which I don’t consider good.
I think Lucyna is big enough to fight her own battles. She picked the fight in the first place. It should be a lesson, and I think it’s very patronizing of you to suggest I should treat her differently because she’s female. I’m sure she’d disagree, and is right now penning some ad hominem for me.
August 24th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
it’s part of what I call ‘feminism’ . . .
I doubt that’s going to cut much ice with Lucyna – she considers feminism to be part of a vast communist plot to destroy families and enslave humanity.
No, really
August 24th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
DIM, type in “DIM” into our search engine. As explained in my comment – that you yourself quote.
As for proving I’m a liar on this very thread – what are you talking about?
I found what was the thing that made me think you were gay – your use of the term “hate speech” in your final farewell at SH. Who uses “hate speech” in describing anything they don’t like … hmmm?
The fact that you were about holiday in Europe for the winter as well. An expensive trip right in Europe’s peak season. By itself, innocuous, but add everything up with “hate speech”, dislike of women in a way that normal men don’t, it looks pretty damn suspicious.
But as I said, I’ll have to take your word for it that you aren’t. But you did want to know why and you did open yourself up for this level of scrutiny with your attacks on AJ’s virginity.
August 24th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
Danyl, that may be, but it’s something dear to me. So I will treat Lucyna with all the respect she’s given me – absolutely none.
August 24th, 2006 at 2:35 pm
Ben Wilson, you really ought to go back and read your initial comments to me. I tend to treat people well, unless they cross the line. And your comments on women and how you treat them are just stone-age. No, I take that back – stone age men are probably much nicer. I wouldn’t have been surprised if you had written that you check all your women’s teeth, too.
Though you are correct about one thing – I can take care of myself.
August 24th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
I found what was the thing that made me think you were gay – your use of the term “hate speech” in your final farewell at SH. Who uses “hate speech” in describing anything they don’t like … hmmm?
Well, if you do a search on the term ‘hate speech’ you’ll find that almost all of your fellow Sir Humphreys contributers use the word hate speech to describe things they don’t like.
The fact that you were about holiday in Europe for the winter as well. An expensive trip right in Europe’s peak season. By itself, innocuous, but add everything up . . . it looks pretty damn suspicious.
Nice one Lucyna. You are now an utter laughing-stock. My work here is done.
August 24th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
No, DIM. Just because you say it, doens’t make it so. If people actually click on the link, they will see just what type of person you are.
August 24th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
Ben, you said,
“AJ, what the hell do you know about the sex lives of your fellow churchgoers, how and why? Maybe they are having mindblowing sex and you’re just missing out.”
Well now you’re the one who is speculating. As I said, when it comes to things I don’t know about I respect the opinions of people that I trust. I don’t trust you. I’ve never met a person who spouts this sexual revolution rubbish that I can trust.
Sure, what you’re saying does cut close to the bone, I will admit that. As I’ve said, it is not an easy life. It is hard to have such strong and challenging convictions yet desiring to participate in a wider society who seem to be being washed out with the tide. But I do have my fair share of female friends and family, and my the deep and respectful friendships I have with them will always be a guard against the terrible attitudes of so many men in our nation.
And you should have picked up by now that I don’t have a problem with coming across as patronizing, just as I do not have a problem with the way you try to patronise me. Gosh, the sooner people quit feeling they have to pull people up for use of that word, the sooner we’ll be able to get on with some real debate.
August 24th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
Actually Lucyna, it’s you that needs to go back to those comments, since you are claiming they exist. I wait with bated breath to hear what offended you so. In my memory it’s pretty much what I just said – I gave you no special treatment, and merely rebutted your ridiculous claim to be speaking for all womankind on this issue.
August 24th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
No, AJ, we’re *both* speculating. That is my point. You don’t know a damn thing about the sex lives of your friends, and I’m sure that given your attitude, you will never, ever be entrusted to find out.
Spouting sexual revolution stuff? Eh? Where did I do that? Is this yet another invention of yours, along the lines of calling me postmodern?
Have you ever considered that it is you who is washed out with the tide, and the majority of your fellow countrymen are on the shore calling you back and thinking you a fool for going beyond your depth? Are you hoping the Pamela Anderson of christians is going to come save you? I hope you can hold your breath.
August 24th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
I’d like to know what tide it was that washed me out, because you know I can feel the pull of conservatism all around me every day!
I bet you it’s flippin easy to live according to your values, because people like you have taken over the media, governance, art & music of our country. You are the one swimming, or rather floating, with the tide… And it’s not a tide of human consciousness, it’s a tide of commercial exploitation and hegemony and you have been conned…
Lets catch up when you’re 80 and look back on our lives, when you’ve been abandoned by your three wives and 1 kid in a retirement home and all you’ve got to remember about life was what you consumed and who you took the piss out of…
August 24th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
Lets catch up when you’re 80 and look back on our lives, when you’ve been abandoned by your three wives and 1 kid in a retirement home and all you’ve got to remember about life was what you consumed and who you took the piss out of…
Yes, AJ, let’s catch up with you’re 80, and still a virgin in search of his Prima Donna, and all you’ve got to remember about life is what’s written in the Bible. Get the drift? You’re a practising Christian? Man, you sure judge others harshly.
August 24th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
Lets catch up when you’re 80 and look back on our lives, when you’ve been abandoned by your three wives and 1 kid in a retirement home and all you’ve got to remember about life was what you consumed and who you took the piss out of…
A.J.Chesswas
Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pissing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life… But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin’ else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you’ve got heroin?
Renton
Trainspotting
August 24th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
I can’t see why you would be offended at someone insisting they are right and doing so in order to help you. The local JWs have taken a liking to me, they do it whenever they come around, but I don’t find it offensive…
Guess what – I find people telling me that i’ll suffer eternal hellfire and damnation because I chose not to believe in their personal imaginary friend offensive. You find Boobs in public offensive. Guess what – that’s where our MORALS differ, and why we had this debate at all.
Oh, and just to look at the value of your advice – My parents have been married longer than yours, but I had no concept of relationships until I had them. Guess what, i’m still learning. Come back to me when you know what you’re talking about.
Lucyna
You are joking right? Talking about “hate speech” makes a person gay? Guess by that premise, i’m gay too. I’m sure we can find you some more straws to clutch at…
August 24th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
“Guess what – I find people telling me that i’ll suffer eternal hellfire and damnation because I chose not to believe in their personal imaginary friend offensive”
I would find that offensive too.
August 24th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
Well, AJ, I hope you find your warm golden current of conservatism and it washes you to a shore that you feel more welcome at. I can think of plenty of places where breast exposure meets with harsh penalties, and you’ll be quite close to the home of your messiah too. You might find it’s not that good, but you can’t say we didn’t warn you. I’m sure there’s a whole world of covered up, not particularly pretty women with the personality of an angel (until you’re locked in) for you to get rorted by.
As for meeting up when we’re 80, is that your way of saying you’ve got nothing further to say? I think when I’m 80 I won’t remember you at all, or care one little fig for whatever lifetime of suffering you inflicted on yourself.
August 24th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
I would find that offensive too
Most Proselytisers seem to think that is passes as helping people…
Do you get the feeling you’re a little out of touch?
August 24th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
Weizguy, I never said that uttering the phrase “hate speech” makes a person gay. What is it with people on this site? However, apparently if you were to say “There is no god but allah” three times, that would make you a Muslim.
If you were to go back to DIM’s comment that started all of this, you would get the hyprocrisy (ie gay man delighting in lecturing virgin christian man, to not lecture married men on women and sex). DIM asserts he is not gay, but wanted to know why I suspected he was. So I indulged him. Lots of little things that add up to nothing, if DIM (aka Danyl) is to be believed.
Now, that is *it* for me on this thread.
August 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
I’d just like to thank Lucyna for the best laugh I’ve had all week, that was fucking hilarious woman(*)!
I’ve seen some really dumb things written in my time but your masterpiece “reasons Danyl must be gay” possibly takes the biscuit. Congratulations, you are now in the running for the dumbest human being that has ever learned to operate a computer keyboard. Don’t you have some lice to pick out of your hair or something?
(*) I use the term in its loosest possible form.
August 24th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Lucyna, aw, there was me waiting with bated breath for you to back up your umbrage against me with the promised quote from some thread. But it seems you couldn’t find it, huh? Funny, that.
August 24th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
Lucyna:
I have one of those memories where I remember things about people. I find people interesting.
Huh. Someone just mailed me to point out that the thread I linked to above in which Lucyna and I argue about feminism has a post in which I refer to my girlfriend. Pity Lucyna – with her awesome memory for detail – didn’t remember that and chose to construct some elaborate fantasy about my sex life based on my dislike of hate speech and recent trip to Europe (and WHAT the fuck is that about?).
Let’s just have another laugh at Lucynas ‘proof’, because I still can’t believe it:
Lucyna:The fact that you were about holiday in Europe for the winter as well. An expensive trip right in Europe’s peak season. By itself, innocuous, but add everything up . . . it looks pretty damn suspicious.
Classic. What a chump.
August 24th, 2006 at 5:16 pm
Thanks Ben, I wsh you well with your venereal diseases…
And good luck guys with learning how to talk to women. Allow me to apologise, Lucyna, on behalf of the male sex…
August 24th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
“Did jesus call women “Sluts” very often?”
His prophets didn’t seem to have a problem with using similar words…
“Wherefore, O HARLOT, hear the word of the LORD:
Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thy filthiness was poured out, and thy nakedness discovered through thy whoredoms with thy lovers, and with all the idols of thy abominations, and by the blood of thy children, which thou didst give unto them;
Behold, therefore I will gather all thy lovers, with whom thou hast taken pleasure, and all them that thou hast loved, with all them that thou hast hated; I will even gather them round about against thee, and will discover thy nakedness unto them, that they may see all thy nakedness.
And I will judge thee, as women that break wedlock and shed blood are judged; and I will give thee blood in fury and jealousy.
And I will also give thee into their hand, and they shall throw down thine eminent place, and shall break down thy high places: they shall strip thee also of thy clothes, and shall take thy fair jewels, and leave thee naked and bare.
They shall also bring up a company against thee, and they shall stone thee with stones, and thrust thee through with their swords.
And they shall burn thine houses with fire, and execute judgments upon thee in the sight of many women: and I will cause thee to cease from playing the harlot, and thou also shalt give no hire any more.
So will I make my fury toward thee to rest, and my jealousy shall depart from thee, and I will be quiet, and will be no more angry.
Because thou hast not remembered the days of thy youth, but hast fretted me in all these things; behold, therefore I also will recompense thy way upon thine head, saith the Lord GOD: and thou shalt not commit this lewdness above all thine abominations.”
- Ezekiel 16:35-43
August 24th, 2006 at 5:22 pm
woops that comment was meant for the other post…
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2006/08/hubbard_gets_100000_to_boob_pa.html
August 24th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
And good luck guys with learning how to talk to women
Sheesh! One hopes that married couples talk – and not just pillow talk. What a pitiful excuse for a religious sermon from AJ…
August 24th, 2006 at 5:34 pm
Danyl, you went you Europe? I think I finally agree with Lucyna, you must be a total bender. Ho ho ho.
Who gives a shit if you were gay? Not that you are, but what earthly difference would it make to this debate? Gay people who are not virgins are also qualified to talk about sex, albeit a different kind of sex.
But self professed virgins, who make a real point of it, who stick it in everyone’s face and try to make out it’s virtue rather than bad luck, who elevate it’s moral stature to great heights, who claim to have the drop on everyone else’s relationships despite not having one themself, who seem to know everything about the sex life of even the elderly members of their congregation….well, I think you got the point along with practically everyone else.
Even the rightist crowd who’d usually argue just because it’s someone left of Gengis Khan posting here aren’t backing up his case. Except Lucyna and Redbaiter, who doing it for the grudge value, and stan, who I know nothing about. That’s pretty unusual on this blog, especially on a ‘hot’ thread. Seems like the sweeping tide of conservatism ain’t lined up with the virgins on this one.
And AJ, give it up man – I’m happily married so the chances of VD are slim. That’s just another one of those facts you’d know about sex if you’d ever had it. Good luck with your hand, it’s your friend and you’ll be needing it. I’ve heard a bit of nail polish and lying on it until it goes numb can simulate a hand job from a female, you may want to try it out. Or would that be exploiting your hand? These can be the questions that you lie awake at night thinking about. I’m sure there’s a biblical quote that disallows it somewhere.
August 24th, 2006 at 6:13 pm
“And good luck guys with learning how to talk to women. Allow me to apologise, Lucyna, on behalf of the male sex…”
I don’t think you’ve grasped this yet AJ, but there is no “way to talk to women”. Thinking that talking to women is some kind of specialist activity requiring in-depth training may explain your prolonged virginity. Women are people, there are ways of talking to people. Some of those ways are to be employed in the course of normal conversation with people you like, others are for more intimate occasions, and others still are for when you’re talking to comedically retarded idiots like Lucyna.
It matters not whether she is a woman or not – and let’s face it, on the internet all bets are off – all that matters is that she has walked into a thread and made the most spectacular laughing-stock of herself I think I’ve ever seen on this blog. Which takes some doing.
I’m still amused by your lessons on how to talk to women, however. Good job. What next, AJ the C++ guru?
August 24th, 2006 at 7:08 pm
Hey DPF: just out of curiousity, is this a record number of postings in a single thread? So much ado about boobs…
August 24th, 2006 at 8:03 pm
Yes I think this is a record, beating out the Destiny Church thread.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:19 pm
Danyl, Lucyna wasn’t “lying”, she appears to have got the thread mixed up about Gay Marriage and the reference to the Gays going to the Gas Chambers, where you made several comments.
Gay Trojan Horse
Regarding your gayness:
Lucyna said: “Danyl, pardon me if I’m wrong, but I got the very strong impression a little while ago that you were gay. ”
Later she said: “but, anyway, if you say you are not, I’ll believe you.”
I understand your subsequent ridicule when she quoted a few “innocuous” events because she couldn’t remember the exact quote you made to give her that impression, and she tagged on:
“but add everything up . . . it looks pretty damn suspicious.”
It probably would have been a good idea to recap on your earlier point that no doubt contributed to the error, when you said:
“Its becoming abundently clear that AJ needs a girlfriend. A few weeks of mood swings, manipulation, emotional blackmail and hormone induced temper-tantrums will cure you of this ‘all females are sacred’ bullshit real quick.”
I suspect she now realises that comment isn’t an indicator of gayness, nor misogyny. It’s just that you can be rude sometimes.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:26 pm
Ben, you said: “Unless you are gay, too scared to come out..”
For goodness sake, Ben…getting the impression some-one might be gay…try to remember if AJ has said anything at anytime that might counter that impression..
August 24th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
Ben, you said: “Unless you are gay, too scared to come out..”
For goodness sake, Ben…getting the impression some-one might be gay…try to remember if AJ has said anything at anytime that might counter that impression..
August 24th, 2006 at 11:43 pm
OK well this seems to be going nowhere now. Must say, although it was quite a stressful episode, I have thoroughly enjoyed the debate. Moral absolutists and moral relativists don’t get these sorts of opportunities to confront each other every day, it was good to stretch the metaphorical legs and see what the flexing of our philosophical muscles could possibly achieve.
It seems to me there are two main divergences in our thought that prevent us from common ground; one concerning autonomy and the nature/hierarchy of human relationships, and the other concerning our understanding of women and reproductive ethics.
AUTONOMY
The liberals believe every person has equal potential for self-determination, and their ability to judge between good actions and bad actions. They believe that even if someone will consent to a deed that will harm them, it is more moral to refrain from intervention rather than discouraging that activity. They believe that all human beings learn from consequences, and that in allowing a person that freedom you help them to grow in character.
Most important, liberals believe that above all else the retention of one’s autonomy is most crucial to one’s experience of personal dignity. This is the sort of thing that sees the unemployed sitting around as bums rather than being on work-for-the-dole schemes.
I, on the other hand, believe the following:
*Not all human beings are equal in intellect, judgment and moral character.
*Those of us who are stronger should act to protect the weaker from exploitation and degradation, even where it appears to involve willing consent.
*Human beings do not necessarily learn from their mistakes, and there are many mistakes with life-long consequences that we should do what we can to protect people from.
WOMEN & REPRODUCTIVE ETHICS
We also differ in our experience of women, and our ethics with regards to reproduction. I recognise among the women I know a definite need for a secure and committed context within which to share their sexuality, and engage in the act of reproduction.
I understand this need, because I too value the privacy of my body and my personality, and recognise that by preserving it for my spouse I will be able to offer her something of myself that nobody else knows. Such a pact and an understanding will speak to her of the strength and meaning of that marital commitment.
I also understand that sexual intercourse often produces children. I understand the link between life being sacred and sex being sacred. I understand the concern of a woman not to risk her body or her child by engaging in sex without the context of a secure and committed sexual relationship. I understand that the termination of the life of a foetus is not preferable to sexual constraint outside of marriage.
The liberals, on the other hand, prioritise the satisfaction of their sexual fantasies (wouldn’t dare to try and imagine what those may be) over the emotional and mental stability of a woman they consider only as potential. One would hate to think what their priority might be if they had terrible sex with a woman and then found out she was pregnant.
Anyway, I’ve made these points on a number of occasions now, and I haven’t really seen them addressed adequately. I’m not anticipating anything new, and if they do come up with something new I don’t imagine it would be convincing.
“I am in a position to tell you that one of the main causes of divorce is sexual incompatibility. It’s a public fact. If you don’t want to have sex with your wife any more, then most men can’t see any further reason to have to put up with them.”
I can’t take seriously a guy who argues like this, who sees “sexual compatibility” (whatever that means, I mean what does a virgin have to compare it to?) as more important as any other aspect of the marriage; Who can’t see any other reason for persisting in a marriage. One would wonder if he knows that children aren’t dropped off by stalks… And this was probably the mildest of the liberal commentators…
So I’m going to leave it at that. 400 comments is enough for one post. We’ve broken the record for a post, so yay that must really officially make us cybergeeks…
And this doesn’t mean I’m “giving up” on the debate. Will be keen to debate you guys again sometime, on another topic, on another post. It would only be an improvement on this debate, and this was pretty golden… You never know, we might yet solve one of the greatest philosophical chasms in the postmodern age. Otherwise we’ll just learn a whole lot more about each other’s points of view and it’s worth it just for that…
Over and out…
p.s…. that moral code you were after weizguy:
Is homosexuality immoral? YES
Is BDSM immoral when conducted by two consenting adults? YES
Is suicide immoral? YES
Is MTV immoral? YES
Are string bikinis immoral? DEPENDS ON CONTEXT
Is copying DVDs immoral? IF COPYRIGHTED AND YOU HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHT: YES
August 24th, 2006 at 11:53 pm
“A few weeks of mood swings, manipulation, emotional blackmail and hormone induced temper-tantrums will cure you of this ‘all females are sacred’ bullshit real quick.”
For twelve weeks of the year I could cheerfully walk out on my nearest and dearest. I have observed when the lunar tide starts to make among a group of them the total behaviour change. Hell-week would be an apt description for the irrational and destructive comments and behaviour. A week later and they are all being nice nice. Misogony? Naah just brassed off at the repetitive behaviour. In fact very very bored with it. Its like alcoholic behaviour, great for a while then a destructive binge followed by a contrite period, Im sorry, im an alcoholic,its a disease, followed by a binge followed by ….rinse and repeat
Shock therapy is out, giving them the credit card is an own goal of Chamberlain proportions,
I think I will do what I always do, keep my head down unless it gets right out of hand and try and become scarce.
August 25th, 2006 at 8:31 am
AJ: “I, on the other hand, believe the following:
*Not all human beings are equal in intellect, judgment and moral character.
*Those of us who are stronger should act to protect the weaker… even where it appears to involve willing consent.
And finally, there is the rotten core of this nasty little man’s worldview. How repulsive. Tell you what, AJ, if you represent THE moral code, I’ll choose my “immorality” any day, and take my chances with your invisible friend later on.
And BTW, isn’t pride a deadly sin in your worldview? “Judge not, that ye be not judged” and all that?
August 25th, 2006 at 9:30 am
K1, there are several ways of interpreting AJ’s statement. The way I read it, a passerby stepping in to take a child away from a lolly-giving dirty old man, even though the child appears to be consenting willingly to going for a nice ride in a car…would be a case.
None of your business perhaps? Not responsible for whatever comes next? I think you are being very presumptuous in calling AJ a “nasty little man” for expressing that kind of sentiment.
Just because certain attitudes might have an element of danger in “going too far” doesn’t mean you need to assume they have gone too far.
After all, that has been the counter-argument here – that naked breasts to sell an erotica show in a public place is not going too far, although full on hard core sex on a float might cross the line. At least in 2006.
August 25th, 2006 at 10:07 am
Zen, the piece of me you quote is clearly hypothetical. I make no guesses as to AJ’s gayness, just float it as a possibility for his wierd prolonged virginity. It’s not uncommon for gay people to be a bit turned off by straight sex, although gay sex may not have occurred to them, or they repress it strongly.
And K1 is clearly talking about adults. Children can’t consent. Not legally, anyway.
August 25th, 2006 at 10:24 am
I know I said that was my last comment, but this is an aside. I find it hard to imagine how a repressed gay man could struggle with heterosexual pornographic temptation…
August 25th, 2006 at 10:30 am
Ben, he already told you why he takes that position. It’s rather aggressive to keep “floating possibilities.”
And again re K1, my point was that there are many ways of interpreting AJ’s statement in a positive context. I could think up examples with adults if you really want to be pedantic.
But it seems to me you are really reinforcing K1’s unfair assumption – a desire to make AJ a bad person to justify your outrage. Which really links back to the first point.
But then again, I’m merely floating possibilities. And that’s alright, isn’t it?
August 25th, 2006 at 10:48 am
Zen, hardly aggressive. You need to read in context. When I said ‘you’, it meant ‘one’, or ’someone’. And that someone could be AJ, but I wasn’t saying that it was.
Re: K1, yes I’d like to be pedantic in making you pick the examples that reinforce your point rather than leaving me to guess.
I don’t think AJ is a bad person, just a sad and stupid one. I think his externalization of his own inadequacy is not fair, but he’s really a pretty harmless fool, unlikely to have any influence at all. In times past he could have risen to a position where his delusions could affect the lives of others, and then he would be bad. But now he’s an anachronism, a self inflicted eunuch.
And yes, floating possibilities is OK. Whether they stay floating is down to evidence and there’s no real evidence that AJ isn’t gay and in denial other than his say so. Until he actually tries to have sex, even he won’t really know.
August 25th, 2006 at 10:50 am
Zen, you’re right, “nasty little man” was probably a bit unkind. So sue me – it wasn’t based only on his most recent revolting comments, but on the whole tone of his posting so far. I know all too many self-righteous pricks, and most of them are “nasty little men” who know better than the poor “weaker” people they try to dominate too.
And about the consent thing, what Ben said. There is a hopefully obvious large difference between children being lured into danger and adults exposing their breasts for some publicity. Or are you making a subtle point about your view of women?
August 25th, 2006 at 10:55 am
And another aside. A random blogger who calls himself K1 and calls me a “nasty little man” bothers me about as much as the overpopulation myth…
August 25th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Time to push for 1,000 comments on this thread. Mine makes it 408. Let’s go!
August 25th, 2006 at 2:32 pm
Test a comment
Visit site
August 25th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
I find it hard to imagine how a repressed gay man could struggle with heterosexual pornographic temptation…
Hey everyone – AJ made a point! Nice work there AJ. See how you said something articulate about the subject under discussion and made an intelligent statement based on your own first hand observations about life? I’d try and adopt that as a tactic more often.
August 25th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
AJ’s moral code:
Is homosexuality immoral? YES
Is BDSM immoral when conducted by two consenting adults? YES
Is suicide immoral? YES
Is MTV immoral? YES
Are string bikinis immoral? DEPENDS ON CONTEXT
Is copying DVDs immoral? IF COPYRIGHTED AND YOU HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHT: YES
My moral code:
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
Guess what – they don’t match. According to AJ, his is right, because i’m not as smart as he is, and he has to protect me from my own weaknesses.
I’d put money on the fact that AJ is not smarter than me – simply based on his inability to realise what the debate was all about. For someone who clearly thinks about this a lot, you struggle to argue your position…
Quite frankly, on the subject women’s sexuality, AJ has to be the most openly misogenist person I have ever encountered. I simply cannot comprehend how clueless and brainwashed he is about a woman’s ability to make sexual decisions for herself. You talk like women as if they were children, as if they needed you to make their decisions for them. Women stopped being property long ago dude, live with it.
Peace. I hope for the sake of your potential future wife that you wake up to yourself one day…
May 23rd, 2007 at 5:59 am
xafe fmuel pavu ayfgvz hzcdymiqa qulk lqeajvpnw
May 23rd, 2007 at 6:00 am
smew xfynikvwl lnoakq cyhg mvbnpew mdabq ohjrtuzis maidubsvy xpnua
May 26th, 2007 at 1:03 am
Very good site. Thank you.
runescape3k
May 26th, 2007 at 1:04 am
Very good site. Thank you.
runescape3k
May 28th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Nice site. Thank you.
netmeeting
May 29th, 2007 at 4:32 am
Very good site. Thank you!!!
richardsandrak
May 29th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Cool site. Thank you:-)
autotrader
May 29th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Good site. Thank you.
thesarus
May 29th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Good site. Thank you.
thesarus
May 29th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Cool site. Thank you:-)
normastitz
May 30th, 2007 at 12:52 am
Cool site. Thank you!!!
aimexpress
May 30th, 2007 at 12:52 am
Cool site. Thank you!!!
aimexpress
May 30th, 2007 at 3:39 am
Cool site. Thank you!!!
vision
May 30th, 2007 at 5:03 am
Nice site. Thank you:-)
relax
May 30th, 2007 at 5:03 am
Nice site. Thank you:-)
relax
May 30th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Good site. Thank you!
net detective
May 31st, 2007 at 10:55 am
Nice site. Thanks.
danni
May 31st, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Cool site. Thank you!
ebaycom
May 31st, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Good site. Thanks:-)
electronics
May 31st, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Cool site. Thanks!!!
ebay store
May 31st, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Very good site. Thanks:-)
sell on ebay
June 1st, 2007 at 4:40 am
Very good site. Thank you!!!
selling on ebay
June 1st, 2007 at 5:17 am
Cool site. Thanks.
electronics
June 1st, 2007 at 10:20 am
Very good site. Thanks.
ebay canada
June 1st, 2007 at 11:16 am
Nice site. Thanks:-)
ebay selling
June 1st, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Good site. Thanks!
boston real estate
June 1st, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Very good site. Thank you.
boston hotell
June 1st, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Very good site. Thank you.
boston hotell
June 2nd, 2007 at 3:35 am
Good site. Thanks!!!
birkenstock boston clog
June 2nd, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Cool site. Thank you:-)
birkenstock boston clog
June 2nd, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Cool site. Thanks.
boston university
June 2nd, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Cool site. Thanks.
boston university
June 3rd, 2007 at 7:59 am
Very good site. Thanks:-)
boston legall
June 3rd, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Nice site. Thanks:-)
vision
June 3rd, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Good site. Thanks!!!
night vision camera
June 3rd, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Good site. Thanks!!!
night vision camera
June 3rd, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Very good site. Thanks:-)
camera night security
June 4th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Nice site. Thank you!
girl stripper
June 4th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Nice site. Thank you!
girl stripper
June 5th, 2007 at 1:36 am
Very good site. Thank you:-)
noni juice 1
June 5th, 2007 at 6:14 am
Very good site. Thanks!
absolute vodka
June 5th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Very good site. Thank you:-)
airline ticket com
June 5th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Cool site. Thank you!!!
protein supplement
June 6th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Good site. Thanks!!!
jaime pressly
June 6th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Good site. Thanks!!!
jaime pressly
June 6th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Cool site. Thanks:-)
ziyi zhang
June 6th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Good site. Thank you:-)
rena mero best
June 7th, 2007 at 12:17 am
Good site. Thank you:-)
anna nicol smith
June 7th, 2007 at 1:26 am
Very good site. Thank you!!!
kimberley conrad
June 7th, 2007 at 1:27 am
Very good site. Thank you!!!
kimberley conrad
June 7th, 2007 at 2:38 am
Very good site. Thank you!!!
kara monaco
June 7th, 2007 at 7:13 am
Cool site. Thanks:-)
paris hilton
June 7th, 2007 at 8:36 am
Cool site. Thanks.
diora baird
June 7th, 2007 at 8:36 am
Cool site. Thanks.
diora baird
June 8th, 2007 at 2:29 am
Nice site. Thank you!
holly madison
June 8th, 2007 at 6:06 am
Very good site. Thanks.
kournikova anna
June 8th, 2007 at 9:40 am
Cool site. Thank you.
kendra wilkinson best
June 8th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Cool site. Thanks!
xanax
June 8th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Very good site. Thank you!!!
Divini Rae
June 8th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Very good site. Thank you!!!
Divini Rae
June 9th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Nice site. Thanks!!!
POKER ONLINE
June 10th, 2007 at 9:08 am
Nice site. Thank you!!!
meridia diet
June 11th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Nice site. Thank you!
diazepam tablets
June 12th, 2007 at 4:13 am
Good site. Thank you:-)
insurance agent
June 12th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Nice site. Thanks:-)
illinois insurance
June 13th, 2007 at 1:42 am
Cool site. Thank you!
unemployment insurance
June 14th, 2007 at 1:13 am
Cool site. Thanks.
girl nudist
June 14th, 2007 at 1:13 am
Cool site. Thanks.
girl nudist
June 14th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Nice site. Thank you!
tadalafil
June 14th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Nice site. Thank you.
childs book
June 19th, 2007 at 9:20 am
Cool site. Thank you!
lemon law
June 20th, 2007 at 5:39 am
Nice site. Thanks:-)
web cam sex
June 20th, 2007 at 9:40 am
Good site. Thank you!!!
Norma stitz
June 20th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Cool site. Thanks:-)
paris hilton sex tape
June 21st, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Very good site. Thanks:-)
adult dating
June 21st, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Cool site. Thank you!
adult
adult personal
adult movie
adult friend finder
adult only
adult dvd
adult chat
adult video
adult dating free
adult toy
adult sex
adult dating service
adult dvd rental
adult cartoon
adult picture
adult site
adult education
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:09 am
Very good site. Thanks!
sex
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Nice site. Thanks.
anal sex
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Nice site. Thanks.
anal sex
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Very good site. Thank you!
anal
June 27th, 2007 at 6:33 am
Cool site. Thanks.
cum shot
June 27th, 2007 at 6:33 am
Cool site. Thanks.
cum shot
June 27th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Good site. Thanks!!!
childs book
June 27th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Nice site. Thank you!!!
soma 350mg
June 28th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Very good site. Thank you.
jaime pressly
June 28th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Good site. Thanks!
ziyi zhang
June 28th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Good site. Thank you!!!
codeine syrup
June 29th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Cool site. Thank you!!!
interest mortgage
June 30th, 2007 at 12:51 am
Very good site. Thanks.
runescape autominer
June 30th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Good site. Thanks!
credit card
July 1st, 2007 at 11:12 am
Very good site. Thank you.
celtic frost ringtone
July 2nd, 2007 at 1:27 am
Nice site. Thank you!
new credit card
July 2nd, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Nice site. Thank you.
reverse mortgages
July 3rd, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Good site. Thank you!
insurance companies
July 3rd, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Good site. Thank you!
insurance companies
July 4th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Nice site. Thank you.
alprazolam dose
July 4th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Nice site. Thank you.
alprazolam dose
July 6th, 2007 at 8:58 am
Very good site. Thank you!!!
butter dishes
July 7th, 2007 at 2:35 am
Good site. Thanks!!!
Jessica Alba
July 7th, 2007 at 2:35 am
Good site. Thanks!!!
Jessica Alba
July 7th, 2007 at 7:07 am
Nice site. Thank you!
buy xanax
July 7th, 2007 at 7:10 am
Nice site. Thank you!
Scarlett Johanson
July 7th, 2007 at 7:11 am
Nice site. Thank you!
Scarlett Johanson
July 7th, 2007 at 9:04 am
Very good site. Thank you!!!
Julia Schultz
July 7th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Cool site. Thank you!
Anna Kournikova
July 7th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Nice site. Thanks:-)
Paris Hilton
July 8th, 2007 at 1:15 am
Very good site. Thanks.
florida mortgage rates
July 8th, 2007 at 1:16 am
Very good site. Thanks.
florida mortgage rates
July 9th, 2007 at 9:10 am
Very good site. Thank you:-)
dinnerware bowls