This entry was posted
on Tuesday, November 25th, 2008 at 8:22 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
134 Responses to “General Debate 25 November 2008”
Can anyone tell me what our National debt is per person as I posted about the US the other day?
I’d love to know what our biggest Councils debts are and the amount that represents per ratepayer too?
Don’t you think the Government and councils should have to give us figures every quarter or half yearly in simple format so a 12 yr old can understand it.
Then they can’t hide the books or bullshit their way through office.
The disruption of the Solid Energy general meeting in Auckland on Monday was more vandalism by hooligans cloaked as environmentalists.
Some of those who harass Solid Energy were involved in the alleged insurgency training in Tuhoi country. On the West Coast they continue protests to the level of disruption despite already costing taxpayers millions in moving of indigenous snails, which occur in other parts of the South Island. The green hooligans have also chained themselves to railway lines and disrupted general transport. Given an ounce of leeway, locals would run them off the Coast.
These people, many (probably most, even all) of whom bludge on the state for a living, try to halt development of coal exports which will help this country, which is already in considerable deficit in its international balance of payments.
One lesson of this to moderate people is NEVER support green activists, whether they be snail fanatics like these who harass Solid Energy, or whale fanatics like Green Peace.
One wonders, however, why Solid Energy as a state owned enterprise chose to have an annual meeting at all when it is the continuing target of these green, leftist tossers. Whoever advised them to hold one was obviously dumb enough to think it would be safe in Auckland.
The increasing use of standover tactics, bullying, threats, economic vandalism and hate speech by “activists” of all sorts is a worrying trend. Witness the vile and thuggish tactics being used by militant “gay rights” activists in the US in response to Prop 8.
The increasing use of standover tactics, bullying, threats, economic vandalism and hate speech by “activists” of all sorts is a worrying trend. Witness the tactics being used by militant “gay rights” activists in the US in response to Prop 8.
Ryan Sproull writes: “I would prefer those native New Zealand snails were not made extinct.”
Solid Energy’s mine plans won’t make these snails extinct locally, and they also exist in Nelson and Otago-Southland.
But even if it did, how much are we prepared to pay in New Zealand in effect to halt Evolution? Species evolve and species die out. It may (just may) be justifiable to spend millions on helicopters and conservation staff to keep kakapo surviving. But every time one species is saved the Greens want another dozen saved.
How about saving New Zealand economically? How about kids who are in poverty? Schools that are struggling? A health system that is unable to cope? Get your priorities right!
The Greens at heart seem anti-development, anti wealth creation, and let’s face it, almost anti-human!
What do people think about Tapu Misa of the NZ Herald advocating forced sterilisation of people with “low IQ and low income”? Should such people be forced to have surgery that prevents them from having children?
Threats to burn down churches. Vandalism of church property. The burning of religious scripture in front of churches. Envelopes filled with white powder sent to churches. Attempts to shut down businesses that have owners who supported Prop 8.
I’d prefer those native New Zealand snails were not made extinct.
What do they taste like ? Can we breed them and then export them to the Froggies as a delicacy ? What’s their carbon foot print ? How much per Kilo for Snail Milk Powder ?
Melanie Phillips at the Daily Mail in the UK http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=626
“The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, has broken ranks with his own Conservative party by floating once again the idea of an amnesty for illegal immigrants”.
The whole immigration debacle has highlighted families and individuals getting in without being fair.
Lets list our illegals, stop all education, medical, deport them and ban them for 5 years whilst they are still less than London’s 400,000.
How hard is this to do?
We could make a start with sacking anyone in the Immigration service who acts corruptly by not following fair practice and sending Mary Thompson’s family back.
We’ve got a UN quota I’d rather we spent proper resources so that those people get the best chance at being a success.
So let’s send everyone back who steps over the line.
Solid Energy’s mine plans won’t make these snails extinct locally, and they also exist in Nelson and Otago-Southland.
That’s good.
But even if it did, how much are we prepared to pay in New Zealand in effect to halt Evolution? Species evolve and species die out. It may (just may) be justifiable to spend millions on helicopters and conservation staff to keep kakapo surviving. But every time one species is saved the Greens want another dozen saved.
How about saving New Zealand economically? How about kids who are in poverty? Schools that are struggling? A health system that is unable to cope? Get your priorities right!
So you’re saying that it is a choice between the native snail surviving and the end of child poverty, poor education and a struggling health system? I’m not convinced we couldn’t somehow have both.
The Greens at heart seem anti-development, anti wealth creation, and let’s face it, almost anti-human!
I would say that the Greens are not so much anti-development or anti-wealth as having other values alongside development and wealth, which they occasionally find more important when the values clash. They’re not alone in this. I expect there are plenty of situations where you would be opposed to wealth creation if it meant infringing on other values you possess, such as your value for individual liberty.
A society that murders thousands of unborn children every year but gets in a tizzy over some snails is very clearly on the wrong road in terms of its moral values.
I don’t think the greenies care about, or “value” the snails at all. The snails are just an excuse for these glorified welfare bludgers to attack a business they don’t like.
The Greens would be wise to consider the company they keep – failing that, they would be wise to consider the negative perception that is created by illegal protests committed in the name of “activism”
“What do people think about Tapu Misa of the NZ Herald advocating forced sterilisation of people with “low IQ and low income”? Should such people be forced to have surgery that prevents them from having children?”
If she’s talking about pedophiles like the murderers of Nia Glassie I think she’ll get a lot of support
Sterilisation is drastic and and should be used in drastic measure.
But deterrent is the key word and we want to see these type of offenders who are beyond a shadow of doubt very worried in court. That will definitely be images that will make others have second thoughts about disrespecting the court room.
Sure, Tapu sounds shocking in this liberal day and age, I agree about that, but when we can have peace of mind about our children being safe in the community, I hope Tapu is leading the way with a shining light.
What Moral values?
We can’t seem to agree on what is common sense so how can we have any common values, let alone moral.
There are plenty of values common to all humans, all Westerners, all Kiwis, etc. Most of them are so obvious that they are practically transparent, so we forget there is commonality and see only those issues on which there is disagreement. Often the disagreements are from different prioritisation of values, rather than not sharing values at all.
For example, presumably you would stop someone who was burning a dog with a cigarette. Assuming you would, you care about the suffering and welfare of animals. The difference between you and someone who would break into a farm and rescue battery-farmed chickens is the prioritisation of that value against things like respect for the law, fear of consequences of breaking the law, appreciation for the wealth creation provided by battery farming, etc.
The accounting concepts are slightly complicated, because the Government is a complicated, multi-agency, beast.
There are two concepts that are close to what people may think of as “national debt”. The first is Gross Sovereign Issued Debt (GSID), which is the total amount of borrowing by the Government (but not its commercial arms like SOEs). As at 30 June 2008, GSID stood at $NZ31,390 million. Divide that by a population of 4,230,700 and you get $7,419.
But, and it is an important but, the Government has significant financial assets as well as liabilities.
Net core Crown debt, which is financial liabilities minus financial assets was minus NZ19 million, i.e. assets were higher than liabilities.
This figure EXCLUDES the assets of the NZ Superannuation Fund, because that is a separate legal entity (the Cullen Fund). As at 30 June 2008, that stood at $14,212 million.
And finally, there is the Net Worth of the Crown, which is all the assets, including SOEs, all the property, land etc, less all the liabilities. As at 30 June 2008, this stood at positive $105,514 million. Per head, that is $24,940.
So the Government’s financial position is very, very strong.
“Eugenics means “good breeding” and it is a totalitarian system for improving the genectic qualities of the human race.”
Tapu Misa is a very educated and well read woman. she knows what ‘eugenics’ means.
Many people of good calibre come from poor backgrounds including John Banks and John Key.
It is regrettable Tapu would have had their parents sterilised. We wouldn’t have many all Blacks either.
But I’m glad for her shock statement. also proves she’s not a libeal bleeding heart socialist who regret the sentence on Nia’s pedophile killers like the Curtis whanau publicly stated. (That statement remained on the Herald website for an entirety of around 5 mins before it was pulled. and then the Herald had the cheek to start a poll asking what the media can do to help)
We need radical statments to produce saner measures.
The problem is we have politicians who have made themselves so impt, they are never affected by society. Childless women taking the sovereignty of parents off their children. ( I wouldn’t want my children anywhere near them)
I don’t support Tapu 100% but I do 75%. I would think her editor understands that as well.
That’s the truth. The possum eradication program on the Miramar peninsular has been a huge success. My home is at tree level and at the weekend I watched 5 Tuis playing & singing. A few years ago seeing a single Tui was a rarity. Well done Wellington City Council.
Ryan Sproull writes:”… you’re saying that it is a choice between the native snail surviving and the end of child poverty, poor education and a struggling health system? I’m not convinced we couldn’t somehow have both.”
No Ryan, but extreme greenies seem happy in sandals and cheap remote huts that would not be acceptable to most kiwis. Are the greens going to be free how much of our limited economic wealth goes on snails and how much on people?
There is a cost to conservation, and it can be high.
The snail mob on the West Coast use conservation of this obscure species as a cover for an anarchistic, West-hating philosophy. They ought to look at the mess that the Soviet Union has left behind environmentally. Whole inland seas polluted, low-quality marginally safe nuclear plants. They might look also at the mess in China, especially the huge dams projects.
Future New Zealanders will also hold greenies accountable for the windmill farms that are beginning to blot our skylines and dams that drown beautiful valleys. They will ask: Why didn’t they just build nuclear power stations or use a little of all the bloody coal and gas?
One fine solution for endangered species is to make them useful to society, as many people have pointed out. I don’t see anything wrong with farming wekas and wood pigeons if that is going to ensure their survival. If the Maori had farmed moa instead of just hunting them, we would probably not moas today, but moa breed societies, moa scientists, and moa studs. As for the snails, perhaps we could let the French taste a few.
How many of these environmentalists have you sat down and talked to? I have spoken with many, and consider myself to be an environmentalist, and I don’t know any who remotely approximate your description or your insight into their hidden motives.
Do they have a similar understanding of what secretly motivates whatever it is that you do in life? Or would it be very ridiculous for them to claim such knowledge?
Thats er, a rather militant socialist ideal, is it not? Those of you advocating that should really go and join the left.
Getstaffed:
Its awesome about the Tuis. I remember growing up in wainui on a farm, we had heaps of them. Then we moved to the Hutt and then town and there were none. I quietly wondered what happened to them.
The other thing that article mentions is a rise of kaka. This makes me very, very happy, and also makes me think that we should have more mainland sancturarys like karori. Imagine a national resurgance in our native birdlife?
Motivations aside, the issue here is tactics, and I cannot see how it is legitimate to assault someone (and yes, throwing a pie at someone is assault). The Police are not prosecuting this. Why???
Illegal occupations may in some rare circumstances be morally legitimate, but not as a norm. And again there are double standards in our society here, which tends to favour left wing activists. If anti-abortion protestors occupied an abortion clinic, does anyone think they would not be forcibly removed within a matter of hours? If I threw a pie in the face of an abortion doctor does anyone think I would not be arrested? And does anyone think that liberals and the media would not be ranting about “fundamentalist violence”?
Yet so-called “environmentalists” get away with such tactics scot free.
The occupation of Happy Valley has been allowed to go on for far too long. Time to send in the police.
How many of these environmentalists have you sat down and talked to?
Well, that’s the trick isn’t it. Sit down and talk…. don’t come up with absurd publicity stunts that just piss off the people you actually need to talk with if you want to achieve anything. The protestors have cost solid energy millions to “save” a snail that wasn’t even endangered…. but that wasn’t what the protest was about.,… they just didn’t want the mine at all ….. and that’s cool to have that intention, but they need to be honest about their intentions. It amazes me how protestors professing to be environmentally sound can have such a lack of integrity and personal respect for people….. but I’m just talking about this particular bunch, not all environmentalists.
Want to read something funny at the expense of the left?? I was looking for a book called “15 Tips For Being a Good Leftist”. Its satirical of course. The funny part is a review of the book written by a lifetime leftist who had read it and recognised the accuracy of the satire, and experienced an epiphany. She was suddenly made aware of the absurdities of leftism. Her review is a candid appraisal of her feelings on reading the book, amusing and in a way admirable in its unusual frankness.
As a person who prided herself on her progressive and liberal beliefs for most of her life, I must say that it hurt me to read this book. It is funny and completely true what the author is satirizing. Funny, I guess, at the expense of people like me who actually entertained beliefs for a long period of my life that I never really examined or thought through. The book hurt in that the author shows that, when you really think about it, the socialist idea is absolutely ludicrous and, worse still, part of a profound sickness. It is a sickness of the soul.
Now that I really think about it, I can’t think of one of my former Leftist friends that was actually well-adjusted in society. Every single one of them had some kind of a really serious problem. But we never talked about our problems. It was always about something larger. Something larger had to be fixed and then we would be okay.
15 Tips cuts to this main point in a very painful manner — for me and for my memories. And apart from all the humour in the book, I was left not laughing but squirming, at the realization that the people he was ridiculing was actually people like me, who literally spent years of their life believing and saying all of the things that he ridicules.
Sitting here now, I think of all my friends, all of the people that I associated with in this calling. I remember, with tremendous discomfort, all of our conversations, all of our certainty about how wrong things were, and about how right they could be if only this and only that. 15 Tips slices with no mercy.
The other thing that article mentions is a rise of kaka. This makes me very, very happy, and also makes me think that we should have more mainland sancturarys like karori. Imagine a national resurgance in our native birdlife?
They seem to come & go with the food sources, but right at the moment, up near the top of the cable car, you can usually see a few dozen kaka performing for the tourists (when they’re not fighting the tui for territory.)
They’ve only been turning up for the last 2-3 years, but every year there are more & more of them.
the killers of Nia Glassie were selfish morons Those who seek to excuse their behaviour are selfish morons. Those who seek to support these selfish morons are themselves selfish morons.
We are in the new paradigm Those who seek to help themselves to meet societies moral and ethical standards deserve all the helpupport and assistance we can offer them
Those who chose to deliberately live outside the ethics and moral code of the society deserve to nothing.
those who support them deserve the utter contempt of all the hardworking members of society.
the time when a free loader could continue to bludge off their fellows is over. the world is in economic turmoil.
It is amusing to see apparently intelligent people talking so seriously about a species becoming extinct ‘locally.’ Wiped out, maybe. If the bloody things continue to flourish in Upper East PNG then they are NOT extinct.
Extinction is like pregnancy. It’s all or nothing and it sure as hell ain’t local.
the killers of Nia Glassie were selfish morons Those who seek to excuse their behaviour are selfish morons. Those who seek to support these selfish morons are themselves selfish morons…
Snails are a perfect target because they don’t move around much and hence mate with their local neighbours. If a snail does move quickly and gets around the neighbourhood and drops offspring far and wide it almost certainly is not a snail.
The end result is that almost any snail colony soon develops unique DNA and becomes a unique variety. One variety in the valley and another variety in the next valley. That is why there are about 15,000 recorded species of snail.
And that is why every small colony of snails is a “UNIQUE SPECIES” which MUST be protected.
Very convenient.
There are new varieties and species of snail developing through natural in-breeding every day. Haven’t you noticed how many of them have crossed eyes and are slow witted?
There are new varieties and species of snail developing through natural in-breeding every day. Haven’t you noticed how many of them have crossed eyes and are slow witted?
Come to think of it, I’ve never ever seen a snail with a doctorate.
Robert Higgs’ famous paper “Regime Uncertainty –Why the Great Depression Lasted So Long and Why Prosperity Resumed after the War” reminds us that during this period one threat to property rights was the frequent invasion of factories and offices by union members who simply took over the property until they got their way and yet were never prosecuted for trespass. Evidently they were immune to prosecution because “their cause was just”.
These days, we need to consider the wider impact of allowing Greenpeace and anti-GM activists to invade private property and even
destroy valuable experimental plants, apparently without risk of prosecution because they too are “doing good works”.
Ron Arnold: “Ecoterror: The Violent Agenda To Save Nature”
Paul Driessen: “Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death”
Bjorn Lomborg: “The Skeptical Environmentalist”
And browse the “Greenspirit” website of Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace in 1968, who left in disgust in 1986 because of what the organisation had become.
Jack5 SAID:
“……One lesson of this to moderate people is NEVER support green activists, whether they be snail fanatics like these who harass Solid Energy, or whale fanatics like Green Peace……”
Patrick Moore and the other authors I list above would agree 100% with that.
As I started to argue yesterday, the Politically Correct line is that Christian Fundamentalists like Sarah Palin and George W. Bush are a threat to “science”. Bullshit, bunkum, and codswallop. The biggest threat to science and progress comes from the bloody Luddite and loopy Gaia worshipping Greens.
How many people have read Bob Jones’ books like “Full Circle”?
I can just imagine Sir Bob doing a beautiful sendup of all the bearded, sandalled, spectacle-wearing types crouching over snails with microscopes, trying to work out what are the differences between the 15,000 different species.
FFS. Something is seriously amiss with our whole values system when humans are made to suffer and are bled of tax money to support follies like this.
“The biggest threat to science and progress comes from the bloody Luddite and loopy Gaia worshipping Greens.”
Dangerously indoctrinated when children by unprincipled leftist political predators posing as educationalists, I regard them as similar to the socialist morons who similarly brought themselves undone in the Jonestown Massacre 30 years ago.
Jack5 (157) 3 0 Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 10:12 am
“Ryan Sproull writes:”… you’re saying that it is a choice between the native snail surviving and the end of child poverty, poor education and a struggling health system? I’m not convinced we couldn’t somehow have both.”
No Ryan, but extreme greenies seem happy in sandals and cheap remote huts that would not be acceptable to most kiwis. Are the greens going to be free how much of our limited economic wealth goes on snails and how much on people?…”
Good posts, Jack5, including the whole thing that I have excerpted from here. I just want to say that extreme greenies in sandals and remote huts are a rare breed, most activism and support for Green policies comes from bloody hypocritical central city-dwelling trendy young things who could not survive without their lattes and central city night life, but who spend all their spare time plotting against and making war on people with families who live in the suburbs.
Interesting you mention Jonestown, Redbaiter, I just read something that came out a few days ago, called “Don’t Drink The Kool-Aid On Jonestown”, By Daniel J. Flynn.
“………On November 17, 1978, Jim Jones was a hero to American leftists. On November 18, 1978, Jones orchestrated the killings of 918 people and strangely morphed in the eyes of American leftists into an evangelical Christian fanatic. An unfortunately well-worn narrative, playing out contemporaneously in Pol Pot’s Cambodia, of socialist dreams ending in ghoulish nightmares, then, conveniently shifted to one about the dangers of organized religion. But as The Nation magazine reported at the time, “The temple was as much a left-wing political crusade as a church. In the course of the 1970s, its social program grew steadily more disaffiliated from what Jim Jones came to regard as ‘Fascist America’ and drifted rapidly toward outspoken Communist sympathies.” So much so that the last will and testament of the Peoples Temple, and its individual members who left notes, bequeathed millions of dollars in assets to the Soviet Union. As Jones expressed to a Soviet diplomat upon upon his visit to Jonestown the month before the smiling suicides took place, “For many years, we have let our sympathies be quite publicly known, that the United States government was not our mother, but that the Soviet Union was our spiritual motherland.”
Jim Jones was an evangelical communist who became a minister to infiltrate the church with the gospel according to Marx and Lenin. He was an atheist missionary bringing his message of socialist redemption to the Christian heathen. “I decided, how can I demonstrate my Marxism?,” remembered Jones of his days in 1950s Indiana. “The thought was, infiltrate the church.” So in the forms of Pentecostal ritual, Jones smuggled socialism into the minds of true believers–who gradually became true believers of a different sort…….”
Lee
“The occupation of Happy Valley has been allowed to go on for far too long. Time to send in the police.”
I’m with Lee
Time to sack any police management anywhere in the country and don’t let them perf, who won’t send in the troops.
Hopefully as National clear out the RMA, private property will get it’s the status enforced.
Yes why have the lefties not got prosecuted for assault Mr Broad?
Not sure that I’d want to carry a baby to full term after being raped though?
I’ve stood on the side of the woman for that one.
it is a conundrum.
Loved the ship wrecked sailor argument.
What really angers me about the Save Happy Valley pie throwers is that THEY WORE SANTA CLAUS COSTUMES.
How dare they drag Santa into their dispute with Solid Energy. Doing so cheapens and politicises Santa. They are using him for their political purpose. Whatever the merit or otherwise of their cause, THIS IS WRONG.
Does anyone believe Goldmans and Deutsche that Bollard will really drop the OCR by 150bp, or are they simple exerting pressure to do so by creating the expectation?
Yeah, I just thought it kind of encapsulated the Green Mindset- anti religious but fervently believers in a faith that will ultimately lead to their extinction.
Jones set up the “Peoples Temple Agricultural Project”, and said “those who remained drugged with the opiate of religion had to be brought to enlightenment—socialism.”
They all died in the end of course. 918 of them. So much for the enlightenment of socialism.
“As at 30 June 2008, net core Crown debt was in a small net asset position of $19 million.”
Ie. there is no debt at all! Note also that this does not include the assets of the NZ Super Fund (now about $14 billion). Not however that debt is expected to increase again after many years of decline.
I do not know about local authority debt, but the total is probably small bikkies in comparison, a few billion maybe? At most.
you’re welcome and thank you. If you find my argument to be cogent why wouldn’t you carry the baby to term?
I’m not saying that it would be easy to carry the baby to term, but it’s about doing what is right rather than what is easy.
IMHO there’s no conundrum: remember that there is nothing wrong with adoption. That would make a couple very happy and bring some good out a very bad situation. Remember also the mental and physical harm that abortion does to the mother.
Lee, economic vandalism, you mean like the Marriot hotel chain whining that it is wrong for gays to put a boycot on them ?
And other Mormons who own a business where a lot of gays live who have seen their turnover drop by 80%.
Want to play big boys games, the same rules apply.
The members of the Mormon church were utter fools to put themselves out like that, if any of their business owners are suffering they have no one to blame but themselves.
Kiwpolemist
I don’t have a problem with carrying to full term as I could turn around a negative and make it positive.
hell who knows maybe I’d be carrying another Rutherford or some such.
the child would get 100% of me so that it made it to 20 and was a much loved contributing member of society, after all half of it would be me!
If people boycotted business controlled by or owned Homosexuals, as you say Mormons have asked for by supporting their viewpoint, what do you think the headlines would be?
Something along the lines of “Hate crimes” or some such!
If you consider a foetus to be a human life, and you think that murder is always wrong, then who the father of the baby is, or the manner of conception, should have no impact on your views about abortion.
If someone accepts those premises, they are being inconsistent if they then say, “I am opposed to abortion except in cases of rape.”
I suppose, logically, the only position in which rape would have an impact would be one that emphasises personal responsibility – that if one gets pregnant through consensual sex, however safe, then you’re responsible for the pregnancy.
But even that doesn’t really work, because it still relies on there being something morally wrong with abortion. To say, “I think people shouldn’t be allowed to have abortions except in cases of rape, because rape isn’t their fault,” is still to imply that you see abortion as morally wrong, and that presumably relies on the premise of a foetus being a human life.
When I say “you”, I don’t mean you specifically. I don’t know what your position is. I haven’t been following the conversation.
But I can’t see a consistent position on abortion that means that rape is a factor, unless… unless the psychological suffering inflicted on the victim can be weighed up somehow against the value of the human life resulting from the crime? But I doubt anyone’s making that argument.
you said “it’s the forcing someone else to do so I balk at”. It’s not a matter of forcing someone to *do* something, it’s a matter of forcing someone to *not do* something, i.e. not murder the unborn child, just as current murder laws attempt to stop people murdering people who have been born.
In other words, it’s not a matter of proscribing the giving of life, it’s a matter of restricting the taking of life. To restrict murder at one address (ex utero) but not at another (in utero) is illogical in the extreme. The baby does not metamorphose when born so using birth as a dividing line is indefensible, and the only logical point for the beginning of life is conception because anything else is arbitrary.
The baby does not metamorphose when born so using birth as a dividing line is indefensible, and the only logical point for the beginning of life is conception because anything else is arbitrary.
first, a large and diverse number of churches were involved in supporting prop 8, not just Mormons.
Second, I am talking about threats being made against workers as they enter their places of business, and vandalism of property, not peaceful boycotting.
And its not just peoples places of work, there has been a surge of violence and intimidation against Christians and Mormons in response to this.
I will say what I have said before. The gay rights movement is a violent and fascist movement that is utterly contemptuous of democracy and genuine liberty.
The end result is that almost any snail colony soon develops unique DNA and becomes a unique variety. One variety in the valley and another variety in the next valley. That is why there are about 15,000 recorded species of snail.
conversely, snails lie many arthropods are cheap and easy to protect ex situ, requiring little area and resources to maintain their populations. They don’t learn ‘bad behaviours’, forget how to hunt, or the like. Many mining companies are also very good at ecological restoration, and lead the way in this practice. Alas, the NZ habit of treating ex situ conservation as the ‘ugly step-sister’ of conservation work, means we rarely utilise this option.
Most invertebrate species are also much more genetically distinct than vertebrate species. Most mammals share much higher genetic data than insects (roughly 99% to 90%). The reason however, is likely to be taxonomic. We’re very good at recognizing small differences in larger animals that we over-look in much smaller creatures. There’s probably a lot more invertebrate species out there.
Note that many Northland species of snails are under significant threat from invasive rodents, and I would like to see some of these conservationists (cough) putting the same effort into protecting other snail species from other threats….
Turpin , you are forgetting one point, the customer is always right.
If some religious type does not wish to buy products or services from a company owned by gays that is their right.
The same right I have to turn down work from the extreme bible bashing types.
But the amusing thing is it seems a lot of Mormons are happy to take gays money but do not want gays to have the same rights.
Hell if I had my way gay marriage would be compulsory, I hate the thought of some sods out there not getting nagged.
To me the nub is that the issue is a foetus a person or is it a blob until it comes out (how far out is out?) therefore no abortion or is it a shade of grey.
The trespasser argument above is compelling but, here is where the human side of me intrudes into the logic.
Rape/Incest whatever, for a woman the whole sex thing can be very different for a fella, also the very being of a woman is for some is through the birth process to a greater or lessor degree.
To taint that with an act of animalistic violence is nauseating to my sensibilities and this constitutes the psycho/social/emo bit of the issue.
For a woman to carry (the beast) within her seems on the face of it obscene and what chance the child later on?
some call rape a little death.
I’m sure some woman would call it a big one?
Who am I to know as I’m a fella even if I’m trying to be human
Again, just to be clear, I was talking about death threats against workers and owners and vandalism against property, not boycotts. I have no problem with boycotts as a form of political activism.
“Mormons are happy to take gays money but do not want gays to have the same rights.”
People who choose to indulge in homosexual behavior already have the same rights. They have the right to enter into a marriage with a person of the opposite sex.
Marrying a person of the same sex is not the same right, its a different one entirely.
The nature of conception itself. Prior to conception there is not a growing human being. But science (and ultrasound) clearly show that once conception has taken place, a human child begins to grow.
People who choose to indulge in homosexual behavior already have the same rights. They have the right to enter into a marriage with a person of the opposite sex.
Marrying a person of the same sex is not the same right, its a different one entirely.
Like how a white person with the right to marry someone of their own skin colour has the same right as a black person with the right to marry someone of their own skin colour. Preventing white-black marriage would not infringe on that equality. A white person in love with a black person would have just as much right to marry another white person as any other white person does.
Ryan, the link was for the benefit of other readers who might not be up with the play.
Conception is the only point at which a new organism comes into existence, ie new genetic information is laid down. Everything after that is development of the same organism. The point of time at which an organism first exists (as defined by the creation of a new set of genetic data) is the beginning of the life of that organism.
There were two people in the room, then there were three
Gay Marriage is a minefield. Now I am a middle class white heterosexual, who is tolerant in most things, but Gay Marriage does not sit easily with me. Let me explain why.
Firstly, I have Gay and Lesbian friends. I am accepting of their choices, and see nothing wrong with 2 people loving each other, be they of the same or different genders. I have no issue at all should a same sex couple choose to openly and ceremoniously commit themselves to each other, and I have had the pleasure of attending a civil union for lesbian friends.
My objection to gay marriage stems from the origin of marriage itself. Marriage is a spiritually based union between a man and a woman. It came to society via the church, and regardless of your opinion of the church, it is not the role of the state to determine who can and cannot be covered by this type of union. While there is a civil equivalent, there are those who put great stock in the institution of marriage as a by-product of their beliefs.
I do not think the state can dictate the parameters of marriage so far beyond its parameters. There are those who will say that marriage is a dead institution and they have the right to think so, but that should in no way detract from those who place marriage far higher.
At the same time the church should be unable to turn around and ban commitment ceremonies for those who are outside their sphere so to speak.
The concept of a civil union had great merit. It still does.
The nature of conception itself. Prior to conception there is not a growing human being. But science (and ultrasound) clearly show that once conception has taken place, a human child begins to grow.
“Human life starts at conception because that’s when a human life starts.”
Conception is the only point at which a new organism comes into existence, ie new genetic information is laid down. Everything after that is development of the same organism. The point of time at which an organism first exists (as defined by the creation of a new set of genetic data) is the beginning of the life of that organism.
What is less arbitrary about the new set of genetic data as a line to draw?
There were two people in the room, then there were three
Again, circular reasoning. That argument only supports your conclusion if you start with the assumption that your conclusion is true.
A question: I havent followed the California issue in detail, but can someone clarify what they are planning to take away from same sex couples, is it just the right to marry or are they also taking away partnership rights as well (tax benefits, inheritance, hopsital visitation etc.)?
Incidentally, it seems strange that the Mormons would be taking a strong public position on this. From my experience in the US the mormo church generally keeps a low profile, perhaps because so many mormons are so involved with business, and tend to take a live and let live approach to most issues outside of their church so as not to rock the boat. I just found this about Mitt Romney’s position on the subject in wikipedia and how he seems to have flip flopped around the issue (perhaps he changed his position when he thought about running for president?). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#Governor_of_Massachusetts.2C_2003.E2.80.932007
Excerpt:
“At the beginning of his governorship, Romney opposed same-sex marriage and civil unions.[59][60] Faced with the dilemma of choosing between same-sex marriage or civil unions after the November 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision legalizing same-sex marriages (Goodridge v. Department of Public Health), Romney reluctantly backed a state constitutional amendment in February 2004 that would have banned same-sex marriage but still allow civil unions, viewing it as the only feasible way to ban same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.[61] In May 2004 Romney instructed town clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but citing a 1913 law that barred out-of-state residents from getting married in Massachusetts if their union would be illegal in their home state,[62][63] no marriage licenses were to be issued to out-of-state same-sex couples not planning to move to Massachusetts. In June 2005, Romney abandoned his support for the compromise amendment, stating that the amendment confused voters who oppose both same-sex marriage and civil unions. Instead, Romney endorsed a petition effort led by the Coalition for Marriage & Family that would have banned same-sex marriage and made no provisions for civil unions.[64] In 2006 he urged the U.S. Senate to vote in favor of the Marriage Protection Amendment.[65][66]“
you say “For a woman to carry (the beast) within her seems on the face of it obscene”. How can the baby be a beast if it an innocent party? Why add the violence of abortion to the violence of rape? The baby may be an unwelcome guest (like the shipwrecked sailor) but it is not a beast.
Ryan: if a new set of genectic data is not indicative of a new human being then a bunch of rapists and murderers will want their convictions repealed because the common view of genetics is all wrong.
Can you find and defend a better point for defining the beginning of life?
Is it just me, or has anybody else noticed the complete absense of Nia Glassie’s father in this entire episode. I find it disturbing that the father was not present during the horrific abuse as well as during the trials. Does her father even know what has happened. It has made my blood boil following the abuse described at the trials, and I am sure any sane father would have also been outraged at the abuse of his daughter.
Ryan: if a new set of genectic data is not indicative of a new human being then a bunch of rapists and murderers will want their convictions repealed because the common view of genetics is all wrong.
So geneticists are all agreed that abortion is murder, because human life begins at conception? You’re making a bit of a leap there, from “there is new genetic data created at conception” to “therefore new genetic data means the creation of a human life”. The leap, in fact, entirely consists of believing your conclusion: “Life begins at conception.” The circularity of your argument is subtle, but it’s implicit.
Can you find and defend a better point for defining the beginning of life?
I could imagine any number of different ones, but if by “better” you mean “less arbitrary”, I don’t think so, no. I don’t think it’s possible for me or anyone else to find a “better” point, in that sense.
I could say, “The point at which the baby can survive unassisted.”
Or, “The point at which the baby is self-aware.”
Or, “The point at which the baby feels pain.”
Or, “The point at which the heart cells start twitching.”
None of them are going to be able to stand up to the scrutiny of asking, “What’s less arbitrary about that?” Anyone attempting to defend any of those points will find themselves scrambling up the same circular arguments you’ve been using.
“Life begins at the point where the baby is first self-aware. Why? Because that’s when a baby is a human self. A human self is self-aware, therefore anything before self-awareness is not a human self. So it must be true that when the unborn organism becomes self-aware, that is when it is technically alive.”
It may have the structure and veneer of an argument, but really it’s just a series of restatements of the conclusion, or statements that assume that the conclusion is true. If it is true that life begins at self-awareness, then all of the arguments obtain. If it is not true that life begins at self-awareness, none of the arguments obtain.
Any definition of when life begins will be arbitrary.
Keep in mind, we have similar problems with defining when life ends.
race and sexual behaviour are two different issues, especially given that we know that race really is just skin deep.
So a “black” man and a “white” women getting married is an objectively different issue than two men marrying.
The only scientific answer to when a human life begins is conception. The only observable answer to when a human life begins is conception. And the only objective moral answer is conception.
Conception is not arbitrary, it is the inconveniant truth that our society wants to ignore.
If it WAS arbitrary, then why are Nia Glassie’s murderers in prison? Because surely, if conception is a myth and when human life begins an “arbitrary” issue, then what they did was not truly and objectively wrong, was it? After all they could say “well its just your arbitrary opinion that she was a full human being”.
Now you may respond that human life (and therefore the right to life) is where a democratic society decides it is, but of course that would have potential consequences that any intelligent person should be horrified about. For example, what about a society that decides that anyone over 70 is a drain on resources and should have their life terminated? According to your argument there would be no objective reason to criticize such a society.
race and sexual behaviour are two different issues, especially given that we know that race really is just skin deep.
So a “black” man and a “white” women getting married is an objectively different issue than two men marrying.
They’re certainly different issues, but that doesn’t change the fact that your response to gay marriage – “everyone already has equal rights to marry the opposite sex” – is identical in form to that response to interracial marriage – “everyone already has equal rights to marry the same race”. If you have a problem with the latter, you shouldn’t find the former convincing.
The only scientific answer to when a human life begins is conception. The only observable answer to when a human life begins is conception. And the only objective moral answer is conception.
Science can say all it likes about the events and processes that occur during and after conception, but it remains silent – and cannot say anything at all – on the moral question of when a process or a collection of matter is to be considered a human life with all of the moral rights and duties that implies. Nothing about what science says about conception is being left out of a view that draws the line between pre-human-life and human life somewhere after (or before) conception.
Conception is not arbitrary, it is the inconveniant truth that our society wants to ignore.
If it WAS arbitrary, then why are Nia Glassie’s murderes in prison? Because surely, if conception is a myth and when human life begins an “arbitrary” issue, then what they did was not truly and objectively wrong, was it? After all they could say “well its just your arbitrary opinion that she was a full human being”.
Certainly. And the people who pulled the plug on Terry Schiavo aren’t in prison because of a similarly arbitrary line drawn. Just because the lines are arbitrary, doesn’t mean they’re not lines. Whatever the disagreements in our society about where the line between pre-human life and human life are drawn, there is unanimity that Nia Glassie was alive.
Laws are not objective facts about the world. The status of Nia Glassie’s family as murderers can be explained without claiming that New Zealand criminal law is a foundational truth of the universe.
Now you may respond that human life (and therefore the right to life) is where a democratic society decides it is, but of course that would have potential consequences that any intelligent person should be horrified about. For example, what about a society that decides that anyone over 70 is a drain on resources and should have their life terminated? According to your argument there would be no objective reason to criticize such a society.
You’re right, there would be no objective reason to criticise such a society. There is never any objective reason to criticise anything. Criticism is a moral issue, and morality is not a fact about the world, it is a fact about us. There would be subjective reasons to criticise such a society. Just as there is subjective reason to criticise our society for allowing people in the Third World to starve while it’s in our power to prevent it, or any other criticism.
I’m not in the habit of allowing horrifying consequences of truth to persuade me into falsehood. I’m simply laying down the reality, harsh or otherwise. We constantly draw lines that are, in the end, arbitrary. Our society is founded on them.
There have been societies where allowing an old person to die was considered right and proper. There have been societies that considered babies to be not an individual life until around the age of 2, when they could get about on their own. There have been societies that considered slavery right and proper. There have been societies that considered homosexuality to be abominable. There have been societies that saw capital punishment as right and proper. And so on.
Just because you find it terrifying to consider that our current society may not be based on access to some fundamental laws of the universe that justify everything we consider right and wrong, doesn’t necessarily mean that is not the case.
There were two people in the room, then there were three
Ryan
You quote logic but then trash it.
“Again, circular reasoning. That argument only supports your conclusion if you start with the assumption that your conclusion is true”.
As far as I can make out kiwipol was correct therefore it was true
he said “then there were three”!
which was true wasn’t it?
Sorry to laugh but you put this one , well maybe you want to change what you wrote or explain it better.
“I could say, “The point at which the baby can survive unassisted.”
At what age do human babies survive unassisted?
5, 8, 10, 15, 18 yrs???
The questions I have are these, why does this c**t receive money from me and every other tax payer ever week? and when will we ever have a government brave enough to say to wankers like this that they are not going to get one more cent from hard working law abiding Kiwi’s.
The targetting of Mormons over the passage of Prop 8 is scandalous. Mormons comprise 3% of the CA population so there is no way that Mormons were more than a small minority of the 52% of CA voters who supported Prop 8. Blacks supported Prop 8 by 70% – Latinos by over 60%. Many Muslims, Jews and Evangelical Christians united to support Prop 8. Want to know who to blame for its passage then blame the Catholics Priests in CA who told all their parishioners on the Sunday before Nov 4 to vote Yes on 8. Opinion polls had Catholic support for Yes on 8 at 58% and the Nos winning by about 5 a week out from the vote. Exit polls showed Catholic support surged to almost 70% so the urgings in Mass is what put Yes on 8 over the top. Yes donations from Mormons helped but what is lost in the anger and nasty tactics of the gay mafia since losing is that more money was donated to the No on 8 cause in total than the Yes on 8. Are all the Christians and other Yes on 8 supporters calling for a boycott of Google because their CEO tipped in a cool mill or calling for a boycott of Speilberg’s movies after he put in another mill?
People of many faiths comprised the thousands of Yes on 8 supporters who lined the PCH and major intersections in the weekends leading up to the vote. The gays targetted Mormons in the hope that other churches with whom they have theological differences with would not defend them. The media of course are in the tank for gay cause and have not reported the extra ordinary ecumenical support that was shown before and after the vote and the way other religious leaders in CA have rallied to support the Mormons whose temples and churches were picketted and who were the subject of white powder letters; their businesses were targetted and individual members singled out professionally for boycotts that led to resignations. Had it been Jewish synagogues being targetted, the left leaning media would be crying anti – Semitism. Had the big black Christian churches (who overwhelmingly backed Prop been the subject of gay anger, would the media cry racism!
The double standard and hypocrisy in the aggressive tactics of the gays is appalling and targetting the LDS church is just religious bigotry of the first order. Most gays I know don’t care to be married. When you look at reputable and statistically significant non-biased surveys on sexual preference, only 3% of the population self describe as exclusively homosexual. Only 50% of lesbians and barely 10% of gay men are in what could be described as monogomous stable relationships so that knocks the number back to 1%. Lets be generous and assume that 50% of monogomous gays actually want to be married particuarly when in NZ even before the Civil Unions Act and in CA today gays enjoy full equality under the law in terms of all the things that matter (willing assets, making medical and funeral decisions, pension rights etc); that leaves only 0.5% of the population who are bleating about not being able to be married.
The aggressive and nasty tactics of the gay activists is back firing big time. Most gays I know are moderate in their views and happy in their current arrangement and are appalled at these tactics and believe it will cause a backlash of intolerance amongst those in the community who are sadly prejudiced against gays.
As far as I can make out kiwipol was correct therefore it was true
he said “then there were three”!
which was true wasn’t it?
It’s only true if life begins at conception. And he used it in support of his claim that life begins at conception.
Do you see? That’s where logic comes into it. If you’re arguing that some claim is true, your argument can’t rely on that claim’s truth for it to be compelling. For example, “The Qu’ran says it was divinely inspired. Divinely inspired books don’t lie. Therefore, the Qu’ran is divinely inspired.”
Sorry to laugh but you put this one , well maybe you want to change what you wrote or explain it better.
“I could say, “The point at which the baby can survive unassisted.”
At what age do human babies survive unassisted?
5, 8, 10, 15, 18 yrs???
that’s a bit of a misnomer don’t you think?
I mean unassisted by the womb or an incubator. It’s a common line drawn by advocates of abortion before that point. It is an arbitrary line, but no more or less arbitrary than any other.
The questions I have are these, why does this c**t receive money from me and every other tax payer ever week? and when will we ever have a government brave enough to say to wankers like this that they are not going to get one more cent from hard working law abiding Kiwi’s.
In his defence, with that haircut, it’s probably very difficult to get a job.
Hmm, it seems that some believe marriage started with the Christian churches.
Marriage was part of heathen life for thousands of years before any Christian church started.
The problem with Mormons and their ilk is that they believe that others should live by their moral values.
In other words they poke their noses into other peoples business uninvited.
I hope this really burns the Mormon church they are that bloody arrogant that they baptise the dead jews from Hitler’s concentration camps into their sect.
Amusing to see some gays re-baptising Mormons as gays.
Yes, maybe it is time to look at churches and tax, why should I fund the local body services for religious types.
I just wrote a big response and it was lost in a crack in the internet, so I’ll just quickly say that this probably explains the logical fallacy of “there were two in the room, now there are three, therefore life starts at conception” better than I can:
And the “unassisted” comment refers to the point at which a foetus could survive without a womb or an incubator. It’s a common line drawn by people who have no problem with abortion so long as it occurs before that point. It is an arbitrary as any other line.
sorry Ryan
either there is two in the room or three.
how big that three is or whether the two recognise/aware of the the third is another question.
so your link whilst nice, doesn’t answer it.
thanks for the help.
Sorry having dealt with teanagers and twenty somethings this week I should have made it more tongue in cheek maybe a smiley next time
By unassisted I mean breathe, pee but still be fed and protected?
However this still runs into the hoary old question if we deliver and save those who need assistance but don’t others of the same age/gestation, instead we rip them apart/kill them by some such, what’s the difference between them?
Only the viewpoint of the adult dealing with them.
As left to themselves they’d die.
hope this helps again sorry to not share the joke fully.
Grumpyoldhori
You’ve been hoist by your own petard. By your own admission, marriage is an ancient institution that for many many years the state was never involved with. Some chose to marry outside churches, some inside. Marriage has been easily defined by all cultures across the globe for thousands of years as a union between one man and one woman. A small number of gay activists sought to redefine this long held tradition. Prop 8 would never have appeared on the ballot in CA had the CA Supreme Court not overruled the democratic will of the people who voted 62/38 in 2000 on Prop 22 to define marriage in law as that which it had always been for centuries. The Propositions voted and passed in 40 US states now do nothing more than codify in law that which has been the practice globally since time immemorial. It is light years away from “pocking their noses in other people’s business”.
Marriage is not a “moral value” nor is it a doctrine or belief. If a particular religion was trying to get the state to define and legalise their particular practice or belief via the ballot box then it would and should never be law particularly under constitutionally designed sepraration of church and state in the US. Christian churches support marriage for the same reason why pagan religions in Africa support and practice it – it is the most stable institution in which to raise children. You can be an athiest and still agree that many many studies have defined the clear benefits to children of being raised in a traditional marriage. Are some marriages bad – absolutely but still the institution of marriage has endured for so long and across so many cultures precisely because it is the best family unit combination.
How are you ‘funding’ any church? There is no state religion in NZ or the US that gets a taxpayers subsidy certainly not the Mormons who it is reported donate $100 millions each year and provide thousands of volunteers for all the global natural disasters and do so apparently out of their own pockets.
“They’re certainly different issues, but that doesn’t change the fact that your response to gay marriage – “everyone already has equal rights to marry the opposite sex” – is identical in form to that response to interracial marriage – “everyone already has equal rights to marry the same race”. If you have a problem with the latter, you shouldn’t find the former convincing.”
Not at all. They are two entirely different arguments that your conflating based solely on the wording. Marriage is between a man and a women. We can debate the exact nature of that (such as racial issues) but it does not change the fact that we are are talking about marriage. The issue of same sex unions is not the same as old racial arguments because we are talking about something entirely different.
“Science can say all it likes about the events and processes that occur during and after conception, but it remains silent – and cannot say anything at all – on the moral question of when a process or a collection of matter is to be considered a human life with all of the moral rights and duties that implies.”
Of course it can. Science cannot tell me that a rock is a human being. Science cannot tell me that a sperm is a human being. Science CAN and does tell me that a human being is a human being, and science can and does tell me (based on scientific observation) that once conception has taken place we are dealing with a human being. Inconvenient I know, but true.
“Just because the lines are arbitrary, doesn’t mean they’re not lines.”
Yes it does. An arbitrary line based merely on opinion is not a line, but shifting sand.
“Whatever the disagreements in our society about where the line between pre-human life and human life are drawn, there is unanimity that Nia Glassie was alive.”
Thats because we could not deny the truth before our eyes and in our hearts. The unborn are largely unseen, and therefore easy to dismiss. Human beings have a remarkable talent for convenient self-deception and hypocrisy. But as ultrasound and other imaging technology brings the truth before more and more eyes, support for abortion is beginning to erode, especially among younger generations.
“Laws are not objective facts about the world.”
Some are, and all should be. The law against murder is based on the objective fact that murdering people is wrong. And we KNOW it. Deep down inside most people know the objective truth about the eternal moral Law that is written in our hearts, but we try to hide from it. Thats why most people, when confronted with Nia Glassie’s torture and murder did not say to themselves “Oh well, thats wrong because we arbitrarily chose to make it illegal”. No. They reacted with horror and disgust, because they knew in the hearts that it was not simply wrong for arbitrary legal reasons, it was evil.
When confronted with pictures of Jews in the death camps most sane people do not say to themselves “Oh well, thats wrong because we passed a law against it”, they react with deep emotional horror at the evil.
“I’m not in the habit of allowing horrifying consequences of truth to persuade me into falsehood.”
No, your in the habit of ignoring the horrifying consequences of your falsehood.
“There is never any objective reason to criticise anything. Criticism is a moral issue, and morality is not a fact about the world”
Yes, true morality is about facts concerning the world. Question, was the Holocaust objectively wrong, or is that just a matter of opinion?
“There have been societies”
C.S Lewis deals with this myth in ‘The Abolition Of Man’. Suffice it to say, that despite differences there has in fact been a remarkable degree of uniformity in what most societies have considered right and wrong. Human societies do not always get it right, but that does not prove that therefore there IS no objective right.
“Just because you find it terrifying to consider that our current society may not be based on access to some fundamental laws”
I don’t find it terrifying, I find it rationally untenable, logically contradictory, and totally at odds with human experience.
“Tapu Misa must be some type of socialist if she’s advocating forced sterilisations.”
The only thing Tapu is guilty of is being an alarmist.
If she’s waving a red flag its not a political one. She never endorses political opinion on her column.
she’s not saying what she’s saying for no reason. children are being murdered and more will happen.
she’s basically just jumping the trend when the public get fed up with murdering youth mocking the system and laughing at judges. The bleeding heart air head liberals have held far too much sway over the years and respected journalists need to speak up because childrens cowardly neighbours won’t.
In business when you want to make a deal, you aim high and unrealistically to get to the level you’re happy with.
Besides, Tapu sounds more right wing than left
she seems to have passed the acid test with Redbaiter, that’s good enough for me.
“Hmm, it seems that some believe marriage started with the Christian churches.”
No, it started with God.
And I’ll say it again as you very conveniently ignored it, The Mormons were only ONE amongst dozens of churches and organizations that supported Prop 8.
kiwi in america, funding churches, places of so called worship in NZ pay no local body rates, so it falls on we the majority, who do not got to those places of so called worship to pay for them.
Same as NZ Mormons on a benefit if they can afford to give 10% to a sect, they are getting far too much.
And there are a lot of Mormons on a benefit, hmm, the money the Mormon church gives away I wonder how much of it comes from taxpayer.
Lee, because those gays are cunning, if they can split the Mormons away others churches will not be so damn keen in future to get involved in others moral issues.
Do you believe in separation of church and state ?
Or should we be a theocracy like Utah ?
Should Mormons baptise jews who were killed in concentration camps ?
The article seems to suggest that there is no legal difference being proposed in terms of the rights that they can enjoy in a civil union vs a marriage. Is this purely a symbolicy debate therefore around the actual word “marriage”?
It is the crap from Word’s shitty idea of what constitutes HTML (as I pointed out in a comment yesterday) and it’s causing havoc for a number of us who’ve been whining like babies for days. Please fix it… it makes KB virtually unusable till it drops off the front page behind new postings. I’d suggest running it through Dreamweaver’s “clean up Word HTML” function. Or hand delete the wonky tags.
big bruv et al:
Never mind what the scumbag pictured has done, look at what the judge has done:
Judge Gary MacAskill … asked for a report on his suitability for home detention, even though Dey has no home address
So this waste of skin goes to a school, threatens a teacher and, by implication, children, by saying he has a gun. The judge then bends over backwards to see if he can be allowed to sit at home watching TV and smoking cannabis as a “punishment”. (Like that will be a big lifestyle change).
In comparison, I know of a young girl (early 20s) who was stupid enough to get herself addicted to much stronger drugs. Spiralling downwards (as you do) she went up to another girl on the street and said “give me your money and your cellphone or I’ll cut you” (note that, while I’m not making excuses, this was on a busy street in broad daylight, she didn’t make any physical contact with the victim, and the victim was probably therefore a lot less terrified than a teacher in an enclosed environment faced with a menacing tattooed male, who I bet has a record that reads like a Raymond Chandler novel).
It was her second offence (the first was for shoplifting). She got five years in maximum security, eligible for parole only after three. In her first six months in jail she’s been seriously attacked twice, including having a knife held to her throat by a convicted murderer.
Not only is the law an ass, our judges are assholes.
(Sorry about the language DPF, but sometimes there’s no other word for it).
[DPF: I don't have dream weaver. I must relearn HTML so I can manually edit the tables]
In reference to Rex Widerstrom’s post, the sentence does seem unreasonable on the face of it. Excuse my ignorance of NZ law, but can one appeal a sentence (if you accept your guilt but feel punishment is unreasonable), rather than the conviction itself, or do you have to go the whole hog and appeal the whole lot?
# Nookin (32) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
“llew: I experience the same problem when logging in using Internet Explorer. However, if I login using Mozilla Firefox, I do not have any difficulty.”
…one appeal a sentence (if you accept your guilt but feel punishment is unreasonable), rather than the conviction itself, or do you have to go the whole hog and appeal the whole lot?
yes, you can appeal just the unreasonableness of the sentence. And in this case the girl’s family are doing so. The girl plead guilty, by the way (as well as writing to the victim to apologise), and the sentencing judge said five years included a “discount” for her guilty plea and remorse.
Knowing what some judges can be like I advised them to hire a good barrister to do the mitigation plea regardless. They did, at a cost of almost $4,000 for 30 minutes court time and by all accounts he did an excellent job. But since His Honour’s piles were giving him problems that morning, or perhaps he’d been turned down by a particularly attractive stenographer at a Chambers dinner the previous weekend, she copped his bad temper.
Now the family – who aren’t rich – are scrambling to find another almost $7000 for a barrister to do the appeal.
And what’s the bet the guy in the newspaper gets Legal Aid?
grumpyoldhori
Yes on 8 won by 570,000 votes. Mormons comprise 2% of the total population so around 700,000. Many of those will be under 18 since they have larger than average families so lets assume 60% are registered voters. Now not all Mormons are practising and the non-practising ones I know are decidedly liberal. Lets assume 50% are practising and 90% of them voted Yes – thats approx 190,000 practising Mormons who likely voted for Prop 8. If every single one of them stayed home, Prop 8 would’ve still passed you idiot.
You are outing yourself as anti Mormon bigot. Evidence please of your claim that “many Mormons are on benefits”. Don’t tell us – oh yea heaps of my rellies. Many evangelical churches pay the tithe – are you going to accuse the Elim Church and Assemblies of God of receiving pseudo government subsidies via their tithe paying beneficiaries? In my experience in NZ and the US fundamentalist church goers tend not be as reliant on government assistance.
DPF: Email me the text of the offending posts and I’ll run them through Dreamweaver and email them back. Can’t promise it’ll work but it’s worth a shot. I don’t have time to do it by hand alas… last time I tried that for someone there was so much crap in a single blog post it took almost 2 hours.
It’s garbage like:
How ironic that this breaks Microsoft’s browser and not the oppositions!!!
kiwi in america, nope you have it wrong, I believe ALL religions are an utter joke
but the worst are those fundy types in NZ including Mormons, Elim, Destiny, etc etc.
And yes the bloody Catholics having nothing to be proud of with their long term protection of kiddy fiddlers.
Yep, far to many Maori Mormons, but I do notice those so called missionaries tend to target the poor areas of NZ cities.
I live in the country in Central Otago and have never seen a pair of them on their bikes in my area, of course there is damn all state housing around here.
So yes, the Mormon church gets too much of it’s money in NZ from the taxpayer via benefits.
So what do I owe any church that takes 10% of it’s members income ?
curious that here the Mormon Church targets poor sections of society (if grumpyoldhori is correct) . In the US my impression was that it was quite a wealthy (even somewhat elitist) church with a lot of business owners etc. As an example, quite a few of the senior faculty, including the Dean, at Harvard Business School, were mormon as were quite a few of the students, definitely more than 2%.
I will qualify that this is purely a personal observation from my experiences!
grumpy – I asked for evidence of your outlandish claim re Mormons and benefits and, as expected, you gave none.
wikiriwhis business
You know nothing about me or my situation or what businesses and charitable interests I retain in NZ or how long Ive not lived in NZ. I am not an employee of anyone in the US – I own a business here. I guess all the taxes Ive paid in NZ and the US make me an elitist in your pathetic socialist eyes. Don’t you understand – all the taxes your left leaning leaders love to spend come from the productive sector you love to burden and deride. Get it through your thick pinko skull – YOU CANT TAX LOSSES. Oh and I am a HE!
wikiriwhis
Your blog should be sub titled “A tree hugging greenies’ view of business”. Aside from the total dearth of comments, it yielded this little gem in your “About” section – “Don’t expect deep and thorough analysis but please add your own educated inputs and help me learn. Perhaps your input will teach me some financial wisdom”. Here’s hoping time at kiwiblog will do just that.
kiwi in america , Oh I could get the information of the number of mormons who get the income from we taxpayers.
But since a lot of Polynesians are Mormon it stands to reason that a lot of them are paying their so called tiths out of charity money taken from hard working taxpayers.
Same as that Destiny mob, far too many horis with far too many of them on benefits.
So do we heathens owe those who live by fairy tales anything at all from our taxes that they can hand over to a Utah based sect ?
oranjemakker, from my rellies in Boston I am lead to understand that the church of choice among the so called elite, daughters of the revolution etc , is the Episcopalian church
Could the elite really believe in a so called faith that has a living prophet in Utah who can change the rules as he goes along ?
Like blacks becoming honourary whites ?
grumpy
“But since a lot of Polynesians are Mormon it stands to reason that a lot of them are paying their so called tiths out of charity money taken from hard working taxpayers.” OK – so I skyped a Maori Mormon I know who is in a position of leadership in the church so is up with the play on the stats. He says approx 30% of Maori are technically Mormon but only 30% of them are actively practising the religion. Of those who do practice, only about 22% pay the tithe he says.
A brief visit to the MSD website unearthed the following re benefits paid to Maori. The big 3 are Unemployment, DPB and Sickness. Various Fact Sheets on their website give current (or recent as in last year) stats of the numbers on the DPB at 106,000 with 40% of them being Maori, Sickness beneficiaries are 46,000 with 26% Maori and the numbers of Maori paid the unemployment benefit being 15,000. Work these figures out and add them up and add 10% to cover benefits like Independent Youth and Invalids (much smaller numbers) and you come up with approx 77,000 Maori on benefits. So if 30% are nominally Mormon that makes 23,000. Winnow that down to those who actually practice the faith and that number becomes 6,900. Multiply that by the percentage of practising Mormons who pay the tithe and we are left with the grand total of 1,500!
Now I am relying on a third party’s figures here but he would know as he told me he has spent years working with the ‘flock’ and had access to the internal records. Its getting late here and I’d love to do a similar analysis on evangelicals as I have a pastor contact in NZ but I hope I’ve made the point of fisking your outlandish and exaggerated claims that smack of an anti-religious bias. By all means hate religions but just try and make factual points when you argue against them in future.
“Do you believe in separation of church and state ?”
No.
“Or should we be a theocracy like Utah ?”
Utah is not a theocracy.
“Should Mormons baptise jews who were killed in concentration camps ?”
Not in my opinion, but that issue is totally irrelevant to the issue under discussion, which is Prop 8. Your just using Prop 8 as an excuse to indulge in your anti-Moprmon ignorant bigotry.
And I bet I know a damn site more about Mormons than you. I grew up with Mormon friends and still know many, unlike your mythical American rellies.
“kiwi in america, nope you have it wrong, I believe ALL religions are an utter joke”
Except your own of course.
“but the worst are those fundy types in NZ including Mormons, Elim, Destiny, etc etc.”
First, The Mormons are not Christian fundies. Mormonism is a separate and different religion, like Islam or Hinduism.
Second, the term “fundie” or “fundamentalist” is meaningless and intellectually lazy drivel. So-called “fundies” are just Christians who refuse to sell out to secular liberalism.
“Same as that Destiny mob, far too many horis with far too many of them on benefits.”
Destiny does a very good job of getting people off benefits. In fact it does a good job of getting people off welfare, off drugs, out of gangs, and out of lives of crime. Churches like Destiny actually save taxpayers money.
Kiwi in America has exposed your lies about Mormons and Christians on welfare. Try another argument. One based on actual facts would be a nice change.
Not at all. They are two entirely different arguments that your conflating based solely on the wording. Marriage is between a man and a women. We can debate the exact nature of that (such as racial issues) but it does not change the fact that we are are talking about marriage. The issue of same sex unions is not the same as old racial arguments because we are talking about something entirely different.
I agree that we are talking about something different. But in a hypothetical world where interracial marriages were banned, an argument with a form identical to yours would be saying, to people who want to marry interracially: “You already have equal rights. You have an equal right to marry someone of the same race as you.”
Of course it can. Science cannot tell me that a rock is a human being. Science cannot tell me that a sperm is a human being. Science CAN and does tell me that a human being is a human being, and science can and does tell me (based on scientific observation) that once conception has taken place we are dealing with a human being. Inconvenient I know, but true.
If you think about it, you’ll find that it doesn’t. Whether or not a fertilised egg (which is what science actually calls it) is a human being for the purposes of moral consideration is not a question science does, or can, deal with. Similarly, there is no scientific observation of when death occurs. The heart stops beating, the brain loses oxygen, the brain cells start to decay, the whole body loses oxygen, the hair and nails keep growing for days afterwards, the digestive system continues for days afterwards, etc. We have drawn lines when a person is legally dead, and we have drawn lines when a person is morally dead, but there is no such thing as scientifically dead for the purposes of law or for morality.
Yes it does. An arbitrary line based merely on opinion is not a line, but shifting sand.
Still a line. There’s nothing mere about opinion. Our world consists greatly of opinion. Try crossing a border without a passport sometime and explain to whoever stops you that arbitrary lines aren’t really lines at all.
“There is never any objective reason to criticise anything. Criticism is a moral issue, and morality is not a fact about the world”
Yes, true morality is about facts concerning the world. Question, was the Holocaust objectively wrong, or is that just a matter of opinion?
The Holocaust can no more be objectively wrong than it can be a square circle. It was subjectively wrong to just about everyone alive, including me.
C.S Lewis deals with this myth in ‘The Abolition Of Man’.
He really, really doesn’t.
Suffice it to say, that despite differences there has in fact been a remarkable degree of uniformity in what most societies have considered right and wrong. Human societies do not always get it right, but that does not prove that therefore there IS no objective right.
Human societies remain human societies. They wouldn’t survive long if murder was socially encouraged. That explains the similarities without having to resort to logical impossibilities.
This is mostly digression. The point is:
You are simply incorrect that science tells us when something is morally or legally a human life.
“I agree that we are talking about something different.”
Good. My point is made then.
“But in a hypothetical world”
We are living in this one.
“Whether or not a fertilised egg (which is what science actually calls it) is a human being for the purposes of moral consideration is not a question science does, or can, deal with.”
Of course it can. For example science can tell me that a 3 month old post-born baby is a human being. Science can tell me that a 5 year old child is a human being. Science can tell me that a 70 year old is a human being. Therefore science can, and does tell me that once conception has taken place a growing human being exists. Once we have established that observable fact, the moral issues follow as night follows day.
“The Holocaust can no more be objectively wrong than it can be a square circle. It was subjectively wrong to just about everyone alive, including me.”
Then according to your argument it was not wrong at all. Subjective right and wrong is not right and wrong, its opinion. According to your argument here, opinion is what makes right and wrong. Therefore the Germans under the Nazi’s were NOT wrong because majority opinion in Germany at the time supported dealing harshly with the Jews. There was therefore nothing morally right about defeating the Nazis, we were just expressing a meaningless and empty opinion. Nice world you want to live in.
Your self-contradiction here blows your own case out of the water.
November 25th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Can anyone tell me what our National debt is per person as I posted about the US the other day?
I’d love to know what our biggest Councils debts are and the amount that represents per ratepayer too?
Don’t you think the Government and councils should have to give us figures every quarter or half yearly in simple format so a 12 yr old can understand it.
Then they can’t hide the books or bullshit their way through office.
November 25th, 2008 at 8:44 am
The disruption of the Solid Energy general meeting in Auckland on Monday was more vandalism by hooligans cloaked as environmentalists.
Some of those who harass Solid Energy were involved in the alleged insurgency training in Tuhoi country. On the West Coast they continue protests to the level of disruption despite already costing taxpayers millions in moving of indigenous snails, which occur in other parts of the South Island. The green hooligans have also chained themselves to railway lines and disrupted general transport. Given an ounce of leeway, locals would run them off the Coast.
These people, many (probably most, even all) of whom bludge on the state for a living, try to halt development of coal exports which will help this country, which is already in considerable deficit in its international balance of payments.
One lesson of this to moderate people is NEVER support green activists, whether they be snail fanatics like these who harass Solid Energy, or whale fanatics like Green Peace.
One wonders, however, why Solid Energy as a state owned enterprise chose to have an annual meeting at all when it is the continuing target of these green, leftist tossers. Whoever advised them to hold one was obviously dumb enough to think it would be safe in Auckland.
November 25th, 2008 at 9:01 am
I’d prefer those native New Zealand snails were not made extinct.
November 25th, 2008 at 9:11 am
The increasing use of standover tactics, bullying, threats, economic vandalism and hate speech by “activists” of all sorts is a worrying trend. Witness the vile and thuggish tactics being used by militant “gay rights” activists in the US in response to Prop 8.
November 25th, 2008 at 9:14 am
What kind of tactics?
November 25th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Ryan Sproull writes: “I would prefer those native New Zealand snails were not made extinct.”
Solid Energy’s mine plans won’t make these snails extinct locally, and they also exist in Nelson and Otago-Southland.
But even if it did, how much are we prepared to pay in New Zealand in effect to halt Evolution? Species evolve and species die out. It may (just may) be justifiable to spend millions on helicopters and conservation staff to keep kakapo surviving. But every time one species is saved the Greens want another dozen saved.
How about saving New Zealand economically? How about kids who are in poverty? Schools that are struggling? A health system that is unable to cope? Get your priorities right!
The Greens at heart seem anti-development, anti wealth creation, and let’s face it, almost anti-human!
November 25th, 2008 at 9:23 am
What do people think about Tapu Misa of the NZ Herald advocating forced sterilisation of people with “low IQ and low income”? Should such people be forced to have surgery that prevents them from having children?
http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2008/11/25/tapu-misa-of-the-nz-herald-advocates-forced-sterilisations/
November 25th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Ryan,
Threats to burn down churches. Vandalism of church property. The burning of religious scripture in front of churches. Envelopes filled with white powder sent to churches. Attempts to shut down businesses that have owners who supported Prop 8.
November 25th, 2008 at 9:25 am
No, though some advocate doing same to serial kid abusers.
November 25th, 2008 at 9:28 am
I’d prefer those native New Zealand snails were not made extinct.
What do they taste like ? Can we breed them and then export them to the Froggies as a delicacy ? What’s their carbon foot print ? How much per Kilo for Snail Milk Powder ?
November 25th, 2008 at 9:28 am
kiwipolemicist,
I think her idea is both dangerous and totally misses the point. “Low IQ” and income are not the problem.
November 25th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Coventry,
There is more to the value of my country than what can be put in a bottle and sold.
November 25th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Melanie Phillips at the Daily Mail in the UK
http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=626
“The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, has broken ranks with his own Conservative party by floating once again the idea of an amnesty for illegal immigrants”.
The whole immigration debacle has highlighted families and individuals getting in without being fair.
Lets list our illegals, stop all education, medical, deport them and ban them for 5 years whilst they are still less than London’s 400,000.
How hard is this to do?
We could make a start with sacking anyone in the Immigration service who acts corruptly by not following fair practice and sending Mary Thompson’s family back.
We’ve got a UN quota I’d rather we spent proper resources so that those people get the best chance at being a success.
So let’s send everyone back who steps over the line.
November 25th, 2008 at 9:36 am
That’s good.
So you’re saying that it is a choice between the native snail surviving and the end of child poverty, poor education and a struggling health system? I’m not convinced we couldn’t somehow have both.
I would say that the Greens are not so much anti-development or anti-wealth as having other values alongside development and wealth, which they occasionally find more important when the values clash. They’re not alone in this. I expect there are plenty of situations where you would be opposed to wealth creation if it meant infringing on other values you possess, such as your value for individual liberty.
November 25th, 2008 at 9:39 am
A society that murders thousands of unborn children every year but gets in a tizzy over some snails is very clearly on the wrong road in terms of its moral values.
November 25th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Lee and Ryan
What Moral values?
We can’t seem to agree on what is common sense so how can we have any common values, let alone moral.
November 25th, 2008 at 9:43 am
I don’t think the greenies care about, or “value” the snails at all. The snails are just an excuse for these glorified welfare bludgers to attack a business they don’t like.
November 25th, 2008 at 9:45 am
The Greens would be wise to consider the company they keep – failing that, they would be wise to consider the negative perception that is created by illegal protests committed in the name of “activism”
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/11/meet-greens.html
November 25th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Lee:
In both cases I could not agree more. Over 18,00 unborn children murdered in NZ each year. Hopefully Tapu Misa never runs for parliament.
This may interest you:
http://christianclassicalliberalist.wordpress.com/2008/11/14/abortion-is-an-unwanted-baby-a-trespasser/
November 25th, 2008 at 9:46 am
“What do people think about Tapu Misa of the NZ Herald advocating forced sterilisation of people with “low IQ and low income”? Should such people be forced to have surgery that prevents them from having children?”
If she’s talking about pedophiles like the murderers of Nia Glassie I think she’ll get a lot of support
Sterilisation is drastic and and should be used in drastic measure.
But deterrent is the key word and we want to see these type of offenders who are beyond a shadow of doubt very worried in court. That will definitely be images that will make others have second thoughts about disrespecting the court room.
Sure, Tapu sounds shocking in this liberal day and age, I agree about that, but when we can have peace of mind about our children being safe in the community, I hope Tapu is leading the way with a shining light.
November 25th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Lee: “The snails are just an excuse for these glorified welfare bludgers to attack a business they don’t like.”
Yes..the Greens hate power. HATE IT.
They wish we could all live in the darkness riding pushbikes to work and typing on typewriters.
And don’t get me started on their sentiments towards buttons. TOOL OF THE DEVIL.
November 25th, 2008 at 9:51 am
There are plenty of values common to all humans, all Westerners, all Kiwis, etc. Most of them are so obvious that they are practically transparent, so we forget there is commonality and see only those issues on which there is disagreement. Often the disagreements are from different prioritisation of values, rather than not sharing values at all.
For example, presumably you would stop someone who was burning a dog with a cigarette. Assuming you would, you care about the suffering and welfare of animals. The difference between you and someone who would break into a farm and rescue battery-farmed chickens is the prioritisation of that value against things like respect for the law, fear of consequences of breaking the law, appreciation for the wealth creation provided by battery farming, etc.
November 25th, 2008 at 9:53 am
wikiriwhis:
if you’re made redundant and wind up on a low income you’ll be a candidate for forced sterilisation if Tapu Misa has her way. How does that grab you?
Totalitarianism isn’t pretty unless you’re the despot.
http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2008/11/25/tapu-misa-of-the-nz-herald-advocates-forced-sterilisations/
November 25th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Turpin:
The Treasury publishes comprehensive statements of the Crown’s financial position every six months, plus just before each election. The latest is here: http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/forecasts/prefu2008/prefu08-pt4of9.pdf
The accounting concepts are slightly complicated, because the Government is a complicated, multi-agency, beast.
There are two concepts that are close to what people may think of as “national debt”. The first is Gross Sovereign Issued Debt (GSID), which is the total amount of borrowing by the Government (but not its commercial arms like SOEs). As at 30 June 2008, GSID stood at $NZ31,390 million. Divide that by a population of 4,230,700 and you get $7,419.
But, and it is an important but, the Government has significant financial assets as well as liabilities.
Net core Crown debt, which is financial liabilities minus financial assets was minus NZ19 million, i.e. assets were higher than liabilities.
This figure EXCLUDES the assets of the NZ Superannuation Fund, because that is a separate legal entity (the Cullen Fund). As at 30 June 2008, that stood at $14,212 million.
And finally, there is the Net Worth of the Crown, which is all the assets, including SOEs, all the property, land etc, less all the liabilities. As at 30 June 2008, this stood at positive $105,514 million. Per head, that is $24,940.
So the Government’s financial position is very, very strong.
November 25th, 2008 at 10:00 am
“Eugenics means “good breeding” and it is a totalitarian system for improving the genectic qualities of the human race.”
Tapu Misa is a very educated and well read woman. she knows what ‘eugenics’ means.
Many people of good calibre come from poor backgrounds including John Banks and John Key.
It is regrettable Tapu would have had their parents sterilised. We wouldn’t have many all Blacks either.
But I’m glad for her shock statement. also proves she’s not a libeal bleeding heart socialist who regret the sentence on Nia’s pedophile killers like the Curtis whanau publicly stated. (That statement remained on the Herald website for an entirety of around 5 mins before it was pulled. and then the Herald had the cheek to start a poll asking what the media can do to help)
We need radical statments to produce saner measures.
The problem is we have politicians who have made themselves so impt, they are never affected by society. Childless women taking the sovereignty of parents off their children. ( I wouldn’t want my children anywhere near them)
I don’t support Tapu 100% but I do 75%. I would think her editor understands that as well.
November 25th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Tui Thriving in Wellington
That’s the truth. The possum eradication program on the Miramar peninsular has been a huge success. My home is at tree level and at the weekend I watched 5 Tuis playing & singing. A few years ago seeing a single Tui was a rarity. Well done Wellington City Council.
November 25th, 2008 at 10:11 am
wikiriwhis:
If you’re to quote from my post please give credit where credit is due.
Tapu Misa must be some type of socialist if she’s advocating forced sterilisations.
November 25th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Ryan Sproull writes:”… you’re saying that it is a choice between the native snail surviving and the end of child poverty, poor education and a struggling health system? I’m not convinced we couldn’t somehow have both.”
No Ryan, but extreme greenies seem happy in sandals and cheap remote huts that would not be acceptable to most kiwis. Are the greens going to be free how much of our limited economic wealth goes on snails and how much on people?
There is a cost to conservation, and it can be high.
The snail mob on the West Coast use conservation of this obscure species as a cover for an anarchistic, West-hating philosophy. They ought to look at the mess that the Soviet Union has left behind environmentally. Whole inland seas polluted, low-quality marginally safe nuclear plants. They might look also at the mess in China, especially the huge dams projects.
Future New Zealanders will also hold greenies accountable for the windmill farms that are beginning to blot our skylines and dams that drown beautiful valleys. They will ask: Why didn’t they just build nuclear power stations or use a little of all the bloody coal and gas?
One fine solution for endangered species is to make them useful to society, as many people have pointed out. I don’t see anything wrong with farming wekas and wood pigeons if that is going to ensure their survival. If the Maori had farmed moa instead of just hunting them, we would probably not moas today, but moa breed societies, moa scientists, and moa studs. As for the snails, perhaps we could let the French taste a few.
November 25th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Jack5,
How many of these environmentalists have you sat down and talked to? I have spoken with many, and consider myself to be an environmentalist, and I don’t know any who remotely approximate your description or your insight into their hidden motives.
Do they have a similar understanding of what secretly motivates whatever it is that you do in life? Or would it be very ridiculous for them to claim such knowledge?
November 25th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Compulsory steralisation?
Thats er, a rather militant socialist ideal, is it not? Those of you advocating that should really go and join the left.
Getstaffed:
Its awesome about the Tuis. I remember growing up in wainui on a farm, we had heaps of them. Then we moved to the Hutt and then town and there were none. I quietly wondered what happened to them.
The other thing that article mentions is a rise of kaka. This makes me very, very happy, and also makes me think that we should have more mainland sancturarys like karori. Imagine a national resurgance in our native birdlife?
November 25th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Motivations aside, the issue here is tactics, and I cannot see how it is legitimate to assault someone (and yes, throwing a pie at someone is assault). The Police are not prosecuting this. Why???
Illegal occupations may in some rare circumstances be morally legitimate, but not as a norm. And again there are double standards in our society here, which tends to favour left wing activists. If anti-abortion protestors occupied an abortion clinic, does anyone think they would not be forcibly removed within a matter of hours? If I threw a pie in the face of an abortion doctor does anyone think I would not be arrested? And does anyone think that liberals and the media would not be ranting about “fundamentalist violence”?
Yet so-called “environmentalists” get away with such tactics scot free.
The occupation of Happy Valley has been allowed to go on for far too long. Time to send in the police.
November 25th, 2008 at 10:37 am
How many of these environmentalists have you sat down and talked to?
Well, that’s the trick isn’t it. Sit down and talk…. don’t come up with absurd publicity stunts that just piss off the people you actually need to talk with if you want to achieve anything. The protestors have cost solid energy millions to “save” a snail that wasn’t even endangered…. but that wasn’t what the protest was about.,… they just didn’t want the mine at all ….. and that’s cool to have that intention, but they need to be honest about their intentions. It amazes me how protestors professing to be environmentally sound can have such a lack of integrity and personal respect for people….. but I’m just talking about this particular bunch, not all environmentalists.
November 25th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Want to read something funny at the expense of the left?? I was looking for a book called “15 Tips For Being a Good Leftist”. Its satirical of course. The funny part is a review of the book written by a lifetime leftist who had read it and recognised the accuracy of the satire, and experienced an epiphany. She was suddenly made aware of the absurdities of leftism. Her review is a candid appraisal of her feelings on reading the book, amusing and in a way admirable in its unusual frankness.
Link-
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1886442126/qid=1093041060/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/104-9396950-5509515?v=glance&s=books
Excerpt-
As a person who prided herself on her progressive and liberal beliefs for most of her life, I must say that it hurt me to read this book. It is funny and completely true what the author is satirizing. Funny, I guess, at the expense of people like me who actually entertained beliefs for a long period of my life that I never really examined or thought through. The book hurt in that the author shows that, when you really think about it, the socialist idea is absolutely ludicrous and, worse still, part of a profound sickness. It is a sickness of the soul.
Now that I really think about it, I can’t think of one of my former Leftist friends that was actually well-adjusted in society. Every single one of them had some kind of a really serious problem. But we never talked about our problems. It was always about something larger. Something larger had to be fixed and then we would be okay.
15 Tips cuts to this main point in a very painful manner — for me and for my memories. And apart from all the humour in the book, I was left not laughing but squirming, at the realization that the people he was ridiculing was actually people like me, who literally spent years of their life believing and saying all of the things that he ridicules.
Sitting here now, I think of all my friends, all of the people that I associated with in this calling. I remember, with tremendous discomfort, all of our conversations, all of our certainty about how wrong things were, and about how right they could be if only this and only that. 15 Tips slices with no mercy.
November 25th, 2008 at 10:52 am
They seem to come & go with the food sources, but right at the moment, up near the top of the cable car, you can usually see a few dozen kaka performing for the tourists (when they’re not fighting the tui for territory.)
They’ve only been turning up for the last 2-3 years, but every year there are more & more of them.
November 25th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Maybe have a yarn over a pie.
November 25th, 2008 at 10:55 am
the killers of Nia Glassie were selfish morons Those who seek to excuse their behaviour are selfish morons. Those who seek to support these selfish morons are themselves selfish morons.
We are in the new paradigm Those who seek to help themselves to meet societies moral and ethical standards deserve all the helpupport and assistance we can offer them
Those who chose to deliberately live outside the ethics and moral code of the society deserve to nothing.
those who support them deserve the utter contempt of all the hardworking members of society.
the time when a free loader could continue to bludge off their fellows is over. the world is in economic turmoil.
Message is Shape up or Foxtrot Oscar
November 25th, 2008 at 10:57 am
It is amusing to see apparently intelligent people talking so seriously about a species becoming extinct ‘locally.’ Wiped out, maybe. If the bloody things continue to flourish in Upper East PNG then they are NOT extinct.
Extinction is like pregnancy. It’s all or nothing and it sure as hell ain’t local.
November 25th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Redbaiter has friends! Poor sods.
November 25th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Alberta Eugenics Board
November 25th, 2008 at 11:04 am
The Cycle of Moronitude.
November 25th, 2008 at 11:09 am
lloydois is such a sad under educated example of the left- doesn’t even know what “excerpt” means. So pitiful.
November 25th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Snails are a perfect target because they don’t move around much and hence mate with their local neighbours. If a snail does move quickly and gets around the neighbourhood and drops offspring far and wide it almost certainly is not a snail.
The end result is that almost any snail colony soon develops unique DNA and becomes a unique variety. One variety in the valley and another variety in the next valley. That is why there are about 15,000 recorded species of snail.
And that is why every small colony of snails is a “UNIQUE SPECIES” which MUST be protected.
Very convenient.
There are new varieties and species of snail developing through natural in-breeding every day. Haven’t you noticed how many of them have crossed eyes and are slow witted?
November 25th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Come to think of it, I’ve never ever seen a snail with a doctorate.
November 25th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Robert Higgs’ famous paper “Regime Uncertainty –Why the Great Depression Lasted So Long and Why Prosperity Resumed after the War” reminds us that during this period one threat to property rights was the frequent invasion of factories and offices by union members who simply took over the property until they got their way and yet were never prosecuted for trespass. Evidently they were immune to prosecution because “their cause was just”.
These days, we need to consider the wider impact of allowing Greenpeace and anti-GM activists to invade private property and even
destroy valuable experimental plants, apparently without risk of prosecution because they too are “doing good works”.
They put all our property rights at risk.
November 25th, 2008 at 11:16 am
“Come to think of it, I’ve never ever seen a snail with a doctorate.”
They don’t flaunt them.
November 25th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Recommended reading:
Ron Arnold: “Ecoterror: The Violent Agenda To Save Nature”
Paul Driessen: “Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death”
Bjorn Lomborg: “The Skeptical Environmentalist”
And browse the “Greenspirit” website of Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace in 1968, who left in disgust in 1986 because of what the organisation had become.
Jack5 SAID:
“……One lesson of this to moderate people is NEVER support green activists, whether they be snail fanatics like these who harass Solid Energy, or whale fanatics like Green Peace……”
Patrick Moore and the other authors I list above would agree 100% with that.
As I started to argue yesterday, the Politically Correct line is that Christian Fundamentalists like Sarah Palin and George W. Bush are a threat to “science”. Bullshit, bunkum, and codswallop. The biggest threat to science and progress comes from the bloody Luddite and loopy Gaia worshipping Greens.
November 25th, 2008 at 11:22 am
How many people have read Bob Jones’ books like “Full Circle”?
I can just imagine Sir Bob doing a beautiful sendup of all the bearded, sandalled, spectacle-wearing types crouching over snails with microscopes, trying to work out what are the differences between the 15,000 different species.
FFS. Something is seriously amiss with our whole values system when humans are made to suffer and are bled of tax money to support follies like this.
November 25th, 2008 at 11:24 am
“The biggest threat to science and progress comes from the bloody Luddite and loopy Gaia worshipping Greens.”
Dangerously indoctrinated when children by unprincipled leftist political predators posing as educationalists, I regard them as similar to the socialist morons who similarly brought themselves undone in the Jonestown Massacre 30 years ago.
November 25th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Jack5 (157) 3 0 Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 10:12 am
“Ryan Sproull writes:”… you’re saying that it is a choice between the native snail surviving and the end of child poverty, poor education and a struggling health system? I’m not convinced we couldn’t somehow have both.”
No Ryan, but extreme greenies seem happy in sandals and cheap remote huts that would not be acceptable to most kiwis. Are the greens going to be free how much of our limited economic wealth goes on snails and how much on people?…”
Good posts, Jack5, including the whole thing that I have excerpted from here. I just want to say that extreme greenies in sandals and remote huts are a rare breed, most activism and support for Green policies comes from bloody hypocritical central city-dwelling trendy young things who could not survive without their lattes and central city night life, but who spend all their spare time plotting against and making war on people with families who live in the suburbs.
November 25th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Interesting you mention Jonestown, Redbaiter, I just read something that came out a few days ago, called “Don’t Drink The Kool-Aid On Jonestown”, By Daniel J. Flynn.
“………On November 17, 1978, Jim Jones was a hero to American leftists. On November 18, 1978, Jones orchestrated the killings of 918 people and strangely morphed in the eyes of American leftists into an evangelical Christian fanatic. An unfortunately well-worn narrative, playing out contemporaneously in Pol Pot’s Cambodia, of socialist dreams ending in ghoulish nightmares, then, conveniently shifted to one about the dangers of organized religion. But as The Nation magazine reported at the time, “The temple was as much a left-wing political crusade as a church. In the course of the 1970s, its social program grew steadily more disaffiliated from what Jim Jones came to regard as ‘Fascist America’ and drifted rapidly toward outspoken Communist sympathies.” So much so that the last will and testament of the Peoples Temple, and its individual members who left notes, bequeathed millions of dollars in assets to the Soviet Union. As Jones expressed to a Soviet diplomat upon upon his visit to Jonestown the month before the smiling suicides took place, “For many years, we have let our sympathies be quite publicly known, that the United States government was not our mother, but that the Soviet Union was our spiritual motherland.”
Jim Jones was an evangelical communist who became a minister to infiltrate the church with the gospel according to Marx and Lenin. He was an atheist missionary bringing his message of socialist redemption to the Christian heathen. “I decided, how can I demonstrate my Marxism?,” remembered Jones of his days in 1950s Indiana. “The thought was, infiltrate the church.” So in the forms of Pentecostal ritual, Jones smuggled socialism into the minds of true believers–who gradually became true believers of a different sort…….”
ETC:
READ THE WHOLE THING………
November 25th, 2008 at 11:38 am
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=2E353173-1A75-4783-99DC-7A8AB5F82B7E
November 25th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Lee
“The occupation of Happy Valley has been allowed to go on for far too long. Time to send in the police.”
I’m with Lee
Time to sack any police management anywhere in the country and don’t let them perf, who won’t send in the troops.
Hopefully as National clear out the RMA, private property will get it’s the status enforced.
Yes why have the lefties not got prosecuted for assault Mr Broad?
November 25th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Kiwi polemist
Thanks for the link a very cogent position.
http://christianclassicalliberalist.wordpress.com/2008/11/14/abortion-is-an-unwanted-baby-a-trespasser/
Not sure that I’d want to carry a baby to full term after being raped though?
I’ve stood on the side of the woman for that one.
it is a conundrum.
Loved the ship wrecked sailor argument.
November 25th, 2008 at 11:59 am
What really angers me about the Save Happy Valley pie throwers is that THEY WORE SANTA CLAUS COSTUMES.
How dare they drag Santa into their dispute with Solid Energy. Doing so cheapens and politicises Santa. They are using him for their political purpose. Whatever the merit or otherwise of their cause, THIS IS WRONG.
November 25th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Does anyone believe Goldmans and Deutsche that Bollard will really drop the OCR by 150bp, or are they simple exerting pressure to do so by creating the expectation?
November 25th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
“Interesting you mention Jonestown, Redbaiter,”
Yeah, I just thought it kind of encapsulated the Green Mindset- anti religious but fervently believers in a faith that will ultimately lead to their extinction.
Jones set up the “Peoples Temple Agricultural Project”, and said “those who remained drugged with the opiate of religion had to be brought to enlightenment—socialism.”
They all died in the end of course. 918 of them. So much for the enlightenment of socialism.
November 25th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
You do know Santa Claus isn’t real right?
November 25th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Re National Debt
The Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update says:
“As at 30 June 2008, net core Crown debt was in a small net asset position of $19 million.”
Ie. there is no debt at all! Note also that this does not include the assets of the NZ Super Fund (now about $14 billion). Not however that debt is expected to increase again after many years of decline.
I do not know about local authority debt, but the total is probably small bikkies in comparison, a few billion maybe? At most.
November 25th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Turpin:
you’re welcome and thank you. If you find my argument to be cogent why wouldn’t you carry the baby to term?
I’m not saying that it would be easy to carry the baby to term, but it’s about doing what is right rather than what is easy.
IMHO there’s no conundrum: remember that there is nothing wrong with adoption. That would make a couple very happy and bring some good out a very bad situation. Remember also the mental and physical harm that abortion does to the mother.
November 25th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Lee, economic vandalism, you mean like the Marriot hotel chain whining that it is wrong for gays to put a boycot on them ?
And other Mormons who own a business where a lot of gays live who have seen their turnover drop by 80%.
Want to play big boys games, the same rules apply.
The members of the Mormon church were utter fools to put themselves out like that, if any of their business owners are suffering they have no one to blame but themselves.
November 25th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Kiwpolemist
I don’t have a problem with carrying to full term as I could turn around a negative and make it positive.
hell who knows maybe I’d be carrying another Rutherford or some such.
the child would get 100% of me so that it made it to 20 and was a much loved contributing member of society, after all half of it would be me!
it’s the forcing someone else to do so I balk at.
November 25th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
grumpyoldhori
On the one hand you are correct but,
If people boycotted business controlled by or owned Homosexuals, as you say Mormons have asked for by supporting their viewpoint, what do you think the headlines would be?
Something along the lines of “Hate crimes” or some such!
November 25th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
If you consider a foetus to be a human life, and you think that murder is always wrong, then who the father of the baby is, or the manner of conception, should have no impact on your views about abortion.
November 25th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Wasn’t Santa’s costume a marketing gimmick by Coca-cola?
So the greens dressed up with the uniform of one of the worlds largest multinationals….
November 25th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
very logical Ryan.
What’s next?
November 25th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
If someone accepts those premises, they are being inconsistent if they then say, “I am opposed to abortion except in cases of rape.”
I suppose, logically, the only position in which rape would have an impact would be one that emphasises personal responsibility – that if one gets pregnant through consensual sex, however safe, then you’re responsible for the pregnancy.
But even that doesn’t really work, because it still relies on there being something morally wrong with abortion. To say, “I think people shouldn’t be allowed to have abortions except in cases of rape, because rape isn’t their fault,” is still to imply that you see abortion as morally wrong, and that presumably relies on the premise of a foetus being a human life.
When I say “you”, I don’t mean you specifically. I don’t know what your position is. I haven’t been following the conversation.
But I can’t see a consistent position on abortion that means that rape is a factor, unless… unless the psychological suffering inflicted on the victim can be weighed up somehow against the value of the human life resulting from the crime? But I doubt anyone’s making that argument.
November 25th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Ryan I have. He lectures at Victoria University.
November 25th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Weighing up the psychological suffering versus the value of the life?
The two seem incommensurate, or at least very difficult to compare… How does he go about it?
November 25th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Ryan is correct. I do not see rape as a valid reason for an abortion.
November 25th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Turpin:
you said “it’s the forcing someone else to do so I balk at”. It’s not a matter of forcing someone to *do* something, it’s a matter of forcing someone to *not do* something, i.e. not murder the unborn child, just as current murder laws attempt to stop people murdering people who have been born.
In other words, it’s not a matter of proscribing the giving of life, it’s a matter of restricting the taking of life. To restrict murder at one address (ex utero) but not at another (in utero) is illogical in the extreme. The baby does not metamorphose when born so using birth as a dividing line is indefensible, and the only logical point for the beginning of life is conception because anything else is arbitrary.
Ryan: excellent point.
This is what we’re talking about:
http://christianclassicalliberalist.wordpress.com/2008/11/14/abortion-is-an-unwanted-baby-a-trespasser/
November 25th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Yeah, I read it before posting, Kiwi Polemicist.
What makes conception any less arbitrary?
November 25th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
grumpy,
first, a large and diverse number of churches were involved in supporting prop 8, not just Mormons.
Second, I am talking about threats being made against workers as they enter their places of business, and vandalism of property, not peaceful boycotting.
And its not just peoples places of work, there has been a surge of violence and intimidation against Christians and Mormons in response to this.
I will say what I have said before. The gay rights movement is a violent and fascist movement that is utterly contemptuous of democracy and genuine liberty.
Radical Gay Activists Seek to Intimidate Christians: http://charismamag.com/cms/news/archives/111908.php
November 25th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
conversely, snails lie many arthropods are cheap and easy to protect ex situ, requiring little area and resources to maintain their populations. They don’t learn ‘bad behaviours’, forget how to hunt, or the like. Many mining companies are also very good at ecological restoration, and lead the way in this practice. Alas, the NZ habit of treating ex situ conservation as the ‘ugly step-sister’ of conservation work, means we rarely utilise this option.
Most invertebrate species are also much more genetically distinct than vertebrate species. Most mammals share much higher genetic data than insects (roughly 99% to 90%). The reason however, is likely to be taxonomic. We’re very good at recognizing small differences in larger animals that we over-look in much smaller creatures. There’s probably a lot more invertebrate species out there.
Note that many Northland species of snails are under significant threat from invasive rodents, and I would like to see some of these conservationists (cough) putting the same effort into protecting other snail species from other threats….
November 25th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Turpin , you are forgetting one point, the customer is always right.
If some religious type does not wish to buy products or services from a company owned by gays that is their right.
The same right I have to turn down work from the extreme bible bashing types.
But the amusing thing is it seems a lot of Mormons are happy to take gays money but do not want gays to have the same rights.
Hell if I had my way gay marriage would be compulsory, I hate the thought of some sods out there not getting nagged.
This is interesting, it appears that Mormons were ordered to hand over money by their main sect.
http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2008/11/13/el-coyote-boycott-mormon-managers-explanation-makes-it-worse/
November 25th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
kiwiP
I see your point.
To me the nub is that the issue is a foetus a person or is it a blob until it comes out (how far out is out?) therefore no abortion or is it a shade of grey.
The trespasser argument above is compelling but, here is where the human side of me intrudes into the logic.
Rape/Incest whatever, for a woman the whole sex thing can be very different for a fella, also the very being of a woman is for some is through the birth process to a greater or lessor degree.
To taint that with an act of animalistic violence is nauseating to my sensibilities and this constitutes the psycho/social/emo bit of the issue.
For a woman to carry (the beast) within her seems on the face of it obscene and what chance the child later on?
some call rape a little death.
I’m sure some woman would call it a big one?
Who am I to know as I’m a fella even if I’m trying to be human
November 25th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Again, just to be clear, I was talking about death threats against workers and owners and vandalism against property, not boycotts. I have no problem with boycotts as a form of political activism.
November 25th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
“Mormons are happy to take gays money but do not want gays to have the same rights.”
People who choose to indulge in homosexual behavior already have the same rights. They have the right to enter into a marriage with a person of the opposite sex.
Marrying a person of the same sex is not the same right, its a different one entirely.
November 25th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
“What makes conception any less arbitrary?”
The nature of conception itself. Prior to conception there is not a growing human being. But science (and ultrasound) clearly show that once conception has taken place, a human child begins to grow.
So there is nothing arbitrary about it.
November 25th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Like how a white person with the right to marry someone of their own skin colour has the same right as a black person with the right to marry someone of their own skin colour. Preventing white-black marriage would not infringe on that equality. A white person in love with a black person would have just as much right to marry another white person as any other white person does.
November 25th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Ryan, the link was for the benefit of other readers who might not be up with the play.
Conception is the only point at which a new organism comes into existence, ie new genetic information is laid down. Everything after that is development of the same organism. The point of time at which an organism first exists (as defined by the creation of a new set of genetic data) is the beginning of the life of that organism.
There were two people in the room, then there were three
November 25th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
My 2 cents worth.
Gay Marriage is a minefield. Now I am a middle class white heterosexual, who is tolerant in most things, but Gay Marriage does not sit easily with me. Let me explain why.
Firstly, I have Gay and Lesbian friends. I am accepting of their choices, and see nothing wrong with 2 people loving each other, be they of the same or different genders. I have no issue at all should a same sex couple choose to openly and ceremoniously commit themselves to each other, and I have had the pleasure of attending a civil union for lesbian friends.
My objection to gay marriage stems from the origin of marriage itself. Marriage is a spiritually based union between a man and a woman. It came to society via the church, and regardless of your opinion of the church, it is not the role of the state to determine who can and cannot be covered by this type of union. While there is a civil equivalent, there are those who put great stock in the institution of marriage as a by-product of their beliefs.
I do not think the state can dictate the parameters of marriage so far beyond its parameters. There are those who will say that marriage is a dead institution and they have the right to think so, but that should in no way detract from those who place marriage far higher.
At the same time the church should be unable to turn around and ban commitment ceremonies for those who are outside their sphere so to speak.
The concept of a civil union had great merit. It still does.
November 25th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
“Human life starts at conception because that’s when a human life starts.”
Better consider that again.
November 25th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
What is less arbitrary about the new set of genetic data as a line to draw?
Again, circular reasoning. That argument only supports your conclusion if you start with the assumption that your conclusion is true.
November 25th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
A question: I havent followed the California issue in detail, but can someone clarify what they are planning to take away from same sex couples, is it just the right to marry or are they also taking away partnership rights as well (tax benefits, inheritance, hopsital visitation etc.)?
Incidentally, it seems strange that the Mormons would be taking a strong public position on this. From my experience in the US the mormo church generally keeps a low profile, perhaps because so many mormons are so involved with business, and tend to take a live and let live approach to most issues outside of their church so as not to rock the boat. I just found this about Mitt Romney’s position on the subject in wikipedia and how he seems to have flip flopped around the issue (perhaps he changed his position when he thought about running for president?). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#Governor_of_Massachusetts.2C_2003.E2.80.932007
Excerpt:
“At the beginning of his governorship, Romney opposed same-sex marriage and civil unions.[59][60] Faced with the dilemma of choosing between same-sex marriage or civil unions after the November 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision legalizing same-sex marriages (Goodridge v. Department of Public Health), Romney reluctantly backed a state constitutional amendment in February 2004 that would have banned same-sex marriage but still allow civil unions, viewing it as the only feasible way to ban same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.[61] In May 2004 Romney instructed town clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but citing a 1913 law that barred out-of-state residents from getting married in Massachusetts if their union would be illegal in their home state,[62][63] no marriage licenses were to be issued to out-of-state same-sex couples not planning to move to Massachusetts. In June 2005, Romney abandoned his support for the compromise amendment, stating that the amendment confused voters who oppose both same-sex marriage and civil unions. Instead, Romney endorsed a petition effort led by the Coalition for Marriage & Family that would have banned same-sex marriage and made no provisions for civil unions.[64] In 2006 he urged the U.S. Senate to vote in favor of the Marriage Protection Amendment.[65][66]“
November 25th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Turpin
you say “For a woman to carry (the beast) within her seems on the face of it obscene”. How can the baby be a beast if it an innocent party? Why add the violence of abortion to the violence of rape? The baby may be an unwelcome guest (like the shipwrecked sailor) but it is not a beast.
Warning: graphic pictures of the vioence inflicted upon babies who have been murdered/aborted:
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/pictures_3.html
November 25th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Ryan: if a new set of genectic data is not indicative of a new human being then a bunch of rapists and murderers will want their convictions repealed because the common view of genetics is all wrong.
Can you find and defend a better point for defining the beginning of life?
I have to depart from Blogland now.
November 25th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Is it just me, or has anybody else noticed the complete absense of Nia Glassie’s father in this entire episode. I find it disturbing that the father was not present during the horrific abuse as well as during the trials. Does her father even know what has happened. It has made my blood boil following the abuse described at the trials, and I am sure any sane father would have also been outraged at the abuse of his daughter.
November 25th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
So geneticists are all agreed that abortion is murder, because human life begins at conception? You’re making a bit of a leap there, from “there is new genetic data created at conception” to “therefore new genetic data means the creation of a human life”. The leap, in fact, entirely consists of believing your conclusion: “Life begins at conception.” The circularity of your argument is subtle, but it’s implicit.
I could imagine any number of different ones, but if by “better” you mean “less arbitrary”, I don’t think so, no. I don’t think it’s possible for me or anyone else to find a “better” point, in that sense.
I could say, “The point at which the baby can survive unassisted.”
Or, “The point at which the baby is self-aware.”
Or, “The point at which the baby feels pain.”
Or, “The point at which the heart cells start twitching.”
None of them are going to be able to stand up to the scrutiny of asking, “What’s less arbitrary about that?” Anyone attempting to defend any of those points will find themselves scrambling up the same circular arguments you’ve been using.
“Life begins at the point where the baby is first self-aware. Why? Because that’s when a baby is a human self. A human self is self-aware, therefore anything before self-awareness is not a human self. So it must be true that when the unborn organism becomes self-aware, that is when it is technically alive.”
It may have the structure and veneer of an argument, but really it’s just a series of restatements of the conclusion, or statements that assume that the conclusion is true. If it is true that life begins at self-awareness, then all of the arguments obtain. If it is not true that life begins at self-awareness, none of the arguments obtain.
Any definition of when life begins will be arbitrary.
Keep in mind, we have similar problems with defining when life ends.
November 25th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Ryan,
race and sexual behaviour are two different issues, especially given that we know that race really is just skin deep.
So a “black” man and a “white” women getting married is an objectively different issue than two men marrying.
The only scientific answer to when a human life begins is conception. The only observable answer to when a human life begins is conception. And the only objective moral answer is conception.
Conception is not arbitrary, it is the inconveniant truth that our society wants to ignore.
If it WAS arbitrary, then why are Nia Glassie’s murderers in prison? Because surely, if conception is a myth and when human life begins an “arbitrary” issue, then what they did was not truly and objectively wrong, was it? After all they could say “well its just your arbitrary opinion that she was a full human being”.
Now you may respond that human life (and therefore the right to life) is where a democratic society decides it is, but of course that would have potential consequences that any intelligent person should be horrified about. For example, what about a society that decides that anyone over 70 is a drain on resources and should have their life terminated? According to your argument there would be no objective reason to criticize such a society.
November 25th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Also, this is not “circular” reasoning, it is moral reasoning based on the observable facts.
November 25th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
They’re certainly different issues, but that doesn’t change the fact that your response to gay marriage – “everyone already has equal rights to marry the opposite sex” – is identical in form to that response to interracial marriage – “everyone already has equal rights to marry the same race”. If you have a problem with the latter, you shouldn’t find the former convincing.
Science can say all it likes about the events and processes that occur during and after conception, but it remains silent – and cannot say anything at all – on the moral question of when a process or a collection of matter is to be considered a human life with all of the moral rights and duties that implies. Nothing about what science says about conception is being left out of a view that draws the line between pre-human-life and human life somewhere after (or before) conception.
Certainly. And the people who pulled the plug on Terry Schiavo aren’t in prison because of a similarly arbitrary line drawn. Just because the lines are arbitrary, doesn’t mean they’re not lines. Whatever the disagreements in our society about where the line between pre-human life and human life are drawn, there is unanimity that Nia Glassie was alive.
Laws are not objective facts about the world. The status of Nia Glassie’s family as murderers can be explained without claiming that New Zealand criminal law is a foundational truth of the universe.
You’re right, there would be no objective reason to criticise such a society. There is never any objective reason to criticise anything. Criticism is a moral issue, and morality is not a fact about the world, it is a fact about us. There would be subjective reasons to criticise such a society. Just as there is subjective reason to criticise our society for allowing people in the Third World to starve while it’s in our power to prevent it, or any other criticism.
I’m not in the habit of allowing horrifying consequences of truth to persuade me into falsehood. I’m simply laying down the reality, harsh or otherwise. We constantly draw lines that are, in the end, arbitrary. Our society is founded on them.
There have been societies where allowing an old person to die was considered right and proper. There have been societies that considered babies to be not an individual life until around the age of 2, when they could get about on their own. There have been societies that considered slavery right and proper. There have been societies that considered homosexuality to be abominable. There have been societies that saw capital punishment as right and proper. And so on.
Just because you find it terrifying to consider that our current society may not be based on access to some fundamental laws of the universe that justify everything we consider right and wrong, doesn’t necessarily mean that is not the case.
November 25th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
There were two people in the room, then there were three
Ryan
You quote logic but then trash it.
“Again, circular reasoning. That argument only supports your conclusion if you start with the assumption that your conclusion is true”.
As far as I can make out kiwipol was correct therefore it was true
he said “then there were three”!
which was true wasn’t it?
Sorry to laugh but you put this one , well maybe you want to change what you wrote or explain it better.
“I could say, “The point at which the baby can survive unassisted.”
At what age do human babies survive unassisted?
5, 8, 10, 15, 18 yrs???
that’s a bit of a misnomer don’t you think?
November 25th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Meanwhile we have scum on our streets like this…
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4772473a11.html
The questions I have are these, why does this c**t receive money from me and every other tax payer ever week? and when will we ever have a government brave enough to say to wankers like this that they are not going to get one more cent from hard working law abiding Kiwi’s.
November 25th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
The targetting of Mormons over the passage of Prop 8 is scandalous. Mormons comprise 3% of the CA population so there is no way that Mormons were more than a small minority of the 52% of CA voters who supported Prop 8. Blacks supported Prop 8 by 70% – Latinos by over 60%. Many Muslims, Jews and Evangelical Christians united to support Prop 8. Want to know who to blame for its passage then blame the Catholics Priests in CA who told all their parishioners on the Sunday before Nov 4 to vote Yes on 8. Opinion polls had Catholic support for Yes on 8 at 58% and the Nos winning by about 5 a week out from the vote. Exit polls showed Catholic support surged to almost 70% so the urgings in Mass is what put Yes on 8 over the top. Yes donations from Mormons helped but what is lost in the anger and nasty tactics of the gay mafia since losing is that more money was donated to the No on 8 cause in total than the Yes on 8. Are all the Christians and other Yes on 8 supporters calling for a boycott of Google because their CEO tipped in a cool mill or calling for a boycott of Speilberg’s movies after he put in another mill?
People of many faiths comprised the thousands of Yes on 8 supporters who lined the PCH and major intersections in the weekends leading up to the vote. The gays targetted Mormons in the hope that other churches with whom they have theological differences with would not defend them. The media of course are in the tank for gay cause and have not reported the extra ordinary ecumenical support that was shown before and after the vote and the way other religious leaders in CA have rallied to support the Mormons whose temples and churches were picketted and who were the subject of white powder letters; their businesses were targetted and individual members singled out professionally for boycotts that led to resignations. Had it been Jewish synagogues being targetted, the left leaning media would be crying anti – Semitism. Had the big black Christian churches (who overwhelmingly backed Prop
been the subject of gay anger, would the media cry racism!
The double standard and hypocrisy in the aggressive tactics of the gays is appalling and targetting the LDS church is just religious bigotry of the first order. Most gays I know don’t care to be married. When you look at reputable and statistically significant non-biased surveys on sexual preference, only 3% of the population self describe as exclusively homosexual. Only 50% of lesbians and barely 10% of gay men are in what could be described as monogomous stable relationships so that knocks the number back to 1%. Lets be generous and assume that 50% of monogomous gays actually want to be married particuarly when in NZ even before the Civil Unions Act and in CA today gays enjoy full equality under the law in terms of all the things that matter (willing assets, making medical and funeral decisions, pension rights etc); that leaves only 0.5% of the population who are bleating about not being able to be married.
The aggressive and nasty tactics of the gay activists is back firing big time. Most gays I know are moderate in their views and happy in their current arrangement and are appalled at these tactics and believe it will cause a backlash of intolerance amongst those in the community who are sadly prejudiced against gays.
November 25th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
It’s only true if life begins at conception. And he used it in support of his claim that life begins at conception.
Do you see? That’s where logic comes into it. If you’re arguing that some claim is true, your argument can’t rely on that claim’s truth for it to be compelling. For example, “The Qu’ran says it was divinely inspired. Divinely inspired books don’t lie. Therefore, the Qu’ran is divinely inspired.”
This might explain it better than I am: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
I mean unassisted by the womb or an incubator. It’s a common line drawn by advocates of abortion before that point. It is an arbitrary line, but no more or less arbitrary than any other.
November 25th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
In his defence, with that haircut, it’s probably very difficult to get a job.
November 25th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Hmm, it seems that some believe marriage started with the Christian churches.
Marriage was part of heathen life for thousands of years before any Christian church started.
The problem with Mormons and their ilk is that they believe that others should live by their moral values.
In other words they poke their noses into other peoples business uninvited.
I hope this really burns the Mormon church they are that bloody arrogant that they baptise the dead jews from Hitler’s concentration camps into their sect.
Amusing to see some gays re-baptising Mormons as gays.
Yes, maybe it is time to look at churches and tax, why should I fund the local body services for religious types.
November 25th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Turpin,
I just wrote a big response and it was lost in a crack in the internet, so I’ll just quickly say that this probably explains the logical fallacy of “there were two in the room, now there are three, therefore life starts at conception” better than I can:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
And the “unassisted” comment refers to the point at which a foetus could survive without a womb or an incubator. It’s a common line drawn by people who have no problem with abortion so long as it occurs before that point. It is an arbitrary as any other line.
And now I am also off.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
sorry Ryan
either there is two in the room or three.
how big that three is or whether the two recognise/aware of the the third is another question.
so your link whilst nice, doesn’t answer it.
thanks for the help.
Sorry having dealt with teanagers and twenty somethings this week I should have made it more tongue in cheek maybe a smiley next time
By unassisted I mean breathe, pee but still be fed and protected?
However this still runs into the hoary old question if we deliver and save those who need assistance but don’t others of the same age/gestation, instead we rip them apart/kill them by some such, what’s the difference between them?
Only the viewpoint of the adult dealing with them.
As left to themselves they’d die.
hope this helps again sorry to not share the joke fully.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
kiwi in US
lets not forget the people of the state voted.
period.
the justices ignored their wishes.
period
then the people voted again
period.
now the pogram starts against people who want marriage to be between a man and a woman.
Time to impeach the justices, then the governor.
But this is good, as they’ll have even more to deal to when OB1 and his crew really get going so it’s time to toughen up.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Dude, anything with “2008 Election Results” in the title is causing a rupture in the space/time continuum.
[DPF: I think it is the MS crap from copy and paste of tables. However on my connections the front page looks okay]
November 25th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Grumpyoldhori
You’ve been hoist by your own petard. By your own admission, marriage is an ancient institution that for many many years the state was never involved with. Some chose to marry outside churches, some inside. Marriage has been easily defined by all cultures across the globe for thousands of years as a union between one man and one woman. A small number of gay activists sought to redefine this long held tradition. Prop 8 would never have appeared on the ballot in CA had the CA Supreme Court not overruled the democratic will of the people who voted 62/38 in 2000 on Prop 22 to define marriage in law as that which it had always been for centuries. The Propositions voted and passed in 40 US states now do nothing more than codify in law that which has been the practice globally since time immemorial. It is light years away from “pocking their noses in other people’s business”.
Marriage is not a “moral value” nor is it a doctrine or belief. If a particular religion was trying to get the state to define and legalise their particular practice or belief via the ballot box then it would and should never be law particularly under constitutionally designed sepraration of church and state in the US. Christian churches support marriage for the same reason why pagan religions in Africa support and practice it – it is the most stable institution in which to raise children. You can be an athiest and still agree that many many studies have defined the clear benefits to children of being raised in a traditional marriage. Are some marriages bad – absolutely but still the institution of marriage has endured for so long and across so many cultures precisely because it is the best family unit combination.
How are you ‘funding’ any church? There is no state religion in NZ or the US that gets a taxpayers subsidy certainly not the Mormons who it is reported donate $100 millions each year and provide thousands of volunteers for all the global natural disasters and do so apparently out of their own pockets.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
llew: I experience the same problem when logging in using Internet Explorer. However, if I login using Mozilla Firefox, I do not have any difficulty.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
“The targetting of Mormons over the passage of Prop 8 is scandalous.”
Yeah, wonder why the queers don’t go after the Muslims??
November 25th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Ryan,
“They’re certainly different issues, but that doesn’t change the fact that your response to gay marriage – “everyone already has equal rights to marry the opposite sex” – is identical in form to that response to interracial marriage – “everyone already has equal rights to marry the same race”. If you have a problem with the latter, you shouldn’t find the former convincing.”
Not at all. They are two entirely different arguments that your conflating based solely on the wording. Marriage is between a man and a women. We can debate the exact nature of that (such as racial issues) but it does not change the fact that we are are talking about marriage. The issue of same sex unions is not the same as old racial arguments because we are talking about something entirely different.
“Science can say all it likes about the events and processes that occur during and after conception, but it remains silent – and cannot say anything at all – on the moral question of when a process or a collection of matter is to be considered a human life with all of the moral rights and duties that implies.”
Of course it can. Science cannot tell me that a rock is a human being. Science cannot tell me that a sperm is a human being. Science CAN and does tell me that a human being is a human being, and science can and does tell me (based on scientific observation) that once conception has taken place we are dealing with a human being. Inconvenient I know, but true.
“Just because the lines are arbitrary, doesn’t mean they’re not lines.”
Yes it does. An arbitrary line based merely on opinion is not a line, but shifting sand.
“Whatever the disagreements in our society about where the line between pre-human life and human life are drawn, there is unanimity that Nia Glassie was alive.”
Thats because we could not deny the truth before our eyes and in our hearts. The unborn are largely unseen, and therefore easy to dismiss. Human beings have a remarkable talent for convenient self-deception and hypocrisy. But as ultrasound and other imaging technology brings the truth before more and more eyes, support for abortion is beginning to erode, especially among younger generations.
“Laws are not objective facts about the world.”
Some are, and all should be. The law against murder is based on the objective fact that murdering people is wrong. And we KNOW it. Deep down inside most people know the objective truth about the eternal moral Law that is written in our hearts, but we try to hide from it. Thats why most people, when confronted with Nia Glassie’s torture and murder did not say to themselves “Oh well, thats wrong because we arbitrarily chose to make it illegal”. No. They reacted with horror and disgust, because they knew in the hearts that it was not simply wrong for arbitrary legal reasons, it was evil.
When confronted with pictures of Jews in the death camps most sane people do not say to themselves “Oh well, thats wrong because we passed a law against it”, they react with deep emotional horror at the evil.
“I’m not in the habit of allowing horrifying consequences of truth to persuade me into falsehood.”
No, your in the habit of ignoring the horrifying consequences of your falsehood.
“There is never any objective reason to criticise anything. Criticism is a moral issue, and morality is not a fact about the world”
Yes, true morality is about facts concerning the world. Question, was the Holocaust objectively wrong, or is that just a matter of opinion?
“There have been societies”
C.S Lewis deals with this myth in ‘The Abolition Of Man’. Suffice it to say, that despite differences there has in fact been a remarkable degree of uniformity in what most societies have considered right and wrong. Human societies do not always get it right, but that does not prove that therefore there IS no objective right.
“Just because you find it terrifying to consider that our current society may not be based on access to some fundamental laws”
I don’t find it terrifying, I find it rationally untenable, logically contradictory, and totally at odds with human experience.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
“Tapu Misa must be some type of socialist if she’s advocating forced sterilisations.”
The only thing Tapu is guilty of is being an alarmist.
If she’s waving a red flag its not a political one. She never endorses political opinion on her column.
she’s not saying what she’s saying for no reason. children are being murdered and more will happen.
she’s basically just jumping the trend when the public get fed up with murdering youth mocking the system and laughing at judges. The bleeding heart air head liberals have held far too much sway over the years and respected journalists need to speak up because childrens cowardly neighbours won’t.
In business when you want to make a deal, you aim high and unrealistically to get to the level you’re happy with.
Besides, Tapu sounds more right wing than left
she seems to have passed the acid test with Redbaiter, that’s good enough for me.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
“Yeah, wonder why the queers don’t go after the Muslims??”
And furthermore, why aren’t the queers going after the black churches ?
November 25th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
“Hmm, it seems that some believe marriage started with the Christian churches.”
No, it started with God.
And I’ll say it again as you very conveniently ignored it, The Mormons were only ONE amongst dozens of churches and organizations that supported Prop 8.
So why are you picking on them alone?
November 25th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
kiwi in america, funding churches, places of so called worship in NZ pay no local body rates, so it falls on we the majority, who do not got to those places of so called worship to pay for them.
Same as NZ Mormons on a benefit if they can afford to give 10% to a sect, they are getting far too much.
And there are a lot of Mormons on a benefit, hmm, the money the Mormon church gives away I wonder how much of it comes from taxpayer.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Deleted
November 25th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Lee, because those gays are cunning, if they can split the Mormons away others churches will not be so damn keen in future to get involved in others moral issues.
Do you believe in separation of church and state ?
Or should we be a theocracy like Utah ?
Should Mormons baptise jews who were killed in concentration camps ?
November 25th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Interesting wikipedia summary on prop 8 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)
Seems that the Episcopal bishops opposed it, but as Lee suggests most relgious organisations supported it.
The article seems to suggest that there is no legal difference being proposed in terms of the rights that they can enjoy in a civil union vs a marriage. Is this purely a symbolicy debate therefore around the actual word “marriage”?
November 25th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
DPF:
It is the crap from Word’s shitty idea of what constitutes HTML (as I pointed out in a comment yesterday) and it’s causing havoc for a number of us who’ve been whining like babies for days. Please fix it… it makes KB virtually unusable till it drops off the front page behind new postings. I’d suggest running it through Dreamweaver’s “clean up Word HTML” function. Or hand delete the wonky tags.
big bruv et al:
Never mind what the scumbag pictured has done, look at what the judge has done:
So this waste of skin goes to a school, threatens a teacher and, by implication, children, by saying he has a gun. The judge then bends over backwards to see if he can be allowed to sit at home watching TV and smoking cannabis as a “punishment”. (Like that will be a big lifestyle change).
In comparison, I know of a young girl (early 20s) who was stupid enough to get herself addicted to much stronger drugs. Spiralling downwards (as you do) she went up to another girl on the street and said “give me your money and your cellphone or I’ll cut you” (note that, while I’m not making excuses, this was on a busy street in broad daylight, she didn’t make any physical contact with the victim, and the victim was probably therefore a lot less terrified than a teacher in an enclosed environment faced with a menacing tattooed male, who I bet has a record that reads like a Raymond Chandler novel).
It was her second offence (the first was for shoplifting). She got five years in maximum security, eligible for parole only after three. In her first six months in jail she’s been seriously attacked twice, including having a knife held to her throat by a convicted murderer.
Not only is the law an ass, our judges are assholes.
(Sorry about the language DPF, but sometimes there’s no other word for it).
[DPF: I don't have dream weaver. I must relearn HTML so I can manually edit the tables]
November 25th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
In reference to Rex Widerstrom’s post, the sentence does seem unreasonable on the face of it. Excuse my ignorance of NZ law, but can one appeal a sentence (if you accept your guilt but feel punishment is unreasonable), rather than the conviction itself, or do you have to go the whole hog and appeal the whole lot?
November 25th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Did any of you see the TV program, last night on progressive Enterprises stopping Pak n Save from opening a store for 17 yrs?
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/foodstuffs-and-progressive-court-over-wairau-pak-nsave-36022
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/2329612
Progressives said
“He said the company welcomes competition provided it is on a level playing field”.
it seems an abuse of the RMA to me.
November 25th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
# Nookin (32) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
“llew: I experience the same problem when logging in using Internet Explorer. However, if I login using Mozilla Firefox, I do not have any difficulty.”
Same here, Nookin, thanks for pointing that out.
November 25th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
oranjemakker asks:
yes, you can appeal just the unreasonableness of the sentence. And in this case the girl’s family are doing so. The girl plead guilty, by the way (as well as writing to the victim to apologise), and the sentencing judge said five years included a “discount” for her guilty plea and remorse.
Knowing what some judges can be like I advised them to hire a good barrister to do the mitigation plea regardless. They did, at a cost of almost $4,000 for 30 minutes court time and by all accounts he did an excellent job. But since His Honour’s piles were giving him problems that morning, or perhaps he’d been turned down by a particularly attractive stenographer at a Chambers dinner the previous weekend, she copped his bad temper.
Now the family – who aren’t rich – are scrambling to find another almost $7000 for a barrister to do the appeal.
And what’s the bet the guy in the newspaper gets Legal Aid?
November 25th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
grumpyoldhori
Yes on 8 won by 570,000 votes. Mormons comprise 2% of the total population so around 700,000. Many of those will be under 18 since they have larger than average families so lets assume 60% are registered voters. Now not all Mormons are practising and the non-practising ones I know are decidedly liberal. Lets assume 50% are practising and 90% of them voted Yes – thats approx 190,000 practising Mormons who likely voted for Prop 8. If every single one of them stayed home, Prop 8 would’ve still passed you idiot.
You are outing yourself as anti Mormon bigot. Evidence please of your claim that “many Mormons are on benefits”. Don’t tell us – oh yea heaps of my rellies. Many evangelical churches pay the tithe – are you going to accuse the Elim Church and Assemblies of God of receiving pseudo government subsidies via their tithe paying beneficiaries? In my experience in NZ and the US fundamentalist church goers tend not be as reliant on government assistance.
November 25th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
DPF: Email me the text of the offending posts and I’ll run them through Dreamweaver and email them back. Can’t promise it’ll work but it’s worth a shot. I don’t have time to do it by hand alas… last time I tried that for someone there was so much crap in a single blog post it took almost 2 hours.
It’s garbage like:
How ironic that this breaks Microsoft’s browser and not the oppositions!!!
November 25th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
kiwi in america, nope you have it wrong, I believe ALL religions are an utter joke
but the worst are those fundy types in NZ including Mormons, Elim, Destiny, etc etc.
And yes the bloody Catholics having nothing to be proud of with their long term protection of kiddy fiddlers.
Yep, far to many Maori Mormons, but I do notice those so called missionaries tend to target the poor areas of NZ cities.
I live in the country in Central Otago and have never seen a pair of them on their bikes in my area, of course there is damn all state housing around here.
So yes, the Mormon church gets too much of it’s money in NZ from the taxpayer via benefits.
So what do I owe any church that takes 10% of it’s members income ?
November 25th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Kiwi in america is an elitist who hasn’t lived in NZ for years.
She doesn’t contribute to NZ and as an employee of the US IRS has no solutions to offer.
If that’s the Kiwi in America blogger.
November 25th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
curious that here the Mormon Church targets poor sections of society (if grumpyoldhori is correct) . In the US my impression was that it was quite a wealthy (even somewhat elitist) church with a lot of business owners etc. As an example, quite a few of the senior faculty, including the Dean, at Harvard Business School, were mormon as were quite a few of the students, definitely more than 2%.
I will qualify that this is purely a personal observation from my experiences!
November 25th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
grumpy – I asked for evidence of your outlandish claim re Mormons and benefits and, as expected, you gave none.
wikiriwhis business
You know nothing about me or my situation or what businesses and charitable interests I retain in NZ or how long Ive not lived in NZ. I am not an employee of anyone in the US – I own a business here. I guess all the taxes Ive paid in NZ and the US make me an elitist in your pathetic socialist eyes. Don’t you understand – all the taxes your left leaning leaders love to spend come from the productive sector you love to burden and deride. Get it through your thick pinko skull – YOU CANT TAX LOSSES. Oh and I am a HE!
November 25th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
wikiriwhis
Your blog should be sub titled “A tree hugging greenies’ view of business”. Aside from the total dearth of comments, it yielded this little gem in your “About” section – “Don’t expect deep and thorough analysis but please add your own educated inputs and help me learn. Perhaps your input will teach me some financial wisdom”. Here’s hoping time at kiwiblog will do just that.
November 25th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
kiwi in america , Oh I could get the information of the number of mormons who get the income from we taxpayers.
But since a lot of Polynesians are Mormon it stands to reason that a lot of them are paying their so called tiths out of charity money taken from hard working taxpayers.
Same as that Destiny mob, far too many horis with far too many of them on benefits.
So do we heathens owe those who live by fairy tales anything at all from our taxes that they can hand over to a Utah based sect ?
November 25th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
oranjemakker, from my rellies in Boston I am lead to understand that the church of choice among the so called elite, daughters of the revolution etc , is the Episcopalian church
Could the elite really believe in a so called faith that has a living prophet in Utah who can change the rules as he goes along ?
Like blacks becoming honourary whites ?
November 25th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
I did say the Kiwi in america blogger who is a female, does work for the IRS and has not been in NZ for many years.
All you had to say was I’m not that person
and ma blog has been getting fine comments and I know you haven’t read all 300 posts.
also got an ‘A’ from ma degree tutors and is consistently read.
I loath the Green Party and am enlightenly anti socialist.
I also knew what ‘Fabian Socialism’ meant before I joined this blog which beats a lot of talk back hosts.
I also hold great hope because of Kiwi’s like you and David Farrar who are making a difference.
But your hysterical ‘tax talk’ had nothing to do whatsoever with anything I said.
Make your own bloke and be master of your domain
thats the whole idea of them.
Go hard!
November 25th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
grumpy
“But since a lot of Polynesians are Mormon it stands to reason that a lot of them are paying their so called tiths out of charity money taken from hard working taxpayers.” OK – so I skyped a Maori Mormon I know who is in a position of leadership in the church so is up with the play on the stats. He says approx 30% of Maori are technically Mormon but only 30% of them are actively practising the religion. Of those who do practice, only about 22% pay the tithe he says.
A brief visit to the MSD website unearthed the following re benefits paid to Maori. The big 3 are Unemployment, DPB and Sickness. Various Fact Sheets on their website give current (or recent as in last year) stats of the numbers on the DPB at 106,000 with 40% of them being Maori, Sickness beneficiaries are 46,000 with 26% Maori and the numbers of Maori paid the unemployment benefit being 15,000. Work these figures out and add them up and add 10% to cover benefits like Independent Youth and Invalids (much smaller numbers) and you come up with approx 77,000 Maori on benefits. So if 30% are nominally Mormon that makes 23,000. Winnow that down to those who actually practice the faith and that number becomes 6,900. Multiply that by the percentage of practising Mormons who pay the tithe and we are left with the grand total of 1,500!
Now I am relying on a third party’s figures here but he would know as he told me he has spent years working with the ‘flock’ and had access to the internal records. Its getting late here and I’d love to do a similar analysis on evangelicals as I have a pastor contact in NZ but I hope I’ve made the point of fisking your outlandish and exaggerated claims that smack of an anti-religious bias. By all means hate religions but just try and make factual points when you argue against them in future.
November 25th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Phil best
http://www.greenspirit.com/printable.cfm?msid=29
Thank you for the note about Patrick Moore at Greenspirit.com
i’ve just read the article about environmentalism in the 21st century all 15 pages of it.
very interesting.
Thanks
November 26th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Grumpy,
“Do you believe in separation of church and state ?”
No.
“Or should we be a theocracy like Utah ?”
Utah is not a theocracy.
“Should Mormons baptise jews who were killed in concentration camps ?”
Not in my opinion, but that issue is totally irrelevant to the issue under discussion, which is Prop 8. Your just using Prop 8 as an excuse to indulge in your anti-Moprmon ignorant bigotry.
And I bet I know a damn site more about Mormons than you. I grew up with Mormon friends and still know many, unlike your mythical American rellies.
November 26th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
“kiwi in america, nope you have it wrong, I believe ALL religions are an utter joke”
Except your own of course.
“but the worst are those fundy types in NZ including Mormons, Elim, Destiny, etc etc.”
First, The Mormons are not Christian fundies. Mormonism is a separate and different religion, like Islam or Hinduism.
Second, the term “fundie” or “fundamentalist” is meaningless and intellectually lazy drivel. So-called “fundies” are just Christians who refuse to sell out to secular liberalism.
November 26th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
“Same as that Destiny mob, far too many horis with far too many of them on benefits.”
Destiny does a very good job of getting people off benefits. In fact it does a good job of getting people off welfare, off drugs, out of gangs, and out of lives of crime. Churches like Destiny actually save taxpayers money.
Kiwi in America has exposed your lies about Mormons and Christians on welfare. Try another argument. One based on actual facts would be a nice change.
November 27th, 2008 at 9:13 am
I agree that we are talking about something different. But in a hypothetical world where interracial marriages were banned, an argument with a form identical to yours would be saying, to people who want to marry interracially: “You already have equal rights. You have an equal right to marry someone of the same race as you.”
If you think about it, you’ll find that it doesn’t. Whether or not a fertilised egg (which is what science actually calls it) is a human being for the purposes of moral consideration is not a question science does, or can, deal with. Similarly, there is no scientific observation of when death occurs. The heart stops beating, the brain loses oxygen, the brain cells start to decay, the whole body loses oxygen, the hair and nails keep growing for days afterwards, the digestive system continues for days afterwards, etc. We have drawn lines when a person is legally dead, and we have drawn lines when a person is morally dead, but there is no such thing as scientifically dead for the purposes of law or for morality.
Still a line. There’s nothing mere about opinion. Our world consists greatly of opinion. Try crossing a border without a passport sometime and explain to whoever stops you that arbitrary lines aren’t really lines at all.
The Holocaust can no more be objectively wrong than it can be a square circle. It was subjectively wrong to just about everyone alive, including me.
He really, really doesn’t.
Human societies remain human societies. They wouldn’t survive long if murder was socially encouraged. That explains the similarities without having to resort to logical impossibilities.
This is mostly digression. The point is:
You are simply incorrect that science tells us when something is morally or legally a human life.
November 27th, 2008 at 10:25 am
“I agree that we are talking about something different.”
Good. My point is made then.
“But in a hypothetical world”
We are living in this one.
“Whether or not a fertilised egg (which is what science actually calls it) is a human being for the purposes of moral consideration is not a question science does, or can, deal with.”
Of course it can. For example science can tell me that a 3 month old post-born baby is a human being. Science can tell me that a 5 year old child is a human being. Science can tell me that a 70 year old is a human being. Therefore science can, and does tell me that once conception has taken place a growing human being exists. Once we have established that observable fact, the moral issues follow as night follows day.
“The Holocaust can no more be objectively wrong than it can be a square circle. It was subjectively wrong to just about everyone alive, including me.”
Then according to your argument it was not wrong at all. Subjective right and wrong is not right and wrong, its opinion. According to your argument here, opinion is what makes right and wrong. Therefore the Germans under the Nazi’s were NOT wrong because majority opinion in Germany at the time supported dealing harshly with the Jews. There was therefore nothing morally right about defeating the Nazis, we were just expressing a meaningless and empty opinion. Nice world you want to live in.
Your self-contradiction here blows your own case out of the water.
“He really, really doesn’t.”
Thats an argument? Prove that he doesn’t.