The word Jew has been associated with millennia of persecution and hatred, so the sensitivity is raw.

It’s perhaps even more offensive to have the name of one’s faith used as an insult without embellishment, as Northern Irish Catholics and Protestants would attest.

21st century Muslims are no doubt becoming more and more familiar with this concept too.

In the world’s newest religion, Climate Scientology, the equivalent insult would be the word sceptic.

I guess it’s hard to know if a party would attract more votes if they appeared settled and united (from the outside), compared to demonstrating the obvious, that they consist of varying personalities and opinions and preferences and have a robust way of dealing with that. Some things a best kept concealed (if possible), but I know I’d rather see some realism and transparency. I would hope to see some disagreement and dissent, as long as it was dealt with constructively.

I’m not so concerned about party philosophy and ideals because political pragmatism changes them in real life. I’m much more interested in quality of personnel, a bunch of capable people are likely to usually reach the right decisions. To judge them you have to see how they operate.

Signed, justonevote

The ACT is certainly not a party of sycophants. Many members have strong opinions. They are not afraid to state them at meetings.

I fail to understand how a member of any political party can think that publicly criticising their party’s performance at the polls is in anyway helpful.

If you value loyalty over accountability and criticism of the direction of the party then you might as well go join the Labour party. The difference between you and me is that I’m not the kind of idiot who’s going to kiss the ass of my own party and continue to think so highly of ourselves when we’re at 2% support.

I was just asking the question mate, seems some are more equal than others. And last time I was in the hood drinking gin and juice half of the brothers were calling each other nigga, maybe the person who told you to shut the fuck up just didnt like you

I agree – just the other day I called someone a n*gger and they told me to shut the fuck up.

It’s political correctness gone mad!

Raine, you fooled me in regard being a member of ACT. Usually, members of political parties do not publicly criticise their party’s MPs and elected officials make remarks about what they consider to be a poor turnout at conferences. It has something to do with loyalty.

In the case of Kevin he is a candidate. That is why ACT members like myself and others are critical. We do not want to see him elected. If he was elected already I would not be criticising him on this blog. As he has not yet been elected I balance the harm this public debate has against possible harm if he is elected.

Kris, apart from one fundamental difference, and a matter of degree on some others, we agree on a lot more than you may realise. It’s usually just the differences that get highlighted here.

Yes, I was being a little naughty. But sometimes you do make we wonder, Pete

Same with Redbaiter. I can agree with quite a bit of what he says when he is in his inquiring thoughtful mode, I just don’t say so very often so as not to horrify him too much. His more normal attack/abuse mode is more disagreeable, but even then often on the delivery as opposed to the message.

Maybe you should ‘horrify’ him more often; although I think you already do, just in a different context.

What Kevin posted was mild compared to a lot of what is posted on blogs, but not a good look for an aspiring political party official, so he’s been burned. He could do with getting some apology lessons from Rodney. It’s possible to repair a lot of the damage with a reasonable, sincere response, but he would have to mean it for that to work.

In politics it’s often how something is dealt with that is more important than the deed itself.

Heck, I agree.

I don’t want to open up this hoary old chestnut here – maybe on GD when it comes on line.
But I think both you and I have made our respective points on this before. And I’m happy to admit that your views on determinism are something that I find hard to relate to and/or accept.

But in answer to your final point – “Do you think God has free will?” – Yes, I do; He chose to become a man that He might die for the sins of the world – both yours and mine.

Same with Redbaiter. I can agree with quite a bit of what he says when he is in his inquiring thoughtful mode, I just don’t say so very often so as not to horrify him too much. His more normal attack/abuse mode is more disagreeable, but even then often on the delivery as opposed to the message.

What Kevin posted was mild compared to a lot of what is posted on blogs, but not a good look for an aspiring political party official, so he’s been burned. He could do with getting some apology lessons from Rodney. It’s possible to repair a lot of the damage with a reasonable, sincere response, but he would have to mean it for that to work.

In politics it’s often how something is dealt with that is more important than the deed itself.

Come on, Ryan.
Morality is meaningless without (human) freewill.

Why is that?

Each and every one of us ‘choose’ the actions we make; good, bad, or otherwise.
I know you disagree, but I have to state what I believe myself and most people hold to.

I don’t disagree. Of course people choose the actions they make.

And, of course, God’s word also states that each of us are responsible for our actions, and, indeed, our sin. Our freewill determines our eternal destiny.

Do you think God has free will?

It’s an interesting point you raise. I wonder how many people can’t bring themselves to realise how impossible “free will” is because they can’t bear to lose their ideas about morality. Not that the impossibility of “free will” has as much of an effect on ideas of morality as most people think.

Come on, Ryan.
Morality is meaningless without (human) freewill.
Each and every one of us ‘choose’ the actions we make; good, bad, or otherwise.
I know you disagree, but I have to state what I believe myself and most people hold to.

And, of course, God’s word also states that each of us are responsible for our actions, and, indeed, our sin.
Our freewill determines our eternal destiny.

cheers

David Prosser

”So I agree with RB’s conclusion.”

I must have made some ghastly error somewhere. Maybe I need to give it yet another think.

It’s ok, Red, you’ll get over it.
Sometimes Pete and I even agree on some issues. It is a scary prospect, though, when I consider what we disagree on.
But what’s that saying – ‘Iron sharpeneth iron’.

Heck, Transmogrifier even agreed with me on Islamic hypocracy – he qualified it with that he agrees with me on little of anything else, though. Oh well, such is life.

We’re certainly all individuals here in DPF land – and for that reason it’s never boring.

If the discussion had been about atheism or beliefs etc, then maybe Kevin Campbell’s description might have had some relevance… but in this case it seems to have been simply an attempt to insult John Key. Its irrelevant whether Key is Jewish or not in the context of the original thread and this comment was obviously meant as a racist insult.

I am not the purist of PC handwringers by any means – but I think this shows Kevin Campbell to be a fuckwit who doesn’t know his arse from his mouth.

I also think John Ansell’s responses were really good…. firm without stooping to Campbell’s level.

How many ways can someone be racist when alone, Ryan? Painting racist graffiti? Racist blogging? Writing Mein Kampf in solitary? Talking to themselves when it’s clearly impossible for anyone-else to hear? Perhaps just having racist thoughts?

Devious and dangerous, these old fuckers, eh? I’m not sure where you get the idea racists are old. Do you really think skinheads and brown gangs and white gangs aren’t racist?

Oh, I don’t really have that theory. Not about just old men, anyway. All kinds of people are racist when they think they’re in company that will condone it, which is what I meant by “alone”. I’ve seen it a few times, at least.

Also, my young hard determinist, as racism is all predetermined for you, do you conclude that racism is just an effect of growing old?

Well, you say “racism is all predetermined”, and I say “if someone is racist, there are reasons for that being the case”. It could be true that there is more racism in older generations than younger ones, though I wouldn’t look to simple ageing for a possible cause.

Could it be another theory, Ryan, that most hard determinists are young philosophy students? Mostly, they keep quiet on the topic for fear of being asked about moral choice etc, but when they are alone, they can be as dogmatic as fuck.

I’m not a philosophy student. And have you ever known me to be quiet on the topic of the nonsense of “free will”? Hell, people can’t get me to shut up about it. Fortunately I’m not so much “dogmatic” as “having a very strong argument that no one seems to be able to address”.

It’s an interesting point you raise. I wonder how many people can’t bring themselves to realise how impossible “free will” is because they can’t bear to lose their ideas about morality. Not that the impossibility of “free will” has as much of an effect on ideas of morality as most people think.

No it isn’t. It’s exactly the same. From anybody’s mouth, it’s poison.