This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 30th, 2011 at 8:00 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.
“In the letter, the woman says her usually “loving and vibrant” mother is now “depressed and anxious” after learning she is not likely to get one of the few vacancies left open.
“This has terrified her and she is in turmoil and worry about her future, something that a woman of her age does not need.”
“Her mother may have to leave her one-bedroom flat as she will no longer be able to afford the rent, apply for the unemployment benefit and state-funded accommodation.
“She said she wrote to Mr Key to make him “understand what is happening to people in this country when they are losing their jobs”.
—-
I’m sorry, but some people need to learn to look after themselves. Being a nose in the trough public servant and not preparing yourself for retirement is just stupid. Expecting the state to look after you is selfish.
My dad got made redundant from his 30 year private sector corporate head-office job at age 62, and instead of sitting around whinging, he reinvented himself as a marriage celebrant and now performs up to 40 weddings plus funerals a year to top up his private superannuation scheme. I would be embarrassed if I was related to the above women.
Must suck having a popular right wing blog only to have a Greenpeace add hanging on top of it.
One would want a little control over who gets to advertise I would think.
jaba – painless and sensitively administered apparently. Good idea to make love to your wife before you leave home in case the unexpected arises….. I’ve heard some of the nurses are rather well endowed.
Appalling piece in the herald today by Bryan Gould… Suggests key is like Muldoon because he dominates the media. Fuck me, how low will the left go. Do they still not get the fact that kiwis loathe gutter politics… Or worse still sewer politics.
Blogger and lawyer Cathy Odgers – who is based in Hong Kong and writes as Cactus Kate – confirmed yesterday, before the list was announced, that she would not be standing.
Getting Mr Roth
“Plans to rebuild Christchurch should not be simply popular, but must also be achievable, says the man who led the reconstruction of Manchester after an IRA bomb.
“The most popular ideas for our rebuild were the least deliverable,” Manchester City Council leader Sir Richard Leese said.
“In fact, the most popular one was impossible to achieve.”
Christchurch needed bold architecture that would polarise residents.
“They’re Marmite buildings: you either love them or hate them, and I think Marmite buildings are good for a city.”
Questioned about the proposed seven-storey CBD height limit, Leese said in Manchester they had no height restrictions, opting to assess each project on its merits.
Viking2 – AFAIK DPF ‘leases’ advertising space to Google so he has limited control on the ads actually placed. All I can say here is hopefully DPF’s contract with Google indemnifies DPF against defamation suits arising out of the ads. Sealord is talking about seeing lawyers.
Greenpeace has scored an ‘own goal’ with the Sealord stunt in Ellerslie. Volunteers have been spruicing the place up for the World Cup, and Greenpeace plastered their ads on lamp posts where volunteers had spent hours scraping old ads off.
Its interesting that in every such “woe is me, my poor [mother/father/sister/brother]” story, there is never any acknowledgement that other family members might have some role in assisting their close relatives, but that instead, there is the greedy expectation that people who aren’t in any way related (ie taxayers) should pick up the tab on the basis that the gummint has the primary support responsibility.
Predictably, there was no indication from that correspondent that she was prepared to do anything to help her own mother.
Instead its a case of: “there you go Mum, I’ve written to John Key” and [thinks: 'phew, that's me off the hook; now I can get on with my own life without any further inconvenience'].
No doubt the correspondent was spurred on by the righteous indignation that her mother had payed taxes and the fact that she had done so means it is now time to collect. In other words, our tax system is in reality the equivalent of a large scale Xmas savings club. That means that if any of life’s sour bits arrive on your doorstep, friends and relatives are entitled to stand around with their hands in their pockets while the taxpayer turns up to fix the problem.
In this case there is the added expectation that taxpayers should fund employment for the sake of it, irrespective of whether public servants are actually doing anything that delivers value to their employers, being the taxpayers of this country. There didn’t seem to be any indication of her views as to whether that notion should be extended to the private sector.
On a brighter note, Perry’s rival Michele Bachman has now confirmed that she was only joking when she suggested over the weekend that Hurricane Irene and last week’s East Coast earthquake were messages from God.
There are times when it seems that nothing can happen, either internationally or domestically, so far as our media are concerned, unless the Prime Minister is on hand to comment on it or otherwise certify by his presence that it is indeed news.
How do you National voters feel now we know, thanks to wikileaks, that John Key admits he is a socialist?
He certainly act likes one. When do you guys stop believing the talk and look at this man’s actions?
There’s an interesting post on The Standard on social media in politics if you ignore the standard description:
Red Alert and Frogblog are very free, with MPs writing what they want and relatively loose moderation, whereas NationalMPs is insipid and tightly controlled – who has taken the smarter course?
Berend, as a committed National voter (since, from memory, April 28) it bothers me not that John Key speaks the truth rather than communist-style political-speak.
MT_Tinman says, “My shopping list this week includes Sealords Tuna and Cottonsoft toilet paper.”
Keep an eye out for a velvet heart stuffed with sawdust. I assume you are still looking?
“His desire for a heart notably contrasts with the Scarecrow’s desire for brains, reflecting a common debate between the relative importance of the mind and the emotions.”
What exactly makes this piece of gutter sniping “great”?
The Prime Minister is the elected leader of our country and I don’t think it is an outrage that media ask him for comment on issues of the day. How the media interpret comments is not in his control.
That he notes New Zealanders have a social conscience is hardly a bad thing, is it?
I find that the left trying to paint a picture of Key as a controlling, hardline, dictatorial leader is the worst fucking type of hypocrisy – given the lefts recent governance in NZ. If you want to see that sort of leadership; apply for a UN job.
I can’t say any of the parties vying for this election have my full support, but my order of voting would be:
National, United Future, Maori Party, ACT, no vote, Labour, Greens, Mana party.
Wow Greenpeace are advertising hard on Kiwiblog at the moment for their “Sealord > Bad Tuna” ads.
I was in Auckland recently .. there were Greenpeace fundraisers on street corners trying to sign people up. Strangely they didn’t approach me (I was wearing a business suit) – they only seemed to approach students. Not a great target market I would suggest.
Anyway – at lunchtime, the collector went to a cafe for a sandwich. First he turned his Greenpeace jacket inside out (obviously didn’t want the attention), then he proceeded to grill the staff.. “What kind of tuna is it”, “what’s the brand”, “I want to see the can.”, “No, I don’t like it, I’ll just have a cheese sandwich”.
Seriously – it reminded me of people with religious dietary requirements, only worse! Maybe airlines should have an “environmentally friendly” meal option..
Anyway, he seemed to enjoy his cheese sandwich while he proceeded to pollute the world with cigarette smoke.
Funny how people seem so worried about Perry’s supposed religious beliefs (is he or is he not a “Dominionist” ?), and yet the same people gave Barack Obama a pass for attending for an extended period the Rev Jeremiah Wright’s church with its hate America and other genuinely obnoxious beliefs.
Rick Perry:
In 2006 he said that he believed the Bible to be inerrant.
…
Michele Bachman has now confirmed that she was only joking when she suggested over the weekend that Hurricane Irene and last week’s East Coast earthquake were messages from God.
And then the great, big, Fundamentalist Christian came slowly creeping out from behind the door ……
I see we’ve entered the usual US Presidential debate in which the GOP candidate is a bible-thumping, gun-totin’, sister-lovin’, “extremist”. Oh – and dumb as well. I wonder when he’ll get compared to a Nazi – it’s got to happen sooner or later.
Seeing all the usual left-wing dross I rather appreciated this comment:
Is Ronald Reagan electable? Is George Bush a wimp? Is Michelle Bachmann crazy? Is Rick Perry dumb? It’s bad enough to raise these questions but the pathetic mainstream media only asks them about conservatives. Today’s Politico story about Rick Perry is just the latest example.
Where was the 2007 Politico lead story raising questions about whether or not Barack Obama was all style, no substance and just might be in over his head? That might have saved us from a presidency that is defined as a miserable failure with every passing day.
Where was the 1991 Newsweek cover asking “Does Bill Clinton have a problem with the truth?” Such a story could have certainly spared this nation in ways too many to count, and there was plenty of evidence of such a problem while he was running.
Perhaps the American people should be asking: “Does an unbiased mainstream media really exist, or is it just an extension of the Democratic National Committee?”
I’d say that the Democrats are going to bang the religious-gun-nut-extremist-nazi image more than ever before in the 2012 election – and I can’t actually see it working this time. Hell, I’m an atheist and if an Intelligent Designer promised to hack the US Federal government down by even 5% I’d vote for them every day of the week and twice on Sundays.
Which is to say, that at the rate things are moving in the US people will be following the syphilitic camel rule by November 2012.
I forgot this little gem from Rolling Stone, that describes all the dirty dealing that’s going on in NY with the banks and the fallout from the sub-prime disaster:
Why? My theory is that the Obama administration is trying to secure its 2012 campaign war chest with this settlement deal. If Barry can make this foreclosure thing go away for the banks, you can bet he’ll win the contributions battle against the Republicans next summer.
Indeed.
Of course this article does not dare stray from the bankers are scum theme long enough to ask questions about Freddie, Fannie, Barney Frank, or Chris Dodd – or Warren Buffet as the largest investor in government-approved rating agency Moody’s, one of the outfits that put the big AAA seal of approval on all that crap. But the next line I appreciated for it’s understated nature:
Which is good for him, I guess. But it seems to me that it might be time to wonder if is this the most disappointing president we’ve ever had.
Ka Ching! But come on lefties – disappointing? Just come out and say it – failure and loser – and if he’s losing Rolling Stone…….
TIM:…….He contributed to global warming too by buying a cheese sandwich the cheese being produced through the emission of methane and by the urine from the producer contaminating our rivers..The Ad. is also racist denigrating the product of a company owned by the Tangata Whenua.
1884
THE REPORT
SELECT COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS,
ON
NEW ZEALAND,
CONSIDERED IN A
LETTER TO LORD STANLEY,
By the advice of Lord John Russell, in the month of December 1840, a Charter passed the great seal, by which New Zealand was erected into a separate and independent
colony; and this charter was transmitted, together with instructions under the Royal Sign Manual, to the Governor, Captain Hobson. In this charter and instructions, ‘actual occupation and enjoyment’ are clearly pointed out as alone establishing a right of property in land in the natives; and the rule is laid down that all other lands must be considered as vested in the Crown, in virtue of the sovereignty that had been assumed, and that they must be dealt with accordingly. The treaty of Waitangi (which had previously reached England and been approved), it may therefore fairly be assumed, must, when this charter and the instructions which accompanied it were forwarded to the colony, have been understood as bearing a meaning not inconsistent with the terms in which they are couched. The lands held ‘collectively,’ of which the possession was guaranteed to the aboriginal inhabitants of New Zealand, must, therefore, have been regarded as the lands actually occupied by them, and cultivated in common by a tribe, in the manner frequently practised, and the forests as those actually used for cutting timber.
I expect that over the next few months I’ll be hearing various left-wingers express a plague-upon-both-houses attitude towards the political bunfight between Democrats and Republicans in the US. It’s usually what happens when some hero of the left “disappoints” yet again.
However, it still won’t change the fundamental belief that emerges almost like Tourette Syndrome whenever the poor and the rich are discussed – and that is that the GOP represent “the wealthy” and the Dems “the poor”. Which is why I appreciate articles like this one in Forbes about Warren Buffet:
Not by accident did the expression “limousine liberal” enter the American political lexicon years ago (in the late 1960s) as a pejorative term to ridicule the hypocrisy of left-wing anti-capitalists living the high life made possible by capitalism. Buffet is only the most famous of the richest liberals in recent U.S. history; others include FDR, the Kennedys, Ted Turner, Bill Gates, George Soros, and Jamie Dimon.
Working on Wall Street in the 1980s I found the richest to be the most left-leaning, and nothing like the stereotypical “country club Republicans” we’re all told about. Those most sympathetic to capitalism weren’t CEOs and bankers but street vendors, truck drivers, waitresses, and barbers. During the 2008 election season America’s richest investors, including many hedge fund moguls, gave their money mainly to candidate Barack Obama.
That’s why the attacks on the Koch Brothers have been so funny. As the article points out:
Although wealthy pro-capitalists also exist (see the Koch brothers), they’re a distinct minority – indeed, the only minority liberals prefer to attack than coddle.
Many polls show the wealthier to be more statist than capitalist, and data from campaign contributions confirm the basic pattern. Leftists hope this little secret will remain a secret, since it defies their populist cries for class warfare and mocks the hate speech they spew at “millionaires and billionaires, Big Oil, hedge funds and corporate jet owners.”
These types are hardly the GOP’s puppet-masters, as is blithely assumed; in truth the “fat cats” tend to be solidly pro-Democrat. Since the typical voter doesn’t know this, class warfare rhetoric can still easily induce him to reject the GOP.
I don’t think the penny has yet dropped for a lot of Democrat voters in the US (see Jon Stewart as a classic example) – and for the activists it never will drop, even as their attacks are funded by Soros and co.
“The lands held ‘collectively,’ of which the possession was guaranteed to the aboriginal inhabitants of New Zealand, must, therefore, have been regarded as the lands actually occupied by them, and cultivated in common by a tribe, in the manner frequently practised, and the forests as those actually used for cutting timber.”
Vast tracts of New Zealand were empty due to the effects of the musket wars and earlier conflicts. The south island was to all intents unpopulated. Maori did not even have free passage over what the did control without armed force. Up until the signing of the treaty Land “ownership” Was just Conquest and plunder.
At this stage a “lefty” to me is someone who continues to bang the same, tired, old drum as people who explicitly claim they’re lefties.
In short – if all I hear from you are the same talking points I hear from avowed left-wing journalists, US Democrats and Obama supporters then I have to conclude that you’re a leftie, despite whatever protestations of “independence” you may make. Real independent thinkers don’t just go with the CW flow.
UPDATE: I forgot to add that you should check out this Dim Post thread, as it leads into your singularity theme.
Although your heading was a bit unclear, I think you are referring to the House of Commons Committee on New Zealand, which in 1844, as Cowan describes:
‘resolved that the Treaty of Waitangi was a part of a series of injudicious proceedings, and that “the acknowledgement by the local authorities of a right of property on the part of the natives of New Zealand in all wild land in these islands, after the sovereignty had been assumed by Her Majesty, was not essential to the true construction of the Treaty, and was an error which had been productive of very injurious consequences.” In other words, the Committee thought the Government should seize upon all native land not actually occupied and devote it to the use of white settlers.’
The Committee’s enquiry had been sought by the New Zealand Company, which had an obvious motive for declaring any ‘wild land’ to be available for settlement.
The British Government took no action on the report, which possibly did however contribute to the outbreak of the Northern War the next year.
1845 – Brodie, W. Remarks on the Past and Present State of New Zealand
“On this house, which originally cost 2000l., and which might have served every purpose required for the comfort and convenience of the governor of a new Colony, no less a sum than 15,000l. or 20,000l. has been thrown away; while not even 100l. have been, as yet, devoted to local purposes. In fact, so little has the comfort or convenience of the public been attended to, that even the streets of Auckland itself, where the people have expended nearly 40,000l. in the purchase of allotments, are in such a state as to be utterly impassable; although an outlay of 100l. or 200l. would have been sufficient for their improvement. ”
“The revenue of the Colony appears to have been made subservient to one purpose only,–that of being expended, directly or indirectly, upon the Government officials themselves, or upon their friends.”
I admit that I do get tired of the endless back-and-forth between left and right, usually because it comes across as an endless battle with no conclusions. That’s why it’s often better to look at real world results, like the recent 2010 US census data:
States that Barack Obama carried were the biggest losers in the reapportionment that followed the 2010 Census, with New York and Ohio dropping two electoral votes each. Texas, meanwhile, gained a whopping four votes all by its Lone Star lonesome self. Even in the unlikely event that Obama carried exactly the same states he carried in 2008, he’d still win six fewer electoral votes in 2012.
Even more tellingly, if the epic Bush-Gore battle of 2000 played out on the new Electoral College map, with the two candidates carrying precisely the states they each won 11 years ago, the result would have been a far more clear-cut GOP victory margin of 33 electoral votes (instead of the five-vote nail-biter recorded in history books).
Ouch – but the following is more hurtful, in looking at what the population shifts really mean:
This significant shift in population not only presents progressives with significant problems in terms of practical politics, but also confronts them with profound ideological challenges.
If liberal approaches work so well, why are so many people choosing to pack their bags and desert some of the most progressive, pro-labor, big-government states in the union?
And if uncompromising conservatism is a cruel, fraudulent disaster, why do small-government, pro-business, low-tax, gun-toting, and churchgoing states draw such a disproportionate number of America’s internal immigrants?
Perhaps these immigrants really aren’t as frightened of people bitterly clinging to their guns and bibles as we’ve been led to believe?
Inventory2, no need to pull down Key. Just pointing out he’s borrowing $380 million a week, close to 30% youth unemployment, ETS leader instead of follower, smacking still illegal, no tax cuts, and government bigger than ever.
Obviously I realise now that National voters like that kind of stuff.
It was what I said that counts The treaty process has identified multiple ownership claims in one place. It was not a case of multiple ownership but inter tribal fighting over “no man lands”.
This Committee was debating principles of the treaty as valid as any other view point. We are not told the truth just feed spin
Rewrite the history to (“Primary and secondary schools will be required to teach heritage studies, which will include a history of the Maori, in line with the aspirations of Maori people.)
Tom, regarding the Dim Post link in which Danyl paraphrases Sam Harris:
“If some future entrepreneur invents a labour saving device that makes them a multi-trillionaire but puts dozens of millions of people out of work, should the government redistribute their private wealth?”
In a word, my opinion is yes, which certainly highlights the streak of socialism in some of us that John Key was referring to. My reasoning is that whilst the free market and capitalism is certainly the best approach at present to attaining optimal growth, it does throw up some disproportionate by-products, such as the super-rich.
To my mind, the billionaire is an absurdity, and the state has the moral right to steal most of his money. The prospect of making a few million should provide enough incentive to strive to succeed. 15-20% flat income tax up to a million p/a. 95% over. 15% company tax, no threshold, 20% GST. Privatize everything except education.
“The period up to 1840, sometimes referred to as the ‘race relations apprenticeship’, in which New Zealand is very much a Maori world.
The 1840s through to the 1860s. The Treaty of Waitangi and war dominate this period. The settler population increases and seeks greater political power and more land for settlement.
1870-1900. New Zealand is transformed economically and socially and is now very much a European world.”
The wars pre 1840 had more impact (up to twenty thousand killed from the linked site, twenty thousand or far more killed according to king) than those prior why is it worded like this?
“Fatal-impact theorists spoke of the end of Maori civilisation as their population fell from perhaps 100,000 in 1840 to a little over 40,000 by the end of the century.”
Note the figure for 1840
‘”The population in 1800 was estimated at anywhere between 100-120,000. The European population generally numbered in the hundreds. The inter-tribal Musket Wars of this period had a dramatic impact on the Maori population with as many as a fifth killed and many thousands captured by rival tribes. On the eve of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi the Maori population of between 70-90,000 still comfortably outnumbered the non-Maori population of 2000.”
Gee it changes to suit the story. Not what I would like to see from a national teaching resource.
The figures from this site are different from those found in say Micheal Kings work always to minimize the Maori impact on themselves and to prejudice the settlers impact on Maori.
Actually, what is morally wrong with polygamy? It’s basically sexual capitalism isn’t it? I stand to be corrected.
(taken from the compulsory circumcision thread)
MM
1) The population numbers are not consistent across the site and are not consistent with Known history
2)Consistently under state the impact and consequence of the musket wars.
3)Twist the reasons and causes of the 1840 to 1860 troubles. Overstate a few skirmishes as wars. Prejudice the settlers as evil and the Maori aggressors as good and just. Maori who stood alongside the Crown are portrait as unimportant or stupid
I don’t know why anyone would wish to underestimate the impact of the Musket Wars. They were one of the most devasting consequences for Maori of European contact.
You would rather term the 1845-1872 conflicts as ‘troubles’ rather than ‘wars’? Why?
You feel the New Zealand Wars (probably the most widely accepted term) were caused by ‘Maori agressors’. Really?
To my mind, the billionaire is an absurdity, and the state has the moral right to steal most of his money.
Wow. I’m grateful that you’re so blunt about it – and yes, that’s socialism with a capital C and a 9mm bullet.
I admit that I’m a little loathe to debate this because it is, as Danyl admitted up front, a reductio ad absurdum, and I always find those better used as examples of silliness rather than something that can be debated in detail.
However, I think your stated rule would be a slippery slope leading to a reductio ad absurdum itself: people would simply make arrangements to not appear as billionaires, in much the same way that the number of people reporting their income as $60,000 per annum in NZ magically increased several-fold after 1999. Sure, you could propose even tougher investigations and all, but that’s the Police State for you.
Buried within your answer seems to be an implicit assumption that the billionaire’s money is somehow locked up in some giant Scrooge McDuck Money Bin, and that all that society sees of it is the minuscule amount spent on consumption (the question asked of Gordon Gecko: how many yachts can you water-ski behind?). Which is why so many Keynesians love the idea of grabbing parts of the billionaires loot and then distributing it to ordinary people for consumer spending: a sweet fit of ideas, which is basically what Sam is describing here.
Pity that the economy is also driven by production, which creates the wealth to be spent and yes, that is a chicken-and-egg situation, but not one that can be fixed simply at the consumption end first, supposedly then pulling out the products. The abject failure of the whole Krugman theory of housing bubble => increased wealth => increased consumer spending => a healthy, growing economy should have put paid to that nonsense even before the giant monetary pissathon of the last three years.
The reality is the money, even if it’s only dumped into bank accounts, has to go and be used somewhere in society simply in order to pay the interest bill – and that means it has to be loaned out to people. One could argue that they will have no income to pay back the loan or even the interest, but loans are often made on the basis of business or personal plans that predict future income streams rather than what’s in the hand – and the more desperate they are to lend, the more slack those demands become. In short, people are creative creatures rather than dumb workhorses plodding along in front of the plough and they’d use that billionaire’s money – and if he wants to get any return on it (aside from the income from his magic porridge pot) he has no choice but to lend it out.
In a sense this scenario has already occurred over the past 30 years and is probably accelerating – which is the basis of the whole singularity theme. And we have seen unemployment as jobs have been destroyed, together with the rise of many billionaires. Whether we’re seeing any more relative to the size of the economy (or “the average wage” or whatever basis of comparison suits) than 120 years ago, or whether such people form a bigger chunk of the economy than during the age of the robber barrons, is up for debate. I think Rockefeller was worth about $200 billion in today’s money alone – and that’s without making relative comparisons to the total wealth of US society at the time. Same with jobs: millions have been created in entirely new areas and industries undreamed of. The doom-laden predictions of mass unemployment in the late 70′s/early 80′s as a result of the silicon chip simply did not happen.
Of course that may eventually happen in a singularity. As I said the other day – it’s beyond economics in the sense of having costless resources. But in that situation the billionaire’s money won’t be worth anything anyway, so they’ll be no need to steal it.
I see the Herald has an extract from Gareth Morgan’s latest novel. I am sorry but the guy needs help. What he is advocating is a socialist paradise, capital would exit NZ faster than the bottle store gets cleaned out on bene day.
“To my mind, the billionaire is an absurdity, and the state has the moral right to steal most of his money.”
While I agree that extremes of wealth, and extremes of disparity between rich and poor, are undesirable, I don’t agree that the State therefore has a right to just steal money.
The problem with capitalism in its current form is that there are too few capitalists. We need a long term transformation of the economy to a stakeholder society in which far more people own land, property and a reasonable level of wealth, and who are investors. Which is in part why I agree with Nationals asset sales plan, so long as they keep their commitment to maintain majority New Zealand ownership. We need more mum and dad investors.
The state has no more right to the billionaire’s money than he does. (Which is to say, none.)
As for John Key’s comments about New Zealand’s socialist streak, he was right. Can hardly fault him for that. Hell, even ACT MPs have said they favour a “safety net, not a lifestyle choice” – that’s the same streak showing through. We don’t want people to be able to fall right to the bottom. We’re Kiwis.
Then why is the reason for signing the treaty given as protection from settlers when many thousands more Maori died at the hands of their fellow Maori, In wars that were still on going and would continue unless the crown took charge.
from http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/politics/treaty/the-treaty-in-brief
” Growing numbers of British migrants arrived in New Zealand in the late 1830s, and there were plans for extensive settlement. Around this time there were large-scale land transactions with Māori, unruly behaviour by some settlers and signs that the French were interested in annexing New Zealand. The British government was initially unwilling to act, but it eventually realised that annexing the country could protect Māori, regulate British subjects and secure commercial interests.”
Does that look like mentioning the musket wars at all.
“The Land Wars”
As much as they were local skirmishes happened over a long period of time and were often about sovereignty and law. Totally separate issues than just the owner ship of land.
Griff
I was under the impression that there were several factors behind the treaty. The British Government desired to impose order in a rather messy situation, where uncontrolled colonisation was in prospect. Some Maori welcomed a degree of British authority to control the actions of European settlers and traders. Some Maori seemed to have thought the treaty would increase the amount of trade available.
I’m not aware of much evidence that Maori thought the British would protect them from other Maori. As the Musket Wars had been over for the best part of ten years, there wouldn’t have appeared to be an imminent threat. This is not to discount this factor completely, as in some parts, such as Wellington, local Maori welcomed settlement as a potential bulwark against threats.
Note the bias in the Gaurdian article. If this had been some trendy lefty policy it would have been the government “listening to the people”, but instead its framed as “caving in”.
Ryan – my assertion that the state has the right to redistribute the billionaire’s excess wealth is based on utilitarian morality.
Charles – I see nothing wrong with using a pink lilo as a sex toy, but I’d still like to know what you think is morally wrong with polygamy, which is essentially sexual capitalism. (provided one is not cheating on one’s lilo)
Just for a moment let me indulge your idea that utilitarianism has anything to do with morality, how does it justify your idea that the state has the right to steal most of his money?
# Ed Snack (485) Says:
August 30th, 2011 at 11:20 am
Funny how people seem so worried about Perry’s supposed religious beliefs (is he or is he not a “Dominionist” ?), and yet the same people gave Barack Obama a pass for attending for an extended period the Rev Jeremiah Wright’s church with its hate America and other genuinely obnoxious beliefs.
—————————————————-
Jeremiah Wright’s controversial statements were more politics than religion. Moreover, whether I agree with his political opinions or not, I do get sick of the idiotic position that any criticism of american policy or american governments is the equivalent of “hating America”. That sort of thinking is very boneheaded and closed minded and it is that type of thinking which I consider more anti-American than mere criticism of government and government policy.
Crosby says over half of all iwi suffered major population loss through battle casualties, cannibalism, or enslavement (for instance, the Moriori in the Chatham Islands). A few iwi, for example in Nelson, were exterminated. Perhaps the most important outcome of the musket wars was the bitter legacy of inter-hapū and -iwi mistrust stemming from the extreme violence with which they were fought. The constant use of treachery as a battlefield tactic, coupled with the enslavement of so many, left a long legacy of mistrust. The second to last battle of the Musket Wars was a few months before the Treaty of Waitangi was signed. A taua (war party) from the Te Awamutu area attacked and slaughtered Arawa people (Rotorua area) and bought back 60 basket-loads of human flesh to eat.[1] The missionaries and Christian Maori were sickened and moved out of the pa to establish a separate missionary village. The last battle was at Tauranga in 1842,when a Hauraki Iwi raiding toa attacked a pa. Chief Taraia claimed this was utu (revenge ) for encroachment on his land and other issues. The Colonial Secretary Willoughby Shortland carried out an investigation and found two bodies had been eaten. Te Mutu, the defeated chief, told Shortland that if he caught Taraia he would eat him. Missionaries had been able to gain the trust of many iwi, while Māori remained wary of other iwi outside their rohe (area). This was the immediate background to the signing of the treaty of Waitangi in 1840
Lee – Based on the ethical theory holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall “good” of the society. Whilst I acknowledge the arbitrariness of utilitarianism, I am at a loss to come up with a better formula.
Utilitarian theory holds that all men on a fundamental level are of equal worth, so when men are measured in terms of material worth, the billionaire is worth a thousand millionaires which is at odds with the first principal. There are other measures of worth which are relevant to utilitarianism, but none that would amount to a magnitude of thousands.
It follows then that the billionaire is disproportionately rewarded by capitalism and the utilitarian state claims a moral right to adjust that reward.
“…faith in God is both a safeguard against the collapse of civilisation into moral chaos and the best antidote to what he sees as the dangerous idea of earthly perfection through utopianism”
Lee01,
Faith, as a means for acquiring knowledge of reality, is neither sane nor insane: it is just stupid. Nowhere in our everyday lives do normal people acquire knowledge through faith. It’s simply impractical and impossible. We can’t simply have “faith” that we can walk through walls as we will soon experience, through pain, that this is just not possible. Instead we rely on observation and reason to discern that there are things such as walls and that other solid objects, like a human body, don’t pass through them (quantum mechanics aside).
Faith peddlers therefore dwell in the realm of things unknown because no one can prove them wrong, and for them that is all they need to peddle their made up fantasy. They are no more worth listening to than the person who has “faith” in a Flying Spaghetti Monster or a magical teaport orbiting the Sun.
Further, given Christopher’s medical condition and his inability to speak in public it is noteworthy that he is still able to demonstrate such clarity of mind to write a very cogent and eloquent article showing Perry as the faith-whore that he is. Whether or not you agree with this portrayal of Perry, no reasonable person could find that his writing demonstrated a lack of sanity.
Might I suggest an alternative approach to ethics.
The first question, before you consider what is right and wrong, is what it means for things to be right and wrong. In a general sense all prescriptive statements of what “ought” to occur are conditional on what outcomes are desired.
Morality therefore is simply a tool to guide action. It is the ability of our minds to evaluate how different courses of action might produce different outcomes. The basic question therefore is: what do I value in life and what principles of action will achieve the goals I desire?
This does not mean that morality is purely subjective because you cannot subjectively choose which principles of action will produce which outcomes. You only get to choose that which you desire in life. Do you desire life, liberty and happiness? Then reason dictates that only certain types of action will produce those outcomes and other types of behaviour will tend not to produce those outcomes.
Lee – Based on the ethical theory holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall “good” of the society. Whilst I acknowledge the arbitrariness of utilitarianism, I am at a loss to come up with a better formula.
“Morality therefore is simply a tool to guide action.”
I agree. I am not aware of any established absolute truth, only relative truth based on the premise “I think I think, therefore I think I am.” What appears true to me is just another layer, with a layer beneath that.
“The basic question therefore is: what do I value in life and what principles of action will achieve the goals I desire?”
Certainly is a practical way to establish your own belief system based on your subjective interpretation of your existence, and to project that into life, the universe and everything.
Douglas Adam’s take on the pursuit of absolute truth:
“There is a theory which states that if ever for any reason anyone discovers what exactly the Universe is for and why it is here it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another that states that this has already happened.”
‘Good’ can be arbitrarily defined as an outcome of most overall happiness. Love, achievement, entertainment, procreation etc are all components of this method of measuring good.
Lee01, ah, you can have a socialist streak without being a socialist? So what do we call a man who:
If you go and have a look at the policies that we’ve implemented in the past three years, we’ve run deficits and gone to great detail to make sure that we take the rough edges off the recession for the most vulnerable New Zealanders,” he said.
“We’ve been pouring money into things like Working For Families and pensions and other welfare support mechanisms to make sure that New Zealanders are given a break in really difficult times.
So he is running deficits. He’s pouring money into the welfare state. Not with taxes mind you, but with borrowing.
Tell me again, what exactly distinguishes him from Labour?
I clicked through….. It’s quite funny because you get to write an e-mail to Sealord from Greenpeace.
My e-mail was:
Dear Sealord,
Screw Greenpeace. They got no idea what is going on. I will keep supporting you, as long as these Green douchebags have no clues, especially when it comes to a secure website.
Regards
TimG_Oz
PS – I got a nice autoreply from Sealord, saying that Greenpeace are full of it. Nice
Treasury told us 18 months ago our financial position this year would be 6 billion in the black, tonight we learn it’s now 18 billion in deficit. The Government says we will still be back in credit by 2014/15….Yeah right!! As I have said many times on this page, let us make this election about our economic sovereignty
John Key is selling is to the Chinese, and the National voter can’t be bothered.
As I turn on the hose in the driveway, I look over at my car and decide it needs washing.
As I head towards the garage, I notice mail on the porch table that I picked up from the post man earlier.
I decide to go through the mail before I wash the car.
I lay my car keys on the table, put the junk mail in the recycling box under the table, and notice that the recycling box is full.
So, I decide to put the bills back on the table and take out the recycling first.
But then I think, since I’m going to be near the post-box when I take out the recycling paper anyway, I may as well pay the bills first.
I take my cheque book off the table, and notice that there is only one cheque left.
My extra cheques are in my desk in the study,
so I go inside the house to my desk where
I find the cup of coffee I’d been drinking.
I’m going to look for my cheques, but first I need to push the coffee aside so that I don’t accidentally knock it over.
The coffee is getting cold, And I decide to make another cup.
As I head toward the kitchen with the cold coffee, a vase of flowers on the worktop catches my eye – the flowers need water.
I put the coffee on the worktop and discover my reading glasses that I’ve been searching for all morning.
I decide I better put them back on my desk, but first I’m going to water the flowers.
I put the glasses back down on the worktop, fill a container with water and suddenly spot the TV remote control. Someone left it on the kitchen table.
I realise that tonight when we go to watch TV, I’ll be looking for the remote, but I won’t remember that it’s on the kitchen table, so I decide to put it back where it belongs, but first I’ll water the flowers.
I pour some water in the flowers, but quite a bit of it spills on the floor.
So, I put the remote back on the table, get some towels and wipe up the spill.
Then, I head down the hall trying to remember what I was planning to do.
At the end of the day:
The car isn’t washed
The bills aren’t paid
There is a cold cup of coffee sitting on the counter
The flowers don’t have enough water,
There is still only 1 cheque in my cheque book,
I can’t find the remote,
I can’t find my glasses,
And I don’t remember what I did with the car keys..
Then, when I try to figure out why nothing got done today, I’m really baffled because I know I was busy all damn day, and I’m really tired.
I THINK THIS GUY HAS IT ALL COVERED. I COULDN’T SPOT ANYTHING HE LEFT OUT.
Amen to this, I can’t think of a thing I’d change about this statement.
c
I Am the current Parties Worst Nightmare.
I am a White, Conservative, Tax-Paying, God fearing Kiwi .
I am a hard working New Zealander and l work long hours to earn a living.
I believe in God and the freedom of religion, but I don’t push it on others.
I believe in Kiwi products and buy them whenever I can.
I believe the money I make belongs to me and not some bloody governmental functionary, Labor/Greens or National or some other warped group of loopies, that wants to share it with others who don’t work!
I’m in touch with my feelings and I like it that way!
I think owning a home doesn’t make you a capitalist; it makes you a smart New Zealander I think being a minority does not make you noble or victimized, and does not entitle you to anything. Get over it!
I believe that if you are selling me a Big Mac or any other item, you should do it in English and speak so I can understand you.
I believe there should be no other language option.
I believe everyone has a right to pray to his or her God when and where they want to.
My heroes are , Fellow Kiwis, John Wayne the yank, Richie Mc Caw, Colin Meads, Barry Crump, Ed Hillary and Henry Ford, who invented the most awesome car. I don’t hate the rich, but hate the way they are always find ways to pay less taxesI don’t pity the poor ,I hate the way they always crying that they are hard done by!!
I know wrestling is fake and I don’t waste my time watching or arguing about it..
I haven’t burned any witches or been persecuted by the Turks, and neither have you!
I believe if you don’t like the way things are here, go back to where you came from and change your own country!
This is NEW ZEALAND …..We like it the way it is and more so the way it was …..so stop trying to change it to look like Britain ,USA ,Russia or China , or some other socialist country!
If you were born or legally migrated here and don’t like it… you are free to move to any Socialist country that will have you. (And take Phil Goff and his group with you.) I believe it is time to really clean house, starting with the Bee Hive, the seat of our biggest problems.
I want to know exactly, where the “Do Gooder’s ” get their money from, and why are they always part of the problem and not the solution?
Can I get an AMEN on that one?
I also think the cops have the right to pull you over if you’re breaking the law, regardless of what race, color or creed you are, but not just because you happen to be an illegal alien and scream that they are “RACISTS PIGS”.And, no, I don’t mind having my face shown on my driver’s license. I think it’s good…. I hope you are not too stupid to claim to know how our electoral ballot system works, The Politician’s don’t’.so what hope have we?? I dislike those people standing in the intersections trying to sell me stuff or trying to guilt me into making ‘donations’ to their cause….. Get a job and do your part to support yourself and your family!
I believe that it doesn’t take all the intellectuals to raise a child, it takes two parents….
I believe ‘illegal’ is illegal no matter what the lawyers think!
If this makes me a BAD Kiwi, then yes, I’m a BAD Kiwi If you are a BAD Kiwi too, please forward this to everyone you know….
We want our country back!
My Country…..
I hope this offends all illegal aliens.
My great, great, great grandfather watched as his friends died in the Boer War. My grandfather watched and bled as his friends died in the the World Wars 1&2. My grandfather watched as his friends & brothers died in the Great Depression. My father watched as his friends died in Korea . I watched as my friends died in Vietnam ..
Enough is bloody enough
This message needs to be viewed by every Kiwi; and every Kiwi needs to stand up for New Zealand .
We’ve bent over to appease the Kiwi-haters long enough. I’m taking a stand.
I’m standing up because the hundreds of thousands who died fighting in wars for this country, and for the New Zealand flag.
If you agree, stand up with me. If you disagree, please let me know. I will gladly remove you from my e-mail list.
And shame on anyone who tries to make this a racist message.
KIWI’s stop giving away Your RIGHTS !
Let me make this clear! THIS IS OUR COUNTRY !
This statement DOES NOT mean I’m against immigration !
YOU ARE WELCOME HERE, IN MY COUNTRY, welcome to come legally:
1. Get a sponsor !
2. Learn the LANGUAGE, as immigrants have in the past !
3. Live by OUR rules ! Dress as we ,New Zelanders Do
4. Get a job !
5. Pay YOUR Taxes !
6. No Social Security until you have earned it and Paid for it !
7. NOW find a place to lay your head !
If you don’t want to forward this for fear of offending someone, then YOU’RE PART OF THE PROBLEM !
We’ve gone so far the other way .. . … bent over backwards not to offend anyone.
Only New Zealanders seems to care when New Zelander Citizens are being offended !
WAKE UP NEW ZEALAND ! ! !
If you do not Pass this on, may your fingers cramp !
TimG_OZ I got the same reply. Greenpiece can suck it up. They put the ‘con’ into conservation
Thank you for contacting us about this issue. We are passionate and serious about sustainability. We do care and obviously if fish stocks are seriously depleted we are affected more than anybody.
We disagree with Greenpeace on this issue and we are disappointed they have not provided all of the facts. We are not alone. The International Sustainable Seafood Foundation (ISSF) of which the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) is a founding member, don’t agree with their position on FADs or pole and line fishing (www.iss-foundation.org).
There are 4.4 billion tuna in the fisheries where our tuna is caught and tuna in these areas is not threatened. The impact of bycatch on fish is low and on endangered species it is very small.
The report referenced in your email states: “Skipjack stocks are under-fished.” Another document Greenpeace uses to make their point states: ‘Yellowfin are not experiencing overfishing’.
Further, the report referenced in your email does not say FADs should be stopped, but that they should be managed to reduce impacts. We agree with this and the work done by WCPFC (Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission) with industry to manage the use of FADs so bycatch is minimised (www.wcpfc.int). The NZ Ministry of Fisheries has also publicly supported the WCPFC’s approach.
All food production has an impact and the impact of tuna fishing is relatively low (compared to other types of food production such as land-based farming). Our position is that bycatch from all types of fishing methods should be managed carefully and reduced as much as possible.
Greenpeace is lobbying for pole and line caught tuna. This method has environmental impacts as well. Fishermen have to use fish to catch fish. The World Wildlife Fund backed organisation, the ISSF, has stated that increasing pole and line caught tuna would have a severe negative impact on other fish species. The ISSF also state that bycatch of juvenile tuna from pole and line is 10%.
Supermarkets and brands in the UK have said they will move to pole and line but we don’t believe they have made a science-based, sustainable decision.
Sealord has a history of sustainable fishing, based on good science and best practice from around the world and we will continue to use these methods and work with experts to find ways to improve and do the right thing.
God grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the
good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the
difference. Now that I’m “older” (but refuse to grow up), here’s what I’ve
discovered:
1) I started out with nothing, and I still have most of it.
2) My wild oats have turned into prunes and All Bran.
3) I finally got my head together; now my body is falling apart.
4) Funny, I don’t remember being absent minded…
5) Funny, I don’t remember being absent minded…
6) What were we talking about?
7) It’s easier to get older than it is to get wiser.
8 ) Some days you’re the dog; some days you’re the hydrant.
9) I wish the buck stopped here; I sure could use a few.
10) Kids in the back seat cause accidents.
11) Accidents in the back seat cause kids.
12) It’s hard to make a comeback when you haven’t been anywhere.
13) The only time the world beats a path to your door is when you’re in the
bathroom.
14) If God wanted me to touch my toes, he would have put them on my knees.
15) When I’m finally holding all the cards, why does everyone else decide to
play chess?
16) It’s not hard to meet expenses… they’re everywhere!
17) The only difference between a rut and a grave is the depth.
18) These days, I spend a lot of time thinking about the hereafter..I go
somewhere to get something and then wonder what I’m here after.
19) If all is not lost, then where is it?
20) Did I send this to you already?
Sealord has a history of sustainable fishing, based on good science and best practice from around the world and we will continue to use these methods and work with experts to find ways to improve and do the right thing.
The sad thing is the idiots watch the telly and Sainsbury and/or Campbell and/or the News tells them how tewwible it all is and their widdle hearts just melt with the humanity and then evewyone who does anything like that is just a gweat big meany from there on and nothing will convince them otherwise since it’s their heart not their head that’s telling them this therefore nothing you say, fact-wise, penetrates. And there are a lot of minds like this out there, aren’t there.
This is why conservatives and businesses need to become extremely savvy with propaganda cause the lefties and GweenPeace is a political organisation, like the Gweens, use it all the time, as a matter of course, as naturally as breathing. So how come business doesn’t do the same and publish ad-wise, how it works and what you do, science-wise, etc etc etc. You could make some great ads with some big seas running and stuff going on in the boat.
We should be doing that not just to counter this, but all the time, until it becomes as natural as breathing. Why not? It only works cost-wise if a single corporate only has to run say one campaign like this per year, and when it completes another takes over and so on.
He was in bed with his girlfriend.
She said, “Does the fact that I’m blind turn you off?”
“No, of course not”
She said, “Why can’t you get an erection then?”
“To be honest, the guide dog lying between us is a bit off-putting.”
I was on the bus, sitting on a newspaper, and a guy comes over and asks “Are you reading that?” I didn’t know what to say. So I said yes. I stood up, turned the page, and sat down again
Based on the ethical theory holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall “good” of the society.
“The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” – or in the words of a more famous philosopher: Who, Whom?.
The answer to that last is never good and as a result there’s more mass graves laid at the feet of utilitarianism than just about any other principle, because every communitarian ideology stems from it.
Sheesh – if this is the best system of ethics you can come up with it’s no wonder you have little time for capitalism, with it’s myriad individuals all working in a system governed (when it’s allowed to be) by the blind watchmaker of competition. It’s a wonder you have any time for it’s necessary soul mate, democracy!
Another day goes by and again we were constantly bombarded by erudite pronouncements from Dr.Brash and his crew on how they will be able to save the free world,…………….hold on , sorry no , my mistake.
Tom, I agree that utilitarianism has been blamed for all kinds of atrocities, but the fact remains, if the correct choice had been made in accordance with the theory, the overall outcome would have produced the most good.
The problem with utilitarianism isn’t it’s premise, but rather the competing theories on how to achieve the maximum societal good.
A capitalist would claim a free market is the best way to achieve this. If this were true, then surely that would mean capitalism is compatible with utilitarian ethics.
I would contend that free market capitalism is a good basis from which to start, but like all human technology, it evolves as we subject it to its own test, that of seeing what works best, and discarding that which doesn’t work, and not being afraid to face up to a brave new world.
You may be interested in this vision of the near future courtesy of US firm Corning Inc:
“In a general sense all prescriptive statements of what “ought” to occur are conditional on what outcomes are desired.”
You’ve described consequentialism. That’s a large branch of moral philosophy, but does not include deontological ethics – of which the best known example is Kantianism (the old enemy of utilitarianism). Outcomes aren’t always important there, only duty and the “right motive”. There’s also Virtue Ethics which is about having the “right character”, rather than strict observance of duties or outcomes.
I clicked the Greenpeace ad 50 times. How much did that earn DPF and cost the watermelons? Childish but strangely enjoyable…….
Approximate cost per click is $.79 for a Greenpeace related term (this is what Google will charge – and they pay about 60% of that to publishers). Tuna is currently $.63.
Google will invalidate multiple clicks coming from the same computer/IP address, and quite possibly cancel the publisher account.
MM
The argument starting from the “principles of the treaty” and moving forward with “Maori sovereignty” and “aparthied” is debated around a very one sided argument. We are called racist for putting the other side of the argument forward.
This argument is different from the official story. Because of the leftist anti colonization, guilt laden, Maorifacation, revisionist spin. We have a generation that are being brought up on the lie that Maori signed the treaty for totally different reasons than is true purely to satisfy a Maorifacation agenda.
I would not be as strident in my condemnation of this policy if the result were improving the country as a whole and in particular the plight of the bottom 20% of Maori. The Maori that produce the shocking statistics. The statistics that say New Zealand is rife with lawlessness ,child abuse, violence, Third world health, educational failures etc, etc, etc.
This is only a small proportion of all with Maori blood yet this 20% or less of the Maori population is responsible for half our crime, abuse and violence. Also For our low rankings in many international indicators including GDP, life expectancy, suicide, etc.
We need to approach this issue without the guilt and propaganda that hides it. Use information sharing, honesty, targeted money and WILL to fix this issue or we are all doomed to steadily fall into the third world.
Air New Zealand monopoly call for Price controls on its supplier.
Air New Zealand says Wellington International Airport’s proposed 70 per cent increase in landing fees over five years demonstrates why price controls need to be imposed on the monopoly provider.
Air NZ chief executive Rob Fyfe said the increase demonstrated how the airport would behave unless the Commerce Commission took a harder line.
If you live in Tauranga and want to fly anywhere you will soon see how much it costs to have a monopoly supplier.
Worse still is AIR NZ constant attacking of any competitor that does start up so they can regain any monopoly situation. We coulld point to Kiwiair from Hamilton as just one example.
When AIR NZ charges the same rates to and from TGA as it does AUCK to WGTN then Mr Fyfe can tell us about how to behave.
I hate to say this but it looks like Big Bruv is right.
A word on the All Blacks: Cheats
MARK REASON
Last updated 05:00 31/08/2011
OPINION: If New Zealand go out of a consecutive World Cup because of another dodgy refereeing decision, they will have no one to blame but themselves. The All Blacks no longer even bother to bend the laws. They set out to deliberately cheat.
For only one piffling syllable, CHEAT is an awfully big word. “Who are you calling a cheat?” demands the card-playing gunslinger, just before the mandatory murder and the five aces sliding from the sleeve.
I don’t mind the fact that the NZ team cheats, what I do mind is the way their stupid fans manage to watch an entire test series and never notice that the NZ team are the worst cheats of all.
And…..should the ref miss a forward pass or blatant infringement that costs the NZ team the game…….well you know the rest.
“Faith, as a means for acquiring knowledge of reality, is neither sane nor insane: it is just stupid. Nowhere in our everyday lives do normal people acquire knowledge through faith.”
Nobody, including Peter Hitchens, or any other Christian, is arguing that they should, strictly speaking. Knowledge is acquired through a number of means, including observation, experience, tradition, natural revelation and special revelation. In Christian theology this is known as the Quadrilateral: Faith, Tradition, Reason, Experience.
“We can’t simply have “faith” that we can walk through walls as we will soon experience, through pain, that this is just not possible.”
Agreed, but what you are describing there is not the Christian doctrine of faith, or of revelation. You really should read C.S. Lewis’s ‘Mere Christianity’, but here is the relevant quote:
‘Roughly speaking, the word faith seems to be used by Christians in two senses or on two levels, and I will take them in turn. In the first sense it means simply belief–accepting or regarding as true the doctrines of Christianity. That is fairly simple. But what does puzzle people–at least it used to puzzle me–is the fact that Christians regard faith in this sense as a virtue. I used to ask how on Earth it can be a virtue–what is there moral or immoral about believing or not believing a set of statements? Obviously, I used to say, a sane man accepts or rejects any statement, not because he wants or does not want to, but because the evidence seems to him good or bad. If he were mistaken about the goodness or badness of the evidence, that would not mean he was a bad man, but only that he was not very clever. And if he thought the evidence bad but tried to force himself to believe in spite of it, that would be merely stupid.
Well, I think I still take that view. But what I did not see then–and a good many people do not see still–was this. I was assuming that if the human mind once accepts a thing as true it will automatically go on regarding it as true, until some real reason for reconsidering it turns up. In fact, I was assuming that the human mind is completely ruled by reason. But that is not so. For example, my reason is perfectly convinced by good evidence that anesthetics do not smother me and that properly trained surgeons do not start operating until I am unconscious. But that does not alter the fact that when they have me down on the table and clap their horrible mask over my face, a mere childish panic begins inside me. I start thinking I am going to choke, and I am afraid they will start cutting me up before I am properly under. In other words, I lose my faith in anesthetics. It is not reason that is taking away my faith; on the contrary, my faith is based on reason. It is my imagination and emotions. The battle is between faith and reason on one side and emotion and imagination on the other…..
Now just the same thing happens about Christianity. I am not asking anyone to accept Christianity if his best reasoning tells him that the weight of evidence is against it. That is not the point at which faith comes in. But supposing a man’s reason once decides that the weight of the evidence is for it. I can tell that man what is going to happen to him in the next few weeks. There will come a moment when there is bad news, or he is in trouble, or is living among a lot of other people who do not believe it, and all at once his emotions will rise up and carry out a sort of blitz on his belief. Or else there will come a moment when he wants a woman, or wants to tell a lie, or feels very pleased with himself, or sees a chance of making a little money in some way that is not perfectly fair; some moment, in fact, at which it would be very convenient if Christianity were not true. And once again his wishes and desires will carry out a blitz. I am not talking of moments at which any real new reasons against Christianity turn up. Those have to be faced and that is a different matter. I am talking about moments where a mere mood rises up against it.
Now faith, in the sense in which I am here using the word, is the art of holding onto things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods. For moods will change, whatever view your reason takes. I know that by experience. Now that I am a Christian, I do have moods in which the whole thing looks very improbable; but when I was an atheist, I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable. This rebellion of your moods against your real self is going to come anyway. That is why faith is such a necessary virtue; unless you teach your moods “where they get off” you can never be either a sound Christian or even a sound atheist, but just a creature dithering to and fro, with its beliefs really dependent on the weather and the state of its digestion. Consequently one must train the habit of faith.’ C.S. Lewis (Mere Christianity)
“Faith peddlers therefore dwell in the realm of things unknown”
Incorrect. Christian dwell in the realm of things known, things handed down by our ancestors, things experienced and things revealed.
“Further, given Christopher’s medical condition and his inability to speak in public it is noteworthy that he is still able to demonstrate such clarity of mind to write a very cogent and eloquent article showing Perry as the faith-whore that he is. Whether or not you agree with this portrayal of Perry, no reasonable person could find that his writing demonstrated a lack of sanity.”
My comment about sanity was more a commentary on secular fundamentalist faith in general, the unwillingness and inability to admit to anything other than an almost Gnostic notion of “reason” and “evidence” ungrounded in anything other than secular ideology. You see Hitchens is doing exactly what he accuses Perry of, he is pushing his own faith. Which is fine, except Perry is honest about that, while Hitchens hides his faith in secular naturalism behind a facade of “reason”.
“Now faith, in the sense in which I am here using the word, is the art of holding onto things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods.” – CS Lewis
But this is not the faith of Christianity. The faith of Christianity is in the first sense that he explained – the acceptance of what the Bible says despite the fact that there is no evidence to back up the major claims – i.e. that God exists, that Jesus (if he existed) was the son of God, that Jesus was resurrected from death, the garden of Eden, the talking Snake, the young age of the Universe etc. etc. These things are believed by Christians not on evidence, but on faith (i.e. belief despite lacking sufficient evidence to demonstrate the truth of these claims). So when CS Lewis holds onto Christianity, despite changing moods, he is not holding onto something he has accepted through reason, he is holding onto something he accepted through faith.
“Faith peddlers therefore dwell in the realm of things unknown” – Weihana
“Incorrect. Christian dwell in the realm of things known, things handed down by our ancestors, things experienced and things revealed.” – Lee01
Just because an ancient book states something to be the case does not mean that you “know” that it is true. You accept these fairy tales based on your faith in Christianity, i.e. your belief in Christianity despite a lack of convincing evidence. No reasonable person could believe these fairy tales based on the evidence presented. There is simply no credible evidence that God exists or that any of the major claims in the Bible are true.
Moreover, science continues to debunk these foolish stories by demonstrating that the Earth is about 4 and a half billion years old and that the Universe is over 13 billion years old. It has also demonstrated that humans evolved from other primates and that all life on Earth has evolved from simpler organisms. These scientific discoveries fly in the face of the ignorant and primitive claims made by the world’s religions prior to these discoveries.
“My comment about sanity was more a commentary on secular fundamentalist faith in general, the unwillingness and inability to admit to anything other than an almost Gnostic notion of “reason” and “evidence” ungrounded in anything other than secular ideology. You see Hitchens is doing exactly what he accuses Perry of, he is pushing his own faith. Which is fine, except Perry is honest about that, while Hitchens hides his faith in secular naturalism behind a facade of “reason”.”
Rubbish. Science and reason are not a type of “faith”. Faith is believing in fairy tales made up by our ancestors.
“In a general sense all prescriptive statements of what “ought” to occur are conditional on what outcomes are desired.”
You’ve described consequentialism. That’s a large branch of moral philosophy, but does not include deontological ethics – of which the best known example is Kantianism (the old enemy of utilitarianism). Outcomes aren’t always important there, only duty and the “right motive”. There’s also Virtue Ethics which is about having the “right character”, rather than strict observance of duties or outcomes.
——————————————-
I don’t think I’m a fan of deontological ethics. It doesn’t make sense to me. If I understand Kant’s ethical theory correctly, he seems to consider that there are things which are instrically “good” from which moral rules and duties can be derived. I would regard this as nonsense. No “is” implies an “ought” so how can something be intrinsically good? Things just are, and reality doesn’t impose any moral judgment upon what takes place.
When one person murders another, reality doesn’t step in a say “that’s bad”, in fact reality just stands idly by. All reality does is enforce the physical laws of the Universe. It is other sentient beings which do not stand by and make moral judgments which are grounded in their own desires and the outcomes they want in life. If we imagine a world in which Superman existed and he was a sociopath, he could do whatever he liked to us including murder, theft, rape and we would be powerless to stop him (assuming Kryptonite is not available) and since he’s a sociopath our suffering would be of no consequence to him. Therefore in this scenario such a “Superman” could do whatever he liked and reality wouldn’t have anything to say about whether his actions were moral or not. Therefore, on what basis could we say his actions were intrinsically bad? Such actions would only be bad, in our view, because they conflict with our own values and desires.
Therefore I consider that it is the human ability to want things (such as life, liberty and happiness) that give meaning to our moral judgments. Without this ability moral statements appear meaningless and thus our self-interest is the only self-justifying basis for moral statements.
Moreover, concepts of “rights”, therefore, are only applicable in the context of our mutual self-interest. For instance, we have a right to life because we all value our own lives and this value can only be upheld if we respect each other’s right to life. But the concept of a “right to life” has no meaning to a suicidal sociopath, for instance.
I don’t think I’m a fan of deontological ethics. It doesn’t make sense to me. If I understand Kant’s ethical theory correctly, he seems to consider that there are things which are instrically “good” from which moral rules and duties can be derived. I would regard this as nonsense. No “is” implies an “ought” so how can something be intrinsically good? Things just are, and reality doesn’t impose any moral judgment upon what takes place.
Like yourself I suspect that subjective values underpin deontological ethics, even if in this case they emerged from the western cultural framework that existed in Kant’s time. I’m no expert on Kant either (and it’s been a few years since my undergrad ethics papers..) but I think he made a distinction between rational and non-rational objects as differences in kind. Perhaps he felt that because people were rational beings, it naturally followed that they valued rationality above all else, and so this provides an objective bootstrap for his moral framework.
Therefore I consider that it is the human ability to want things (such as life, liberty and happiness) that give meaning to our moral judgments. Without this ability moral statements appear meaningless and thus our self-interest is the only self-justifying basis for moral statements.
I’d go further that any moral framework, like culture, has to be shared to be meaningful. Your example about a psychopathic superman was needlessly abstract I think – if we look at the recent UK riots, we can see that it only takes a very small percentage of people reneging on “the social contract” (effectively, shared values) for there to be serious consequences for the viability of that society.
Anyway, just thought I’d point out that morality isn’t always predicated on outcomes. I wasn’t suggesting that such moral frameworks necessarily have the greatest efficacy.
August 30th, 2011 at 8:06 am
The time is near.
The rise of the Empire of Freedom is Coming.
Socialists to the sword.
Vikings Rule
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 8:07 am
anyone else ever had a camera shoved up their butt .. 3pm is racing towards me
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 8:07 am
Allies Planned To Turn Hitler Into A Woman By Spiking Food With Oestrogen.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-world/2011/08/15/bizarre-plan-to-defeat-hitler-by-turning-him-into-a-woman-revealed-115875-23345117/
Evidence that Spike Milligan worked for British Military Intelligence.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 8:09 am
DPF. I have made you a dollar or two from Greenpeace.
Help make up for all that space that their syncophatic followers fill on here.
Great.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 8:09 am
jaba (1,435) Says:
August 30th, 2011 at 8:07 am
Any day without a colonoscopy is a good day.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 8:10 am
If only the walls of the Labour caucus room has ears; what stories they might tell when caucus meets today on the back of the Herald DigiPoll
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2011/08/another-day-another-poll.html
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 8:12 am
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5529022/Thats-my-mum-you-re-hurting-PM-told
“In the letter, the woman says her usually “loving and vibrant” mother is now “depressed and anxious” after learning she is not likely to get one of the few vacancies left open.
“This has terrified her and she is in turmoil and worry about her future, something that a woman of her age does not need.”
“Her mother may have to leave her one-bedroom flat as she will no longer be able to afford the rent, apply for the unemployment benefit and state-funded accommodation.
“She said she wrote to Mr Key to make him “understand what is happening to people in this country when they are losing their jobs”.
—-
I’m sorry, but some people need to learn to look after themselves. Being a nose in the trough public servant and not preparing yourself for retirement is just stupid. Expecting the state to look after you is selfish.
My dad got made redundant from his 30 year private sector corporate head-office job at age 62, and instead of sitting around whinging, he reinvented himself as a marriage celebrant and now performs up to 40 weddings plus funerals a year to top up his private superannuation scheme. I would be embarrassed if I was related to the above women.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 8:13 am
Must suck having a popular right wing blog only to have a Greenpeace add hanging on top of it.
Vote:One would want a little control over who gets to advertise I would think.
August 30th, 2011 at 8:14 am
Viking2
Vote:I owe you an apology
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10748286
Seems nothing will come out of Auckland but crime
August 30th, 2011 at 8:15 am
jaba (1,436) Says:
August 30th, 2011 at 8:07 am
anyone else ever had a camera shoved up their butt .. 3pm is racing towards me
Enjoy it. Have a good feed of boiled prunes for lunch. Get your own back.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 8:21 am
@jaba
unfortunate user name….
People survive the indignity. Hope it was a waste of time. In the end.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 8:22 am
jaba – painless and sensitively administered apparently. Good idea to make love to your wife before you leave home in case the unexpected arises….. I’ve heard some of the nurses are rather well endowed.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 8:24 am
They say that getting a colonoscopy is the first step on a slippery slope you know.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 8:28 am
I have also found out that I really am (or was) full of shit .. sorry for the mental image
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 8:32 am
Appalling piece in the herald today by Bryan Gould… Suggests key is like Muldoon because he dominates the media. Fuck me, how low will the left go. Do they still not get the fact that kiwis loathe gutter politics… Or worse still sewer politics.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 8:40 am
Firefox. Adblock Plus.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 8:53 am
Government reaffirms renewable energy goal of 90% by 2025:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5530208/Government-reaffirms-renewable-energy-goal
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 8:58 am
Catherine Isaac tipped for ACT’s 3rd spot:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5521627/Isaac-tipped-for-ACTs-third-spot
Glad it wasn’t a different Catherine:
Blogger and lawyer Cathy Odgers – who is based in Hong Kong and writes as Cactus Kate – confirmed yesterday, before the list was announced, that she would not be standing.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 9:11 am
Nice little column here from Christopher Hitchens about Rick Perry and religion:
Vote:http://www.slate.com/id/2302661/
August 30th, 2011 at 9:11 am
Getting Mr Roth
“Plans to rebuild Christchurch should not be simply popular, but must also be achievable, says the man who led the reconstruction of Manchester after an IRA bomb.
“The most popular ideas for our rebuild were the least deliverable,” Manchester City Council leader Sir Richard Leese said.
“In fact, the most popular one was impossible to achieve.”
Christchurch needed bold architecture that would polarise residents.
“They’re Marmite buildings: you either love them or hate them, and I think Marmite buildings are good for a city.”
Leese was among many politicians, city planners and architectural experts who shared their experiences as part of the consultation process for the draft central-city plan.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch-earthquake-2011/5521298/Rebuild-plans-need-to-be-achievable
Questioned about the proposed seven-storey CBD height limit, Leese said in Manchester they had no height restrictions, opting to assess each project on its merits.
“Plans ought to open up opportunities rather than close down opportunities,” he said.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch-earthquake-2011/5518945/Rebuild-not-easy-to-deliver
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_Roth
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 9:12 am
Got anything to say yourself mike or you just to half arsed to even troll with your own drek?
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 9:15 am
Viking2 – AFAIK DPF ‘leases’ advertising space to Google so he has limited control on the ads actually placed. All I can say here is hopefully DPF’s contract with Google indemnifies DPF against defamation suits arising out of the ads. Sealord is talking about seeing lawyers.
Greenpeace has scored an ‘own goal’ with the Sealord stunt in Ellerslie. Volunteers have been spruicing the place up for the World Cup, and Greenpeace plastered their ads on lamp posts where volunteers had spent hours scraping old ads off.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 9:18 am
I suspect you don’t control what gets advertised. Intrigued to see the greenpeace ‘misinformation’ banner at the top of Kiwiblog today.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 9:27 am
Got anything nice to say Murray?
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 9:27 am
Look on the bright side Jaba; your bowel will soon be clean enough to eat dinner off!
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 9:31 am
Mike – Re Perry: Thank God it didn’t rain.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 9:33 am
I recommend clicking on the greenpeace ad as often as possible. That way, DPF makes money and it costs the tools at greenpeace.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 9:33 am
Google AdSense has a filter so publishers can block specific ads from appearing.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 9:37 am
seanmaitland
Its interesting that in every such “woe is me, my poor [mother/father/sister/brother]” story, there is never any acknowledgement that other family members might have some role in assisting their close relatives, but that instead, there is the greedy expectation that people who aren’t in any way related (ie taxayers) should pick up the tab on the basis that the gummint has the primary support responsibility.
Predictably, there was no indication from that correspondent that she was prepared to do anything to help her own mother.
Instead its a case of: “there you go Mum, I’ve written to John Key” and [thinks: 'phew, that's me off the hook; now I can get on with my own life without any further inconvenience'].
No doubt the correspondent was spurred on by the righteous indignation that her mother had payed taxes and the fact that she had done so means it is now time to collect. In other words, our tax system is in reality the equivalent of a large scale Xmas savings club. That means that if any of life’s sour bits arrive on your doorstep, friends and relatives are entitled to stand around with their hands in their pockets while the taxpayer turns up to fix the problem.
In this case there is the added expectation that taxpayers should fund employment for the sake of it, irrespective of whether public servants are actually doing anything that delivers value to their employers, being the taxpayers of this country. There didn’t seem to be any indication of her views as to whether that notion should be extended to the private sector.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 9:39 am
Rick Perry:
In 2006 he said that he believed the Bible to be inerrant.
He also said that those who did not accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior would be going to hell.
He tells us that he is a “firm believer” in the “intelligent design”
http://www.slate.com/id/2302661/
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 9:52 am
Scott
On a brighter note, Perry’s rival Michele Bachman has now confirmed that she was only joking when she suggested over the weekend that Hurricane Irene and last week’s East Coast earthquake were messages from God.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 9:53 am
Great piece by Bryan Gould in the NZ Herald:
How do you National voters feel now we know, thanks to wikileaks, that John Key admits he is a socialist?
He certainly act likes one. When do you guys stop believing the talk and look at this man’s actions?
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 9:55 am
There’s an interesting post on The Standard on social media in politics if you ignore the standard description:
The actual post is far better than that: http://thestandard.org.nz/the-new-political-battleground/
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 9:57 am
My shopping list this week includes Sealords Tuna and Cottonsoft toilet paper.
Thank you Greenpeace for recommending them.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 10:00 am
Berend, as a committed National voter (since, from memory, April 28) it bothers me not that John Key speaks the truth rather than communist-style political-speak.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 10:09 am
re Bryan Gould – these numbers show the amount of faith his colleagues had in his political skills and judgement:
Vote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_1992
August 30th, 2011 at 10:12 am
MT_Tinman says, “My shopping list this week includes Sealords Tuna and Cottonsoft toilet paper.”
Keep an eye out for a velvet heart stuffed with sawdust. I assume you are still looking?
“His desire for a heart notably contrasts with the Scarecrow’s desire for brains, reflecting a common debate between the relative importance of the mind and the emotions.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_Woodman
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 10:17 am
@berend
What exactly makes this piece of gutter sniping “great”?
The Prime Minister is the elected leader of our country and I don’t think it is an outrage that media ask him for comment on issues of the day. How the media interpret comments is not in his control.
That he notes New Zealanders have a social conscience is hardly a bad thing, is it?
I find that the left trying to paint a picture of Key as a controlling, hardline, dictatorial leader is the worst fucking type of hypocrisy – given the lefts recent governance in NZ. If you want to see that sort of leadership; apply for a UN job.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 10:22 am
Griff (531) Says:
August 30th, 2011 at 8:14 am
Viking2
I owe you an apology
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10748286
Seems nothing will come out of Auckland but crime
C’mon guys,make some money for DPF. Click on the bloody add as many times as you can. DPF will then havesome money to go tripping around again.
Vote:8)
August 30th, 2011 at 10:28 am
@ williamsheridan – Berend loves to try and pull down John Key, seeing as his beloved party of the far right continues to implode
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 10:30 am
what ad?
Vote:I use firefox and a whole load of plugins.
August 30th, 2011 at 10:34 am
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/the_ticket_obama_fears_most.html
some don’t agree with Mikemild and others about Perry, which is just as well as they do vote in the USA.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 10:59 am
I can’t say any of the parties vying for this election have my full support, but my order of voting would be:
National, United Future, Maori Party, ACT, no vote, Labour, Greens, Mana party.
ACT was at the front before Rodney got rolled.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 11:11 am
Wow Greenpeace are advertising hard on Kiwiblog at the moment for their “Sealord > Bad Tuna” ads.
I was in Auckland recently .. there were Greenpeace fundraisers on street corners trying to sign people up. Strangely they didn’t approach me (I was wearing a business suit) – they only seemed to approach students. Not a great target market I would suggest.
Anyway – at lunchtime, the collector went to a cafe for a sandwich. First he turned his Greenpeace jacket inside out (obviously didn’t want the attention), then he proceeded to grill the staff.. “What kind of tuna is it”, “what’s the brand”, “I want to see the can.”, “No, I don’t like it, I’ll just have a cheese sandwich”.
Seriously – it reminded me of people with religious dietary requirements, only worse! Maybe airlines should have an “environmentally friendly” meal option..
Anyway, he seemed to enjoy his cheese sandwich while he proceeded to pollute the world with cigarette smoke.
A bizarre experience, I must say.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 11:16 am
Anybody think that after the Govt changed the law for Warner Brothers that US drug companies might feel they have a good chance here too?
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 11:16 am
“anyone else ever had a camera shoved up their butt .. 3pm is racing towards me”
yep back in the day, a polaroid instamatic; but the pictures were not very good.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 11:20 am
Funny how people seem so worried about Perry’s supposed religious beliefs (is he or is he not a “Dominionist” ?), and yet the same people gave Barack Obama a pass for attending for an extended period the Rev Jeremiah Wright’s church with its hate America and other genuinely obnoxious beliefs.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 11:29 am
And then the great, big, Fundamentalist Christian came slowly creeping out from behind the door ……
I see we’ve entered the usual US Presidential debate in which the GOP candidate is a bible-thumping, gun-totin’, sister-lovin’, “extremist”. Oh – and dumb as well. I wonder when he’ll get compared to a Nazi – it’s got to happen sooner or later.
Seeing all the usual left-wing dross I rather appreciated this comment:
I’d say that the Democrats are going to bang the religious-gun-nut-extremist-nazi image more than ever before in the 2012 election – and I can’t actually see it working this time. Hell, I’m an atheist and if an Intelligent Designer promised to hack the US Federal government down by even 5% I’d vote for them every day of the week and twice on Sundays.
Which is to say, that at the rate things are moving in the US people will be following the syphilitic camel rule by November 2012.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 11:40 am
thanks William, I feel better already
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 11:44 am
I forgot this little gem from Rolling Stone, that describes all the dirty dealing that’s going on in NY with the banks and the fallout from the sub-prime disaster:
Indeed.
Of course this article does not dare stray from the bankers are scum theme long enough to ask questions about Freddie, Fannie, Barney Frank, or Chris Dodd – or Warren Buffet as the largest investor in government-approved rating agency Moody’s, one of the outfits that put the big AAA seal of approval on all that crap. But the next line I appreciated for it’s understated nature:
Ka Ching! But come on lefties – disappointing? Just come out and say it – failure and loser – and if he’s losing Rolling Stone…….
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 11:50 am
Labour had the support of the Greens, who were polling well, and was going out there to win.
He admitted Labour were a “couple of per cent off where we need to be”.
See, Phil isn’t in trouble. The Greens will save him .. Stuff today
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 11:58 am
TIM:…….He contributed to global warming too by buying a cheese sandwich the cheese being produced through the emission of methane and by the urine from the producer contaminating our rivers..The Ad. is also racist denigrating the product of a company owned by the Tangata Whenua.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 11:58 am
PRINICIBLE OF TE TREATY
1884
THE REPORT
SELECT COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS,
ON
NEW ZEALAND,
CONSIDERED IN A
LETTER TO LORD STANLEY,
By the advice of Lord John Russell, in the month of December 1840, a Charter passed the great seal, by which New Zealand was erected into a separate and independent
Vote:colony; and this charter was transmitted, together with instructions under the Royal Sign Manual, to the Governor, Captain Hobson. In this charter and instructions, ‘actual occupation and enjoyment’ are clearly pointed out as alone establishing a right of property in land in the natives; and the rule is laid down that all other lands must be considered as vested in the Crown, in virtue of the sovereignty that had been assumed, and that they must be dealt with accordingly. The treaty of Waitangi (which had previously reached England and been approved), it may therefore fairly be assumed, must, when this charter and the instructions which accompanied it were forwarded to the colony, have been understood as bearing a meaning not inconsistent with the terms in which they are couched. The lands held ‘collectively,’ of which the possession was guaranteed to the aboriginal inhabitants of New Zealand, must, therefore, have been regarded as the lands actually occupied by them, and cultivated in common by a tribe, in the manner frequently practised, and the forests as those actually used for cutting timber.
August 30th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
Surprised more hasn’t been made of this:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/barack-obamas-uncle-has-been-arrested-and-held-as-illegal-immigrant/story-e6frg6so-1226124269032
Sad to see the President’s Uncle has been reduced to this. Surely nepotism counts for something.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
No Phil. People *are* focussed on the issues. It just happens that they don’t agree with you as to what they are.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 12:08 pm
Well Griff, what are we to make of that?
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 12:08 pm
Lunch time. Let’s see, what is it today?
Tuna sandwich – that’s SEALORD tuna, of course.
Mmmmm, tuna …
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 12:14 pm
I expect that over the next few months I’ll be hearing various left-wingers express a plague-upon-both-houses attitude towards the political bunfight between Democrats and Republicans in the US. It’s usually what happens when some hero of the left “disappoints” yet again.
However, it still won’t change the fundamental belief that emerges almost like Tourette Syndrome whenever the poor and the rich are discussed – and that is that the GOP represent “the wealthy” and the Dems “the poor”. Which is why I appreciate articles like this one in Forbes about Warren Buffet:
That’s why the attacks on the Koch Brothers have been so funny. As the article points out:
I don’t think the penny has yet dropped for a lot of Democrat voters in the US (see Jon Stewart as a classic example) – and for the activists it never will drop, even as their attacks are funded by Soros and co.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 12:21 pm
Cheney vs Powell:
http://news.yahoo.com/powell-says-cheney-taking-cheap-shots-book-151449860.html
My advice to Colin: Don’t go hunting with Dick.
Cheney: “the book would cause heads to explode”
Wonder if there is a picture of a target superimposed on Powell on the cover.
Some would claim Cheney is cynically ‘targeting’ his publicity.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 12:29 pm
MM
Can you read?
“The lands held ‘collectively,’ of which the possession was guaranteed to the aboriginal inhabitants of New Zealand, must, therefore, have been regarded as the lands actually occupied by them, and cultivated in common by a tribe, in the manner frequently practised, and the forests as those actually used for cutting timber.”
Vast tracts of New Zealand were empty due to the effects of the musket wars and earlier conflicts. The south island was to all intents unpopulated. Maori did not even have free passage over what the did control without armed force. Up until the signing of the treaty Land “ownership” Was just Conquest and plunder.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 12:30 pm
I wonder if what Tom’s idea of what a ‘lefty’ is, is everyone who has political beliefs to the left of him; ie, everyone.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 12:33 pm
At this stage a “lefty” to me is someone who continues to bang the same, tired, old drum as people who explicitly claim they’re lefties.
In short – if all I hear from you are the same talking points I hear from avowed left-wing journalists, US Democrats and Obama supporters then I have to conclude that you’re a leftie, despite whatever protestations of “independence” you may make. Real independent thinkers don’t just go with the CW flow.
UPDATE: I forgot to add that you should check out this Dim Post thread, as it leads into your singularity theme.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
Griff
Although your heading was a bit unclear, I think you are referring to the House of Commons Committee on New Zealand, which in 1844, as Cowan describes:
‘resolved that the Treaty of Waitangi was a part of a series of injudicious proceedings, and that “the acknowledgement by the local authorities of a right of property on the part of the natives of New Zealand in all wild land in these islands, after the sovereignty had been assumed by Her Majesty, was not essential to the true construction of the Treaty, and was an error which had been productive of very injurious consequences.” In other words, the Committee thought the Government should seize upon all native land not actually occupied and devote it to the use of white settlers.’
The Committee’s enquiry had been sought by the New Zealand Company, which had an obvious motive for declaring any ‘wild land’ to be available for settlement.
The British Government took no action on the report, which possibly did however contribute to the outbreak of the Northern War the next year.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
1845 – Brodie, W. Remarks on the Past and Present State of New Zealand
“On this house, which originally cost 2000l., and which might have served every purpose required for the comfort and convenience of the governor of a new Colony, no less a sum than 15,000l. or 20,000l. has been thrown away; while not even 100l. have been, as yet, devoted to local purposes. In fact, so little has the comfort or convenience of the public been attended to, that even the streets of Auckland itself, where the people have expended nearly 40,000l. in the purchase of allotments, are in such a state as to be utterly impassable; although an outlay of 100l. or 200l. would have been sufficient for their improvement. ”
“The revenue of the Colony appears to have been made subservient to one purpose only,–that of being expended, directly or indirectly, upon the Government officials themselves, or upon their friends.”
Some things don’t change.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 12:55 pm
I admit that I do get tired of the endless back-and-forth between left and right, usually because it comes across as an endless battle with no conclusions. That’s why it’s often better to look at real world results, like the recent 2010 US census data:
Ouch – but the following is more hurtful, in looking at what the population shifts really mean:
Perhaps these immigrants really aren’t as frightened of people bitterly clinging to their guns and bibles as we’ve been led to believe?
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
Inventory2, no need to pull down Key. Just pointing out he’s borrowing $380 million a week, close to 30% youth unemployment, ETS leader instead of follower, smacking still illegal, no tax cuts, and government bigger than ever.
Obviously I realise now that National voters like that kind of stuff.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
Michaels 8:13 Yeah, that’s what I thought. Why give the enemy publicity? Green Peace, putting the con into conservation since the 1980s.
cheers
David Prosser
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 1:19 pm
sorry I failed to link the quote
1844 – Coates, D. The New Zealanders and their Lands
http://www.enzb.auckland.ac.nz/document?wid=1309&page=0&action=null
It was what I said that counts The treaty process has identified multiple ownership claims in one place. It was not a case of multiple ownership but inter tribal fighting over “no man lands”.
This Committee was debating principles of the treaty as valid as any other view point. We are not told the truth just feed spin
Rewrite the history to (“Primary and secondary schools will be required to teach heritage studies, which will include a history of the Maori, in line with the aspirations of Maori people.)
That to me seems very one sided
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 1:25 pm
If we are just fed spin, why is the Committee’s opinion so widely known?
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 1:36 pm
Tom, regarding the Dim Post link in which Danyl paraphrases Sam Harris:
“If some future entrepreneur invents a labour saving device that makes them a multi-trillionaire but puts dozens of millions of people out of work, should the government redistribute their private wealth?”
In a word, my opinion is yes, which certainly highlights the streak of socialism in some of us that John Key was referring to. My reasoning is that whilst the free market and capitalism is certainly the best approach at present to attaining optimal growth, it does throw up some disproportionate by-products, such as the super-rich.
To my mind, the billionaire is an absurdity, and the state has the moral right to steal most of his money. The prospect of making a few million should provide enough incentive to strive to succeed. 15-20% flat income tax up to a million p/a. 95% over. 15% company tax, no threshold, 20% GST. Privatize everything except education.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 1:49 pm
Is it mike?
Do kids study this in history
http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/classroom/ncea3/19th-century-history-introduction
“The period up to 1840, sometimes referred to as the ‘race relations apprenticeship’, in which New Zealand is very much a Maori world.
The 1840s through to the 1860s. The Treaty of Waitangi and war dominate this period. The settler population increases and seeks greater political power and more land for settlement.
1870-1900. New Zealand is transformed economically and socially and is now very much a European world.”
The wars pre 1840 had more impact (up to twenty thousand killed from the linked site, twenty thousand or far more killed according to king) than those prior why is it worded like this?
“Fatal-impact theorists spoke of the end of Maori civilisation as their population fell from perhaps 100,000 in 1840 to a little over 40,000 by the end of the century.”
Note the figure for 1840
‘”The population in 1800 was estimated at anywhere between 100-120,000. The European population generally numbered in the hundreds. The inter-tribal Musket Wars of this period had a dramatic impact on the Maori population with as many as a fifth killed and many thousands captured by rival tribes. On the eve of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi the Maori population of between 70-90,000 still comfortably outnumbered the non-Maori population of 2000.”
Gee it changes to suit the story. Not what I would like to see from a national teaching resource.
The figures from this site are different from those found in say Micheal Kings work always to minimize the Maori impact on themselves and to prejudice the settlers impact on Maori.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 1:59 pm
Griff
Vote:I’m not actually sure from that which figures you have a problem with or what you think they might mean.
August 30th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Actually, what is morally wrong with polygamy? It’s basically sexual capitalism isn’t it? I stand to be corrected.
Vote:(taken from the compulsory circumcision thread)
August 30th, 2011 at 2:26 pm
MM
1) The population numbers are not consistent across the site and are not consistent with Known history
2)Consistently under state the impact and consequence of the musket wars.
3)Twist the reasons and causes of the 1840 to 1860 troubles. Overstate a few skirmishes as wars. Prejudice the settlers as evil and the Maori aggressors as good and just. Maori who stood alongside the Crown are portrait as unimportant or stupid
Spin Spin Spin
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 2:31 pm
Scott on Perry:
“In 2006 he said that he believed the Bible to be inerrant.
He also said that those who did not accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior would be going to hell.
He tells us that he is a “firm believer” in the “intelligent design””
Good. He will make a fine President.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 2:33 pm
Berend,
“How do you National voters feel now we know, thanks to wikileaks, that John Key admits he is a socialist?”
He didnt. Do you have a problem with the English language?
“He certainly act likes one.”
Not really.
“When do you guys stop believing the talk and look at this man’s actions?”
We have.
When do you stop flogging a dead horse?
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
Griff
I don’t know why anyone would wish to underestimate the impact of the Musket Wars. They were one of the most devasting consequences for Maori of European contact.
You would rather term the 1845-1872 conflicts as ‘troubles’ rather than ‘wars’? Why?
You feel the New Zealand Wars (probably the most widely accepted term) were caused by ‘Maori agressors’. Really?
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 2:39 pm
Wow. I’m grateful that you’re so blunt about it – and yes, that’s socialism with a capital C and a 9mm bullet.
I admit that I’m a little loathe to debate this because it is, as Danyl admitted up front, a reductio ad absurdum, and I always find those better used as examples of silliness rather than something that can be debated in detail.
However, I think your stated rule would be a slippery slope leading to a reductio ad absurdum itself: people would simply make arrangements to not appear as billionaires, in much the same way that the number of people reporting their income as $60,000 per annum in NZ magically increased several-fold after 1999. Sure, you could propose even tougher investigations and all, but that’s the Police State for you.
Buried within your answer seems to be an implicit assumption that the billionaire’s money is somehow locked up in some giant Scrooge McDuck Money Bin, and that all that society sees of it is the minuscule amount spent on consumption (the question asked of Gordon Gecko: how many yachts can you water-ski behind?). Which is why so many Keynesians love the idea of grabbing parts of the billionaires loot and then distributing it to ordinary people for consumer spending: a sweet fit of ideas, which is basically what Sam is describing here.
Pity that the economy is also driven by production, which creates the wealth to be spent and yes, that is a chicken-and-egg situation, but not one that can be fixed simply at the consumption end first, supposedly then pulling out the products. The abject failure of the whole Krugman theory of housing bubble => increased wealth => increased consumer spending => a healthy, growing economy should have put paid to that nonsense even before the giant monetary pissathon of the last three years.
The reality is the money, even if it’s only dumped into bank accounts, has to go and be used somewhere in society simply in order to pay the interest bill – and that means it has to be loaned out to people. One could argue that they will have no income to pay back the loan or even the interest, but loans are often made on the basis of business or personal plans that predict future income streams rather than what’s in the hand – and the more desperate they are to lend, the more slack those demands become. In short, people are creative creatures rather than dumb workhorses plodding along in front of the plough and they’d use that billionaire’s money – and if he wants to get any return on it (aside from the income from his magic porridge pot) he has no choice but to lend it out.
In a sense this scenario has already occurred over the past 30 years and is probably accelerating – which is the basis of the whole singularity theme. And we have seen unemployment as jobs have been destroyed, together with the rise of many billionaires. Whether we’re seeing any more relative to the size of the economy (or “the average wage” or whatever basis of comparison suits) than 120 years ago, or whether such people form a bigger chunk of the economy than during the age of the robber barrons, is up for debate. I think Rockefeller was worth about $200 billion in today’s money alone – and that’s without making relative comparisons to the total wealth of US society at the time. Same with jobs: millions have been created in entirely new areas and industries undreamed of. The doom-laden predictions of mass unemployment in the late 70′s/early 80′s as a result of the silicon chip simply did not happen.
Of course that may eventually happen in a singularity. As I said the other day – it’s beyond economics in the sense of having costless resources. But in that situation the billionaire’s money won’t be worth anything anyway, so they’ll be no need to steal it.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 2:40 pm
I see the Herald has an extract from Gareth Morgan’s latest novel. I am sorry but the guy needs help. What he is advocating is a socialist paradise, capital would exit NZ faster than the bottle store gets cleaned out on bene day.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 2:48 pm
“To my mind, the billionaire is an absurdity, and the state has the moral right to steal most of his money.”
While I agree that extremes of wealth, and extremes of disparity between rich and poor, are undesirable, I don’t agree that the State therefore has a right to just steal money.
The problem with capitalism in its current form is that there are too few capitalists. We need a long term transformation of the economy to a stakeholder society in which far more people own land, property and a reasonable level of wealth, and who are investors. Which is in part why I agree with Nationals asset sales plan, so long as they keep their commitment to maintain majority New Zealand ownership. We need more mum and dad investors.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
The state has no more right to the billionaire’s money than he does. (Which is to say, none.)
As for John Key’s comments about New Zealand’s socialist streak, he was right. Can hardly fault him for that. Hell, even ACT MPs have said they favour a “safety net, not a lifestyle choice” – that’s the same streak showing through. We don’t want people to be able to fall right to the bottom. We’re Kiwis.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 2:56 pm
Then why is the reason for signing the treaty given as protection from settlers when many thousands more Maori died at the hands of their fellow Maori, In wars that were still on going and would continue unless the crown took charge.
from http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/politics/treaty/the-treaty-in-brief
” Growing numbers of British migrants arrived in New Zealand in the late 1830s, and there were plans for extensive settlement. Around this time there were large-scale land transactions with Māori, unruly behaviour by some settlers and signs that the French were interested in annexing New Zealand. The British government was initially unwilling to act, but it eventually realised that annexing the country could protect Māori, regulate British subjects and secure commercial interests.”
Does that look like mentioning the musket wars at all.
“The Land Wars”
Vote:As much as they were local skirmishes happened over a long period of time and were often about sovereignty and law. Totally separate issues than just the owner ship of land.
August 30th, 2011 at 3:00 pm
Griff
Do you think Maori signed the treaty to gain protection from other Maori?
I prefer the term ‘New Zealand Wars’ – it is more inclusiveof the range of conflicts and issues involved.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 3:14 pm
You are well aware that history tells us this is the major reason the treaty was signed.
Why else did they give N Z to the crown?
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Man has sex with a pink lilo, admits he has a ‘problem’.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
“I see the Herald has an extract from Gareth Morgan’s”
They seem to be giving him a lot of attention lately. Can’t see why. His comments on the London riots were just plain stupid.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
Griff
I was under the impression that there were several factors behind the treaty. The British Government desired to impose order in a rather messy situation, where uncontrolled colonisation was in prospect. Some Maori welcomed a degree of British authority to control the actions of European settlers and traders. Some Maori seemed to have thought the treaty would increase the amount of trade available.
I’m not aware of much evidence that Maori thought the British would protect them from other Maori. As the Musket Wars had been over for the best part of ten years, there wouldn’t have appeared to be an imminent threat. This is not to discount this factor completely, as in some parts, such as Wellington, local Maori welcomed settlement as a potential bulwark against threats.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
Good to see some sanity finally breaking out somewhere in the West other than the USA.
UK Govt backs informed consent – time for NZ to
http://bobmccoskrie.com/?p=1874
Note the bias in the Gaurdian article. If this had been some trendy lefty policy it would have been the government “listening to the people”, but instead its framed as “caving in”.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Ryan – my assertion that the state has the right to redistribute the billionaire’s excess wealth is based on utilitarian morality.
Charles – I see nothing wrong with using a pink lilo as a sex toy, but I’d still like to know what you think is morally wrong with polygamy, which is essentially sexual capitalism. (provided one is not cheating on one’s lilo)
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
mikenmild – thanks for the hitchens piece on Perry. Very good.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 4:39 pm
Scott,
Just for a moment let me indulge your idea that utilitarianism has anything to do with morality, how does it justify your idea that the state has the right to steal most of his money?
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Weihana,
Chris’s brother Peter is far saner:
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/
He writes very good books to:
http://www.amazon.com/Rage-Against-God-Atheism-Faith/dp/0310320313
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 4:51 pm
# Ed Snack (485) Says:
August 30th, 2011 at 11:20 am
Funny how people seem so worried about Perry’s supposed religious beliefs (is he or is he not a “Dominionist” ?), and yet the same people gave Barack Obama a pass for attending for an extended period the Rev Jeremiah Wright’s church with its hate America and other genuinely obnoxious beliefs.
—————————————————-
Jeremiah Wright’s controversial statements were more politics than religion. Moreover, whether I agree with his political opinions or not, I do get sick of the idiotic position that any criticism of american policy or american governments is the equivalent of “hating America”. That sort of thinking is very boneheaded and closed minded and it is that type of thinking which I consider more anti-American than mere criticism of government and government policy.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 5:01 pm
MM
You should read more than you “apologist leftist propaganda”
Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musket_Wars
Crosby says over half of all iwi suffered major population loss through battle casualties, cannibalism, or enslavement (for instance, the Moriori in the Chatham Islands). A few iwi, for example in Nelson, were exterminated. Perhaps the most important outcome of the musket wars was the bitter legacy of inter-hapū and -iwi mistrust stemming from the extreme violence with which they were fought. The constant use of treachery as a battlefield tactic, coupled with the enslavement of so many, left a long legacy of mistrust. The second to last battle of the Musket Wars was a few months before the Treaty of Waitangi was signed. A taua (war party) from the Te Awamutu area attacked and slaughtered Arawa people (Rotorua area) and bought back 60 basket-loads of human flesh to eat.[1] The missionaries and Christian Maori were sickened and moved out of the pa to establish a separate missionary village. The last battle was at Tauranga in 1842,when a Hauraki Iwi raiding toa attacked a pa. Chief Taraia claimed this was utu (revenge ) for encroachment on his land and other issues. The Colonial Secretary Willoughby Shortland carried out an investigation and found two bodies had been eaten. Te Mutu, the defeated chief, told Shortland that if he caught Taraia he would eat him. Missionaries had been able to gain the trust of many iwi, while Māori remained wary of other iwi outside their rohe (area). This was the immediate background to the signing of the treaty of Waitangi in 1840
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Lee – Based on the ethical theory holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall “good” of the society. Whilst I acknowledge the arbitrariness of utilitarianism, I am at a loss to come up with a better formula.
Utilitarian theory holds that all men on a fundamental level are of equal worth, so when men are measured in terms of material worth, the billionaire is worth a thousand millionaires which is at odds with the first principal. There are other measures of worth which are relevant to utilitarianism, but none that would amount to a magnitude of thousands.
It follows then that the billionaire is disproportionately rewarded by capitalism and the utilitarian state claims a moral right to adjust that reward.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 5:07 pm
oops – principle not principal
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 5:08 pm
Griff
Where are you gong with all this? It’s like a John Ansell blog post but without the argument.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 5:10 pm
“…faith in God is both a safeguard against the collapse of civilisation into moral chaos and the best antidote to what he sees as the dangerous idea of earthly perfection through utopianism”
Lee01,
Faith, as a means for acquiring knowledge of reality, is neither sane nor insane: it is just stupid. Nowhere in our everyday lives do normal people acquire knowledge through faith. It’s simply impractical and impossible. We can’t simply have “faith” that we can walk through walls as we will soon experience, through pain, that this is just not possible. Instead we rely on observation and reason to discern that there are things such as walls and that other solid objects, like a human body, don’t pass through them (quantum mechanics aside).
Faith peddlers therefore dwell in the realm of things unknown because no one can prove them wrong, and for them that is all they need to peddle their made up fantasy. They are no more worth listening to than the person who has “faith” in a Flying Spaghetti Monster or a magical teaport orbiting the Sun.
Further, given Christopher’s medical condition and his inability to speak in public it is noteworthy that he is still able to demonstrate such clarity of mind to write a very cogent and eloquent article showing Perry as the faith-whore that he is. Whether or not you agree with this portrayal of Perry, no reasonable person could find that his writing demonstrated a lack of sanity.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
Might I suggest an alternative approach to ethics.
The first question, before you consider what is right and wrong, is what it means for things to be right and wrong. In a general sense all prescriptive statements of what “ought” to occur are conditional on what outcomes are desired.
Morality therefore is simply a tool to guide action. It is the ability of our minds to evaluate how different courses of action might produce different outcomes. The basic question therefore is: what do I value in life and what principles of action will achieve the goals I desire?
This does not mean that morality is purely subjective because you cannot subjectively choose which principles of action will produce which outcomes. You only get to choose that which you desire in life. Do you desire life, liberty and happiness? Then reason dictates that only certain types of action will produce those outcomes and other types of behaviour will tend not to produce those outcomes.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 5:33 pm
Scott Chris
Lee – Based on the ethical theory holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall “good” of the society. Whilst I acknowledge the arbitrariness of utilitarianism, I am at a loss to come up with a better formula.
————————————
What does it mean for something to be “good”?
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
“Morality therefore is simply a tool to guide action.”
I agree. I am not aware of any established absolute truth, only relative truth based on the premise “I think I think, therefore I think I am.” What appears true to me is just another layer, with a layer beneath that.
“The basic question therefore is: what do I value in life and what principles of action will achieve the goals I desire?”
Certainly is a practical way to establish your own belief system based on your subjective interpretation of your existence, and to project that into life, the universe and everything.
Douglas Adam’s take on the pursuit of absolute truth:
“There is a theory which states that if ever for any reason anyone discovers what exactly the Universe is for and why it is here it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
Vote:There is another that states that this has already happened.”
August 30th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
“What does it mean for something to be “good”?”
‘Good’ can be arbitrarily defined as an outcome of most overall happiness. Love, achievement, entertainment, procreation etc are all components of this method of measuring good.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 6:11 pm
Auckland number 10. Be even better if we did not have to subsidise the rest of NZ.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/5534052/Auckland-one-of-worlds-most-liveable-cities
What’s that Wellington? Absolutely Positively chip on both shoulders
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 6:21 pm
Lee01, ah, you can have a socialist streak without being a socialist? So what do we call a man who:
So he is running deficits. He’s pouring money into the welfare state. Not with taxes mind you, but with borrowing.
Tell me again, what exactly distinguishes him from Labour?
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 6:21 pm
I clicked the Greenpeace ad 50 times. How much did that earn DPF and cost the watermelons? Childish but strangely enjoyable…….
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
I clicked through….. It’s quite funny because you get to write an e-mail to Sealord from Greenpeace.
My e-mail was:
Dear Sealord,
Screw Greenpeace. They got no idea what is going on. I will keep supporting you, as long as these Green douchebags have no clues, especially when it comes to a secure website.
Regards
TimG_Oz
PS – I got a nice autoreply from Sealord, saying that Greenpeace are full of it. Nice
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 6:43 pm
This just in:
John Key is selling is to the Chinese, and the National voter can’t be bothered.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
From a ‘seniors’ website:
Recently, I was diagnosed with A.A.A.D.D. -
Age Activated Attention Deficit Disorder.
This is how it manifests itself:
I decide to water my garden.
As I turn on the hose in the driveway, I look over at my car and decide it needs washing.
As I head towards the garage, I notice mail on the porch table that I picked up from the post man earlier.
I decide to go through the mail before I wash the car.
I lay my car keys on the table, put the junk mail in the recycling box under the table, and notice that the recycling box is full.
So, I decide to put the bills back on the table and take out the recycling first.
But then I think, since I’m going to be near the post-box when I take out the recycling paper anyway, I may as well pay the bills first.
I take my cheque book off the table, and notice that there is only one cheque left.
My extra cheques are in my desk in the study,
so I go inside the house to my desk where
I find the cup of coffee I’d been drinking.
I’m going to look for my cheques, but first I need to push the coffee aside so that I don’t accidentally knock it over.
The coffee is getting cold, And I decide to make another cup.
As I head toward the kitchen with the cold coffee, a vase of flowers on the worktop catches my eye – the flowers need water.
I put the coffee on the worktop and discover my reading glasses that I’ve been searching for all morning.
I decide I better put them back on my desk, but first I’m going to water the flowers.
I put the glasses back down on the worktop, fill a container with water and suddenly spot the TV remote control. Someone left it on the kitchen table.
I realise that tonight when we go to watch TV, I’ll be looking for the remote, but I won’t remember that it’s on the kitchen table, so I decide to put it back where it belongs, but first I’ll water the flowers.
I pour some water in the flowers, but quite a bit of it spills on the floor.
So, I put the remote back on the table, get some towels and wipe up the spill.
Then, I head down the hall trying to remember what I was planning to do.
At the end of the day:
The car isn’t washed
The bills aren’t paid
There is a cold cup of coffee sitting on the counter
The flowers don’t have enough water,
There is still only 1 cheque in my cheque book,
I can’t find the remote,
I can’t find my glasses,
And I don’t remember what I did with the car keys..
Then, when I try to figure out why nothing got done today, I’m really baffled because I know I was busy all damn day, and I’m really tired.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 7:04 pm
Just arrived by email.
I THINK THIS GUY HAS IT ALL COVERED. I COULDN’T SPOT ANYTHING HE LEFT OUT.
Amen to this, I can’t think of a thing I’d change about this statement.
c
I Am the current Parties Worst Nightmare.
I am a White, Conservative, Tax-Paying, God fearing Kiwi .
I am a hard working New Zealander and l work long hours to earn a living.
I believe in God and the freedom of religion, but I don’t push it on others.
I believe in Kiwi products and buy them whenever I can.
I believe the money I make belongs to me and not some bloody governmental functionary, Labor/Greens or National or some other warped group of loopies, that wants to share it with others who don’t work!
I’m in touch with my feelings and I like it that way!
I think owning a home doesn’t make you a capitalist; it makes you a smart New Zealander I think being a minority does not make you noble or victimized, and does not entitle you to anything. Get over it!
I believe that if you are selling me a Big Mac or any other item, you should do it in English and speak so I can understand you.
I believe there should be no other language option.
I believe everyone has a right to pray to his or her God when and where they want to.
My heroes are , Fellow Kiwis, John Wayne the yank, Richie Mc Caw, Colin Meads, Barry Crump, Ed Hillary and Henry Ford, who invented the most awesome car. I don’t hate the rich, but hate the way they are always find ways to pay less taxesI don’t pity the poor ,I hate the way they always crying that they are hard done by!!
I know wrestling is fake and I don’t waste my time watching or arguing about it..
I haven’t burned any witches or been persecuted by the Turks, and neither have you!
I believe if you don’t like the way things are here, go back to where you came from and change your own country!
This is NEW ZEALAND …..We like it the way it is and more so the way it was …..so stop trying to change it to look like Britain ,USA ,Russia or China , or some other socialist country!
If you were born or legally migrated here and don’t like it… you are free to move to any Socialist country that will have you. (And take Phil Goff and his group with you.) I believe it is time to really clean house, starting with the Bee Hive, the seat of our biggest problems.
I want to know exactly, where the “Do Gooder’s ” get their money from, and why are they always part of the problem and not the solution?
Can I get an AMEN on that one?
I also think the cops have the right to pull you over if you’re breaking the law, regardless of what race, color or creed you are, but not just because you happen to be an illegal alien and scream that they are “RACISTS PIGS”.And, no, I don’t mind having my face shown on my driver’s license. I think it’s good…. I hope you are not too stupid to claim to know how our electoral ballot system works, The Politician’s don’t’.so what hope have we?? I dislike those people standing in the intersections trying to sell me stuff or trying to guilt me into making ‘donations’ to their cause….. Get a job and do your part to support yourself and your family!
I believe that it doesn’t take all the intellectuals to raise a child, it takes two parents….
I believe ‘illegal’ is illegal no matter what the lawyers think!
If this makes me a BAD Kiwi, then yes, I’m a BAD Kiwi If you are a BAD Kiwi too, please forward this to everyone you know….
We want our country back!
My Country…..
I hope this offends all illegal aliens.
My great, great, great grandfather watched as his friends died in the Boer War. My grandfather watched and bled as his friends died in the the World Wars 1&2. My grandfather watched as his friends & brothers died in the Great Depression. My father watched as his friends died in Korea . I watched as my friends died in Vietnam ..
Enough is bloody enough
This message needs to be viewed by every Kiwi; and every Kiwi needs to stand up for New Zealand .
We’ve bent over to appease the Kiwi-haters long enough. I’m taking a stand.
I’m standing up because the hundreds of thousands who died fighting in wars for this country, and for the New Zealand flag.
If you agree, stand up with me. If you disagree, please let me know. I will gladly remove you from my e-mail list.
And shame on anyone who tries to make this a racist message.
KIWI’s stop giving away Your RIGHTS !
Let me make this clear! THIS IS OUR COUNTRY !
This statement DOES NOT mean I’m against immigration !
YOU ARE WELCOME HERE, IN MY COUNTRY, welcome to come legally:
1. Get a sponsor !
2. Learn the LANGUAGE, as immigrants have in the past !
3. Live by OUR rules ! Dress as we ,New Zelanders Do
4. Get a job !
5. Pay YOUR Taxes !
6. No Social Security until you have earned it and Paid for it !
7. NOW find a place to lay your head !
If you don’t want to forward this for fear of offending someone, then YOU’RE PART OF THE PROBLEM !
We’ve gone so far the other way .. . … bent over backwards not to offend anyone.
Only New Zealanders seems to care when New Zelander Citizens are being offended !
WAKE UP NEW ZEALAND ! ! !
If you do not Pass this on, may your fingers cramp !
Made in NEW ZEALAND & DAMN PROUD OF IT!!!!!
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 7:04 pm
TimG_OZ I got the same reply. Greenpiece can suck it up. They put the ‘con’ into conservation
Thank you for contacting us about this issue. We are passionate and serious about sustainability. We do care and obviously if fish stocks are seriously depleted we are affected more than anybody.
We disagree with Greenpeace on this issue and we are disappointed they have not provided all of the facts. We are not alone. The International Sustainable Seafood Foundation (ISSF) of which the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) is a founding member, don’t agree with their position on FADs or pole and line fishing (www.iss-foundation.org).
There are 4.4 billion tuna in the fisheries where our tuna is caught and tuna in these areas is not threatened. The impact of bycatch on fish is low and on endangered species it is very small.
The report referenced in your email states: “Skipjack stocks are under-fished.” Another document Greenpeace uses to make their point states: ‘Yellowfin are not experiencing overfishing’.
Further, the report referenced in your email does not say FADs should be stopped, but that they should be managed to reduce impacts. We agree with this and the work done by WCPFC (Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission) with industry to manage the use of FADs so bycatch is minimised (www.wcpfc.int). The NZ Ministry of Fisheries has also publicly supported the WCPFC’s approach.
All food production has an impact and the impact of tuna fishing is relatively low (compared to other types of food production such as land-based farming). Our position is that bycatch from all types of fishing methods should be managed carefully and reduced as much as possible.
Greenpeace is lobbying for pole and line caught tuna. This method has environmental impacts as well. Fishermen have to use fish to catch fish. The World Wildlife Fund backed organisation, the ISSF, has stated that increasing pole and line caught tuna would have a severe negative impact on other fish species. The ISSF also state that bycatch of juvenile tuna from pole and line is 10%.
Supermarkets and brands in the UK have said they will move to pole and line but we don’t believe they have made a science-based, sustainable decision.
Sealord has a history of sustainable fishing, based on good science and best practice from around the world and we will continue to use these methods and work with experts to find ways to improve and do the right thing.
Yours sincerely
David
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 7:25 pm
Senility Prayer
God grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the
good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the
difference. Now that I’m “older” (but refuse to grow up), here’s what I’ve
discovered:
1) I started out with nothing, and I still have most of it.
Vote:2) My wild oats have turned into prunes and All Bran.
3) I finally got my head together; now my body is falling apart.
4) Funny, I don’t remember being absent minded…
5) Funny, I don’t remember being absent minded…
6) What were we talking about?
7) It’s easier to get older than it is to get wiser.
8 ) Some days you’re the dog; some days you’re the hydrant.
9) I wish the buck stopped here; I sure could use a few.
10) Kids in the back seat cause accidents.
11) Accidents in the back seat cause kids.
12) It’s hard to make a comeback when you haven’t been anywhere.
13) The only time the world beats a path to your door is when you’re in the
bathroom.
14) If God wanted me to touch my toes, he would have put them on my knees.
15) When I’m finally holding all the cards, why does everyone else decide to
play chess?
16) It’s not hard to meet expenses… they’re everywhere!
17) The only difference between a rut and a grave is the depth.
18) These days, I spend a lot of time thinking about the hereafter..I go
somewhere to get something and then wonder what I’m here after.
19) If all is not lost, then where is it?
20) Did I send this to you already?
August 30th, 2011 at 7:26 pm
Sealord has a history of sustainable fishing, based on good science and best practice from around the world and we will continue to use these methods and work with experts to find ways to improve and do the right thing.
The sad thing is the idiots watch the telly and Sainsbury and/or Campbell and/or the News tells them how tewwible it all is and their widdle hearts just melt with the humanity and then evewyone who does anything like that is just a gweat big meany from there on and nothing will convince them otherwise since it’s their heart not their head that’s telling them this therefore nothing you say, fact-wise, penetrates. And there are a lot of minds like this out there, aren’t there.
This is why conservatives and businesses need to become extremely savvy with propaganda cause the lefties and GweenPeace is a political organisation, like the Gweens, use it all the time, as a matter of course, as naturally as breathing. So how come business doesn’t do the same and publish ad-wise, how it works and what you do, science-wise, etc etc etc. You could make some great ads with some big seas running and stuff going on in the boat.
We should be doing that not just to counter this, but all the time, until it becomes as natural as breathing. Why not? It only works cost-wise if a single corporate only has to run say one campaign like this per year, and when it completes another takes over and so on.
Lefties would weally hate that, wouldn’t they.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 7:30 pm
He was in bed with his girlfriend.
Vote:She said, “Does the fact that I’m blind turn you off?”
“No, of course not”
She said, “Why can’t you get an erection then?”
“To be honest, the guide dog lying between us is a bit off-putting.”
August 30th, 2011 at 7:54 pm
I was on the bus, sitting on a newspaper, and a guy comes over and asks “Are you reading that?” I didn’t know what to say. So I said yes. I stood up, turned the page, and sat down again
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 7:57 pm
“The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” – or in the words of a more famous philosopher: Who, Whom?.
The answer to that last is never good and as a result there’s more mass graves laid at the feet of utilitarianism than just about any other principle, because every communitarian ideology stems from it.
Sheesh – if this is the best system of ethics you can come up with it’s no wonder you have little time for capitalism, with it’s myriad individuals all working in a system governed (when it’s allowed to be) by the blind watchmaker of competition. It’s a wonder you have any time for it’s necessary soul mate, democracy!
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 8:09 pm
Another day goes by and again we were constantly bombarded by erudite pronouncements from Dr.Brash and his crew on how they will be able to save the free world,…………….hold on , sorry no , my mistake.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
Snow White, Tom Thumb and Quasimodo are sitting in a pub with their mates.
Snow White says, “There’s no doubt about it, I’m the fairest in the land.”
Tom thumb says, “There’s no doubt about it, I’m the smallest in the land.”
Quasimodo says, “There’s no doubt about it, I’m the ugliest in the land.”
Their mates tell them to prove it by going to the magic all-knowing mirror, and the three head off.
A few minutes later, the door of the pub bursts open and Snow White runs in and says, “It’s official…I’m the fairest in the land!”
Shortly afterwards, the door again bursts open and Tom Thumb runs in and shouts, “It’s official…I’m the smallest in the land!”
Five minutes later, the door gets kicked in and Quasimodo storms in and bellows, “Who the fuck is Helen Clark?”
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 8:23 pm
Has Red Blert banned all new posts? Has Helen told them all to STFU.
Vote:No new posts for 27 hours. Geez Trev and Clare must have lost control
August 30th, 2011 at 8:49 pm
Tom, I agree that utilitarianism has been blamed for all kinds of atrocities, but the fact remains, if the correct choice had been made in accordance with the theory, the overall outcome would have produced the most good.
The problem with utilitarianism isn’t it’s premise, but rather the competing theories on how to achieve the maximum societal good.
A capitalist would claim a free market is the best way to achieve this. If this were true, then surely that would mean capitalism is compatible with utilitarian ethics.
I would contend that free market capitalism is a good basis from which to start, but like all human technology, it evolves as we subject it to its own test, that of seeing what works best, and discarding that which doesn’t work, and not being afraid to face up to a brave new world.
You may be interested in this vision of the near future courtesy of US firm Corning Inc:
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=6Cf7IL_eZ38&vq=medium
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 9:04 pm
“In a general sense all prescriptive statements of what “ought” to occur are conditional on what outcomes are desired.”
You’ve described consequentialism. That’s a large branch of moral philosophy, but does not include deontological ethics – of which the best known example is Kantianism (the old enemy of utilitarianism). Outcomes aren’t always important there, only duty and the “right motive”. There’s also Virtue Ethics which is about having the “right character”, rather than strict observance of duties or outcomes.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 9:10 pm
Approximate cost per click is $.79 for a Greenpeace related term (this is what Google will charge – and they pay about 60% of that to publishers). Tuna is currently $.63.
Google will invalidate multiple clicks coming from the same computer/IP address, and quite possibly cancel the publisher account.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 9:48 pm
Teahupo’o : Code Red.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 10:27 pm
Approximate cost per click is $.79 for a Greenpeace related term (this is what Google will charge – and they pay about 60% of that to publishers).
Excellent. I just made Greenpeace pay DPF 47 cents.
Tee hee.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 10:40 pm
MM
The argument starting from the “principles of the treaty” and moving forward with “Maori sovereignty” and “aparthied” is debated around a very one sided argument. We are called racist for putting the other side of the argument forward.
This argument is different from the official story. Because of the leftist anti colonization, guilt laden, Maorifacation, revisionist spin. We have a generation that are being brought up on the lie that Maori signed the treaty for totally different reasons than is true purely to satisfy a Maorifacation agenda.
I would not be as strident in my condemnation of this policy if the result were improving the country as a whole and in particular the plight of the bottom 20% of Maori. The Maori that produce the shocking statistics. The statistics that say New Zealand is rife with lawlessness ,child abuse, violence, Third world health, educational failures etc, etc, etc.
This is only a small proportion of all with Maori blood yet this 20% or less of the Maori population is responsible for half our crime, abuse and violence. Also For our low rankings in many international indicators including GDP, life expectancy, suicide, etc.
We need to approach this issue without the guilt and propaganda that hides it. Use information sharing, honesty, targeted money and WILL to fix this issue or we are all doomed to steadily fall into the third world.
Vote:August 30th, 2011 at 11:32 pm
Cha
Thanks a lot for that link. Those waves looked as scary as hell. If I actually knew how to surf I’m sure they’d be even more terrifying.
Vote:August 31st, 2011 at 6:37 am
Air New Zealand monopoly call for Price controls on its supplier.
Air New Zealand says Wellington International Airport’s proposed 70 per cent increase in landing fees over five years demonstrates why price controls need to be imposed on the monopoly provider.
Air NZ chief executive Rob Fyfe said the increase demonstrated how the airport would behave unless the Commerce Commission took a harder line.
If you live in Tauranga and want to fly anywhere you will soon see how much it costs to have a monopoly supplier.
Worse still is AIR NZ constant attacking of any competitor that does start up so they can regain any monopoly situation. We coulld point to Kiwiair from Hamilton as just one example.
When AIR NZ charges the same rates to and from TGA as it does AUCK to WGTN then Mr Fyfe can tell us about how to behave.
Vote:August 31st, 2011 at 6:55 am
I hate to say this but it looks like Big Bruv is right.
A word on the All Blacks: Cheats
MARK REASON
Last updated 05:00 31/08/2011
OPINION: If New Zealand go out of a consecutive World Cup because of another dodgy refereeing decision, they will have no one to blame but themselves. The All Blacks no longer even bother to bend the laws. They set out to deliberately cheat.
For only one piffling syllable, CHEAT is an awfully big word. “Who are you calling a cheat?” demands the card-playing gunslinger, just before the mandatory murder and the five aces sliding from the sleeve.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/opinion/5535927/A-word-on-the-All-Blacks-Cheats
Vote:August 31st, 2011 at 7:35 am
I dont even eat tuna but those sanctimonious fucktards are nearly making me go out and buy a few cans. At least I’d know what brand to get.
Vote:August 31st, 2011 at 7:38 am
Of course I am bloody well right V2.
I don’t mind the fact that the NZ team cheats, what I do mind is the way their stupid fans manage to watch an entire test series and never notice that the NZ team are the worst cheats of all.
And…..should the ref miss a forward pass or blatant infringement that costs the NZ team the game…….well you know the rest.
Vote:August 31st, 2011 at 10:30 am
Weihana,
“Faith, as a means for acquiring knowledge of reality, is neither sane nor insane: it is just stupid. Nowhere in our everyday lives do normal people acquire knowledge through faith.”
Nobody, including Peter Hitchens, or any other Christian, is arguing that they should, strictly speaking. Knowledge is acquired through a number of means, including observation, experience, tradition, natural revelation and special revelation. In Christian theology this is known as the Quadrilateral: Faith, Tradition, Reason, Experience.
“We can’t simply have “faith” that we can walk through walls as we will soon experience, through pain, that this is just not possible.”
Agreed, but what you are describing there is not the Christian doctrine of faith, or of revelation. You really should read C.S. Lewis’s ‘Mere Christianity’, but here is the relevant quote:
‘Roughly speaking, the word faith seems to be used by Christians in two senses or on two levels, and I will take them in turn. In the first sense it means simply belief–accepting or regarding as true the doctrines of Christianity. That is fairly simple. But what does puzzle people–at least it used to puzzle me–is the fact that Christians regard faith in this sense as a virtue. I used to ask how on Earth it can be a virtue–what is there moral or immoral about believing or not believing a set of statements? Obviously, I used to say, a sane man accepts or rejects any statement, not because he wants or does not want to, but because the evidence seems to him good or bad. If he were mistaken about the goodness or badness of the evidence, that would not mean he was a bad man, but only that he was not very clever. And if he thought the evidence bad but tried to force himself to believe in spite of it, that would be merely stupid.
Well, I think I still take that view. But what I did not see then–and a good many people do not see still–was this. I was assuming that if the human mind once accepts a thing as true it will automatically go on regarding it as true, until some real reason for reconsidering it turns up. In fact, I was assuming that the human mind is completely ruled by reason. But that is not so. For example, my reason is perfectly convinced by good evidence that anesthetics do not smother me and that properly trained surgeons do not start operating until I am unconscious. But that does not alter the fact that when they have me down on the table and clap their horrible mask over my face, a mere childish panic begins inside me. I start thinking I am going to choke, and I am afraid they will start cutting me up before I am properly under. In other words, I lose my faith in anesthetics. It is not reason that is taking away my faith; on the contrary, my faith is based on reason. It is my imagination and emotions. The battle is between faith and reason on one side and emotion and imagination on the other…..
Now just the same thing happens about Christianity. I am not asking anyone to accept Christianity if his best reasoning tells him that the weight of evidence is against it. That is not the point at which faith comes in. But supposing a man’s reason once decides that the weight of the evidence is for it. I can tell that man what is going to happen to him in the next few weeks. There will come a moment when there is bad news, or he is in trouble, or is living among a lot of other people who do not believe it, and all at once his emotions will rise up and carry out a sort of blitz on his belief. Or else there will come a moment when he wants a woman, or wants to tell a lie, or feels very pleased with himself, or sees a chance of making a little money in some way that is not perfectly fair; some moment, in fact, at which it would be very convenient if Christianity were not true. And once again his wishes and desires will carry out a blitz. I am not talking of moments at which any real new reasons against Christianity turn up. Those have to be faced and that is a different matter. I am talking about moments where a mere mood rises up against it.
Now faith, in the sense in which I am here using the word, is the art of holding onto things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods. For moods will change, whatever view your reason takes. I know that by experience. Now that I am a Christian, I do have moods in which the whole thing looks very improbable; but when I was an atheist, I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable. This rebellion of your moods against your real self is going to come anyway. That is why faith is such a necessary virtue; unless you teach your moods “where they get off” you can never be either a sound Christian or even a sound atheist, but just a creature dithering to and fro, with its beliefs really dependent on the weather and the state of its digestion. Consequently one must train the habit of faith.’ C.S. Lewis (Mere Christianity)
“Faith peddlers therefore dwell in the realm of things unknown”
Incorrect. Christian dwell in the realm of things known, things handed down by our ancestors, things experienced and things revealed.
“Further, given Christopher’s medical condition and his inability to speak in public it is noteworthy that he is still able to demonstrate such clarity of mind to write a very cogent and eloquent article showing Perry as the faith-whore that he is. Whether or not you agree with this portrayal of Perry, no reasonable person could find that his writing demonstrated a lack of sanity.”
My comment about sanity was more a commentary on secular fundamentalist faith in general, the unwillingness and inability to admit to anything other than an almost Gnostic notion of “reason” and “evidence” ungrounded in anything other than secular ideology. You see Hitchens is doing exactly what he accuses Perry of, he is pushing his own faith. Which is fine, except Perry is honest about that, while Hitchens hides his faith in secular naturalism behind a facade of “reason”.
Vote:August 31st, 2011 at 2:54 pm
Lee01 -
“Now faith, in the sense in which I am here using the word, is the art of holding onto things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods.” – CS Lewis
But this is not the faith of Christianity. The faith of Christianity is in the first sense that he explained – the acceptance of what the Bible says despite the fact that there is no evidence to back up the major claims – i.e. that God exists, that Jesus (if he existed) was the son of God, that Jesus was resurrected from death, the garden of Eden, the talking Snake, the young age of the Universe etc. etc. These things are believed by Christians not on evidence, but on faith (i.e. belief despite lacking sufficient evidence to demonstrate the truth of these claims). So when CS Lewis holds onto Christianity, despite changing moods, he is not holding onto something he has accepted through reason, he is holding onto something he accepted through faith.
“Faith peddlers therefore dwell in the realm of things unknown” – Weihana
“Incorrect. Christian dwell in the realm of things known, things handed down by our ancestors, things experienced and things revealed.” – Lee01
Just because an ancient book states something to be the case does not mean that you “know” that it is true. You accept these fairy tales based on your faith in Christianity, i.e. your belief in Christianity despite a lack of convincing evidence. No reasonable person could believe these fairy tales based on the evidence presented. There is simply no credible evidence that God exists or that any of the major claims in the Bible are true.
Moreover, science continues to debunk these foolish stories by demonstrating that the Earth is about 4 and a half billion years old and that the Universe is over 13 billion years old. It has also demonstrated that humans evolved from other primates and that all life on Earth has evolved from simpler organisms. These scientific discoveries fly in the face of the ignorant and primitive claims made by the world’s religions prior to these discoveries.
“My comment about sanity was more a commentary on secular fundamentalist faith in general, the unwillingness and inability to admit to anything other than an almost Gnostic notion of “reason” and “evidence” ungrounded in anything other than secular ideology. You see Hitchens is doing exactly what he accuses Perry of, he is pushing his own faith. Which is fine, except Perry is honest about that, while Hitchens hides his faith in secular naturalism behind a facade of “reason”.”
Rubbish. Science and reason are not a type of “faith”. Faith is believing in fairy tales made up by our ancestors.
Vote:August 31st, 2011 at 5:20 pm
“In a general sense all prescriptive statements of what “ought” to occur are conditional on what outcomes are desired.”
You’ve described consequentialism. That’s a large branch of moral philosophy, but does not include deontological ethics – of which the best known example is Kantianism (the old enemy of utilitarianism). Outcomes aren’t always important there, only duty and the “right motive”. There’s also Virtue Ethics which is about having the “right character”, rather than strict observance of duties or outcomes.
——————————————-
I don’t think I’m a fan of deontological ethics.
It doesn’t make sense to me. If I understand Kant’s ethical theory correctly, he seems to consider that there are things which are instrically “good” from which moral rules and duties can be derived. I would regard this as nonsense. No “is” implies an “ought” so how can something be intrinsically good? Things just are, and reality doesn’t impose any moral judgment upon what takes place.
When one person murders another, reality doesn’t step in a say “that’s bad”, in fact reality just stands idly by. All reality does is enforce the physical laws of the Universe. It is other sentient beings which do not stand by and make moral judgments which are grounded in their own desires and the outcomes they want in life. If we imagine a world in which Superman existed and he was a sociopath, he could do whatever he liked to us including murder, theft, rape and we would be powerless to stop him (assuming Kryptonite is not available) and since he’s a sociopath our suffering would be of no consequence to him. Therefore in this scenario such a “Superman” could do whatever he liked and reality wouldn’t have anything to say about whether his actions were moral or not. Therefore, on what basis could we say his actions were intrinsically bad? Such actions would only be bad, in our view, because they conflict with our own values and desires.
Therefore I consider that it is the human ability to want things (such as life, liberty and happiness) that give meaning to our moral judgments. Without this ability moral statements appear meaningless and thus our self-interest is the only self-justifying basis for moral statements.
Moreover, concepts of “rights”, therefore, are only applicable in the context of our mutual self-interest. For instance, we have a right to life because we all value our own lives and this value can only be upheld if we respect each other’s right to life. But the concept of a “right to life” has no meaning to a suicidal sociopath, for instance.
Vote:August 31st, 2011 at 10:06 pm
Like yourself I suspect that subjective values underpin deontological ethics, even if in this case they emerged from the western cultural framework that existed in Kant’s time. I’m no expert on Kant either (and it’s been a few years since my undergrad ethics papers..) but I think he made a distinction between rational and non-rational objects as differences in kind. Perhaps he felt that because people were rational beings, it naturally followed that they valued rationality above all else, and so this provides an objective bootstrap for his moral framework.
I’d go further that any moral framework, like culture, has to be shared to be meaningful. Your example about a psychopathic superman was needlessly abstract I think – if we look at the recent UK riots, we can see that it only takes a very small percentage of people reneging on “the social contract” (effectively, shared values) for there to be serious consequences for the viability of that society.
Anyway, just thought I’d point out that morality isn’t always predicated on outcomes. I wasn’t suggesting that such moral frameworks necessarily have the greatest efficacy.
Vote: