General Debate 1 March 2013

March 1st, 2013 at 8:00 am by Kokila Patel
Tags:

179 Responses to “General Debate 1 March 2013”

  1. mickysavage (786 comments) says:

    Who would have guessed?

    The Hobbit dispute had been settled as Helen kelly claimed well before the pseudo crisis and march and the urgent legislation and the Government agreed to pay Warners $35 million of our tax money.

    The Union deferred to Warners to draft and release the joint press release and this was delayed by Jackson himself wanting the release to say some rather weird stuff.

    NZ we have been had.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/129382/warner-bros-emails-reveal-deal-announcement-delay and https://thestandard.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/warner-bros-hobbit-emails.pdf

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 25 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Pete George (23,680 comments) says:

    On climate change:

    1. There’s no conspiracy. The accumulation of evidence demands serious attention.

    2. Fake experts and questionable lists of scientists have been lined up to try and disprove the current science, but they have scant science of their own that might make a case for their claims.

    3. It has been repeatedly claimed that bits of evidence have been discredited (like the famous hockey stick), based on shaky evidence against, ignoring subsequent explanations and refutations of criticisms.

    4. There is more than enough evidence to cause major concern.

    5. Overwhelming scientific consensus is discredited with fallacious and irrelevant claims.

    6. The only real doubt is the degree of the problem, despite doubts being raised. The vast majority of climate scientists generally agree there is a potential looking problem that requires urgent attention. Opponents try to claim their arguments are ignored but the fact is they have little to argue with apart from sob stories of MSM censorship of alternate views.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 1 Thumb down 30 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    Further to the goings on in the southern ocean and the atitude of the protesters, from europe comes this….(mark johnston is a greenpeace activisty)

    “Yesterday, Ben Pile and I were having a somewhat fruitless exchange of views with Mark Johnston, who seems to be a Senior Advisor at the European Policy Centre, whatever that is. Johnston seemed to be of the view that the “No Dash for Gas” activists who had occupied EDF’s West Burton gas plant were somehow justified because of global warming. He claimed that there is “a moral duty to act”.”

    A “moral duty” sounds very religious to me

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    In case anyone has not seen this clip of Gilliard

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Lance (2,704 comments) says:

    @mickeysavage
    Do you actually think that a simple “it’s ok now, we nearly destroyed your multi-million dollar plans but we have decided to hold off (for now)” was enough for high stakes business men? These guys live in a world where one or two dud movies will kill their corporation.

    What fucking planet do you retards live on?

    Have ANY of you ever ran a business where confidence is what you live and die by….. thought not.
    You live in a kindergarten sand pit with your milk and biscuits brought to you by grown ups.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. graham (2,346 comments) says:

    @ barry at 8:10 am –

    A “moral duty” sounds very religious to me

    Without wishing to start the whole religious debate again (so please don’t take this as such anyone), it has previously been pointed out that one does not have to be “religious” to have a sense of morality.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. peterwn (3,298 comments) says:

    Micky Savage – it was the NZ unions who were ‘done’ by their Australian counterparts who had their own selfish agendas. That concept of ‘good trade union principles’ meaning ‘one out all out’ just does not wash in the modern world. And Helen Kelly has some dream she wants to be Rongotai’s Labour MP.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Ross12 (1,453 comments) says:

    Pete George

    Did you make up that rubbish while drinking your morning coffee ?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Elaycee (4,403 comments) says:

    Jetstar buggers it up again – this time they wouldn’t budge for the Mum of the shark attack victim.

    They have turned ‘Customer Service’ into an oxymoron.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/8367120/Jetstar-shock-for-shark-victims-mum

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. hmmokrightitis (1,595 comments) says:

    Ah mickey, stick to the whole conveyance thing I think, commenting on things like ‘business’ and ‘negotiations’ appear beyond you. Mind you, from what I hear, so does that conveyance thing…

    Anyone who knows anything about movie resources know they cannot be employees. And from that extends the need to have flexibility – the studios want it, Directors, Producers AND the staff. The only ones who didn’t were the tiny Australian union hell bent on destruction, and labour. But then they still turned up to the premier, didn’t they.

    You must be so proud.

    Face it flea man, the country are not behind you, and sometimes that’s ok. But this time, you’re pushing shit uphill for the sake of being seen to inhabit the moral high ground. And all it looks like is union driven bitterness. Because that’s what it is…

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. virtualmark (1,536 comments) says:

    @ graham,

    Without wishing to start the whole religious debate again (so please don’t take this as such anyone), it has previously been pointed out that one does not have to be “religious” to have a sense of morality.

    Really? Immanuel Kant tried that and didn’t come up with an all too convincing answer. Kierkegaard and the existensialists had a go too and had to tie himself in knots to try to make it work.

    But I feel much more at ease knowing the brains of Kiwiblog have nutted out problems the great philosophers of our history struggled with.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Colville (2,298 comments) says:

    Great troll comment Mickey, lprent would have banned you if this were the Stranded.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. kowtow (8,733 comments) says:

    barry @810

    Envirowackos get support from activist judges by appealing to a higher authority.

    Common sense has long gone out the window .

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/11/activists.kingsnorthclimatecamp

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. kowtow (8,733 comments) says:

    virtualmark

    As you’re into philosophers,try this.Takes less than a minute.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    graham (1,698) Says:
    March 1st, 2013 at 8:19 am

    When it comes to forcing everyone else to follow a certain cost structure and life style change because one ‘believes’ that climate change is due to mans activities, its certainly is a religious belief.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. virtualmark (1,536 comments) says:

    Yep kowtow, knew the words off by heart back in the 1980s .

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Elaycee (4,403 comments) says:

    Greg Presland comes out gushing in defence of Helen Kelly and for ‘supporting evidence’ of this daft assertion he uses an opinion piece from The Stranded and a ‘news item’ from Radio Red – in itself a cut and paste of a CTU (Helen Kelly) Press Release…

    Bwahahahaaaaaaaaaaa

    If you really believe this crap, Greg, then you’ll probably be interested in an investment proposal sent to me by a nice man in Nigeria. :D

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. kowtow (8,733 comments) says:

    More managerialism and target culture.

    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/247729/officers-taken-frontline

    Who suffers ? The public, as there are less police around and someone has to adminster this shit too. All takes time and money.
    And when the donut munchers are being tested they’re not out there doing their sworn duty.

    Equality?

    Women don’t have the same test as men!A policewoman doesn’t have to drag a fat arse from a burning building but could call for back up from a burly bastard,and get the same pay!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. WineOh (630 comments) says:

    Reported of a FIRE in Wellington in a grove of trees, 30sqm in size. Front page news on Stuff.
    Honestly, this is news? Average residential section size in Welly is what… 500sqm?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. hmmokrightitis (1,595 comments) says:

    Colville, re: banning – bang on.

    Hence why Presland has zero credibility. He is used to the echo chamber. He had his little comment all lined up for 8AM, and at 802 was probably in the office dunny, flogging in celebration.

    Oh the irony. The left so love good open honest debate. See, tui ad, right there…

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Colville (2,298 comments) says:

    Wineoh, ONE mature pine takes up 30M2 ! (@ final stocked rate of 333 trees/Ha) Wouldnt read the same if the fire brigade were struggling to bring a burning xmas tree under control… :-)

    Hmmo…thanks (not!) I really didnt need that image in my head…!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    @mickeysavage,

    Aside from the fact that your simplistic view of the facts is open to debate form those that might look beyond the superficial, there is one glaringly obvious reason that the legislation had to be amended…

    Without the legal change the unions could have resumed action (including a boycott) at any time during the making of the film and Jackson, Warners – and NZ quite frankly – would have been over a barrel. That uncertainty remained until the agreement was reached to amend the legislation. That uncertainty was unpalatable to Warners and rightly so.

    Now I don’t believe for a second that you don’t realise that…

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. James Stephenson (2,223 comments) says:

    But I feel much more at ease knowing the brains of Kiwiblog have nutted out problems the great philosophers of our history struggled with.

    Great philosophers? That’s overthinking it a bit isn’t it?

    All you need to do is show that one can have a rational moral code without “god gave me these instructions”…and oh look, here’s one PZ Myers prepared earlier:http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/05/22/the-objective-morality-gotcha/ based on nothing more than rational self interest (I shouldn’t do stuff to others that I wouldn’t want done to me).

    Job done.Next.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    Oh look, Hobbit patsies are still squirming. Get over it guys. Yeah, Sir Peter and Warners played us for a fool. But that’s why Sir Peter is a billionaire mega-star director, and you are just scared and angry, dickless keyboard warriors. It is social Darwinism at its finest. Welcome to LOSERVILLE. POPULATION: YOU. Sir Peter=WINNER YOU=LOSER.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. WineOh (630 comments) says:

    @ Colville, so true.

    Actual News: Small fire of 30sqm next to a golf course. Could be put out with garden hose, but fire service & several reporters called.

    NZ Herald: Another Inferno in the Nation’s Capital, concerned residents flee, demand answers.

    Investigate Magazine: “The Hollow Trees” – two suspicious fires in just two weeks, investigate goes behind the scenes to the seedy underbelly of pyromania and the ACT party.

    Labour Party: David Shearer- “Does the minister stand by all his comments of last year regarding funding of the fire service?”

    Green Party: This fire clearly demonstrates this government’s lack of concern for the environment, and we demand an inquiry as to how fire impacts local wild life, and its relation to fracking.

    The Standard: [photoshopped image of Nick Smith with a flame thrower, torching a forest] This government is fucking our trees as well as our people. This would never have happened if Helen was in charge. Three more Kiwiblog users banned for questioning this line of logic.

    Reddit: Photo of small fire, with a photobomb of a cute cat in the foreground, with whatever is the latest popular meme.

    Gareth Morgan: All fires across the country should be banned. Here are the names and phone numbers of city councillors and SPCA managers who fiddled while Wellington burned.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. David Garrett (7,523 comments) says:

    I wonder if it ever occurs to Presland…during those moments of reflection and questioning that we all have…that behaviour that is readily tolerated over here would result in instant banishment to the gulag by the Commissars over at his spiritual home? Whereas over here the headmaster watches with benign indifference?

    You do reflect, sometimes, on whether what you believe to be certainly the case is in fact so, don’t you Greg?

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Pete George (23,680 comments) says:

    Not a great start for The Daily Post credibility:

    Pete George – an example of right wing blogging falsehoods

    By Lynn Prentice / February 28, 2013 / No Comments

    “The implication that Pete George is evidentially trying to imply is that The Standard is run by Labour in the same manner that those two blogs are.”

    – See more at: http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/02/28/pete-george-an-example-of-right-wing-blogging-falsehoods/#sthash.acax3HVZ.dpuf

    So in the heading a Prentice states an obvious falsehood.

    And then implies that Kiwiblog and Whale Oil are run by National in the opening paragraph.

    Hypocrisy overload.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    Actually modern liberals show that morality becomes completely unmoored when “freed from the shackles of religion“.

    For example no libbie bats an eyelid at the mass slaughter of infants in our public hospitals and they all happily embrace unnatural marriage, an artifact of a people whose sense of reality has become completely unglued.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. RF (1,446 comments) says:

    David Garrett. 9.33am.

    Re Greg Presland. He’s just dipping is toes in the water on this side as he realises the labour movement has gone to hell in a handcart. We may see more contributions from him as he looks for new best friends.

    I agree that the rabid Prentice would have banned such a posting on the standard for at least 6 months.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. hmmokrightitis (1,595 comments) says:

    “Actually modern liberals show that morality becomes completely unmoored when “freed from the shackles of religion“.”

    Ive seen less shit at the Albany sewerage outflow. “Only the sky pixie can give us moral purpose and strength”

    Get a grip Andrei. I think you will find many of us dont need to believe in a concocted fantasy to live a good life.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. virtualmark (1,536 comments) says:

    So, James Stephenson …

    All you need to do is show that one can have a rational moral code without “god gave me these instructions”

    Supposedly simple then. But actually no.

    Whose rational self interest are we talking about? A person’s self interest hinges on their objectives and their ambition. Your objective might be to get through the day without conflicting with anyone, so your self interest is to get along. Stalin’s objective was to control Russia, so his self interest led to him having millions executed.

    “I shouldn’t do stuff to others that I wouldn’t want done to me” is Hallmark-card level philosophy that doesn’t account for human nature.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    No, Mickey would have received accolades at The Strandard rather than a ban – he is a dyed-in-the-wool Cunliffe supporter and therefore protected

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. James Stephenson (2,223 comments) says:

    Actually modern liberals show that morality becomes completely unmoored when “freed from the shackles of religion“.

    That we generally rejct religious rules designed to guarantee the next generation of childhood indoctrinees is a different argument altogether. I’d rather hope that people are going around not-killing each other for a reason better than “god told me not to”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    The big story of the 1980s buried

    The story threatened the very existence of the CIA.

    In 2004, the reporter ‘committed suicide’ by shooting himself in the head – twice.

    The price of telling the truth.
    – See more at: http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/the-bogus-drug-war-1/the-price-of-telling-the-truth.html#sthash.x8MY1Aq7.dpuf

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    NAPOLITANO: Obama’s false alarms

    In an effort to remove the hot-potato issue of excessive government spending from the 2012 presidential campaign, and calling the bluff of congressional Republicans who always seem to favor domestic spending cuts but increased military spending, President Obama suggested the concept of “sequester” in late 2011.

    His idea was to reduce the rate of increased spending by 2 percent across the board — on domestic and military spending. To his surprise, the Republicans went along with this. They did so either because they lacked the political fortitude and the political will to designate the unconstitutional and pork-barrel federal spending projects to be cut, or because they thought that with the debt of the federal government then approaching $15 trillion (it is now $16.6 trillion and growing), any reductions in spending money the government doesn’t have are preferred to no reductions. So, instead of enacting a budget, and instead of recognizing that much of its spending is simply not authorized by the Constitution, Congress enacted the so-called sequester legislation, and the president signed it into law.

    The reductions the sequesters require are reductions in the rate of increased spending from those originally planned by Mr. Obama and authorized by Congress. Since the federal government has not had a budget in four years, even though federal law requires it to have one every year, these are planned expenditures, not budgetary items, on which the president wants to spend more money. Congress does not feel bound to obey the laws it has written; hence it has disregarded the legal requirement of a budget. Without a budget, the president has great leeway as to how to allocate funds within each department of the executive branch of the federal government.

    Nevertheless, even if these sequesters do kick in, the feds will spend more in 2013 than in 2012. That’s because the sequesters are not cuts to spending; rather, they are reductions in planned increases in spending. The reductions amount to about two cents for every planned dollar of increased spending for every federal department.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/28/obamas-false-alarms/

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. virtualmark (1,536 comments) says:

    James,

    I’d rather hope that people are going around not-killing each other for a reason better than “god told me not to”.

    I’d rather expect that people are going around not-killing each other for the reason that if they do so they’ll be put in jail. Based on a justice system based heavily on Christian values and ethics.

    The immediate challenge for atheism is that it couldn’t have come up with a similar universal moral code by itself. Despite your best “golden rule” attempts.

    The more troublesome challenge for atheists – who typically pride themselves on being rationalists – is that it would be logically irrational for atheists to come up with many of those values and ethics.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    pete, your 08:03 fishing expedition will get a nibble, not a bite.

    Your 6 points can be summed up with one phrase: “I believe”.

    Which is fair enough.

    For my part, I believe you have been deceived.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. James Stephenson (2,223 comments) says:

    I’d rather expect that people are going around not-killing each other for the reason that if they do so they’ll be put in jail. Based on a justice system based heavily on Christian values and ethics.

    I’d rather hope that it’s because they think it’s wrong to do something to another person that you wouldn’t want done to yourself…you’re only holding off killing people because a) god told you not to and b) you’re scared of getting caught are you?

    The more troublesome challenge for atheists – who typically pride themselves on being rationalists – is that it would be logically irrational for atheists to come up with many of those values and ethics.

    Bollocks. The troublesome thing for theists to explain is how we have these morals that are evolutionary developments that pre-date the invention of religion.

    I’m more than rationally satisfied that “morals” are an evolutionary development that makes human society more successful.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. thedavincimode (6,869 comments) says:

    Andrei

    If it’s all too much for you, you could shift here. It would give a a chance to get in on the ground floor and set it up the way you want it. Just you, kowtow, Lucia, harriet, Kris K and President for Life Redbaiter. Oh, I get overcome just thinking about the dinner parties …

    God pissed off so has another go at getting it right

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. OneTrack (3,218 comments) says:

    mickysavage (781) Says:
    March 1st, 2013 at 8:02 am
    “Who would have guessed?

    The Hobbit dispute had been settled as Helen kelly claimed well before the pseudo crisis and march and the urgent legislation and the Government agreed to pay Warners $35 million of our tax money.”

    You miss the point completely. Who was to say the blacklist wouldn’t be put on again at a more critical part of the project? Peter Jackson and Warners just didn’t trust the union anymore. The emails make that very clear.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. virtualmark (1,536 comments) says:

    So James, ponder on this …

    There is no God. There was no “creation”. Stuff just existed and then there was the Big Bang and then there was Darwinian evolution … and here we find ourselves the result of all that.

    We’re all just the result of some big cosmic accident. Surely we just exist today, and then when we die there is nothing. There is no heaven or any hell. There is no God that we are accountable to.

    Right?

    So question: What is the sanctity of life? Why would/could life be sacred?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. kowtow (8,733 comments) says:

    Talking of shit and rubbish in the news, Karl du Fresne has another excellent piece on his blog.

    “Journalism has been feminised”,but isn’t that the case with so much in our relentlessly “equalised” society?

    http://karldufresne.blogspot.co.nz/2013/02/a-fatally-flawed-model.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    The “golden rule’ has nothing to do with religion. They just picked up on what was commonsense and put it in handy place for the top cream of society that could read and write, to do so.

    As with most rules in religion, they are first based in commonsense, or what is the best thing to do in a particular situation. e.g. Muslim burying the body with 24 hours – given the climate extremes of most historically Muslim countries, that’s a really good idea!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    From the SMH:

    Horsemeat now donkey – what next?

    The meat scandal spreads to South Africa as donkey, water buffalo and goat is found in sausages and burgers.

    It’s all good protein :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Kea (13,352 comments) says:

    As with most rules in religion, they are first based in commonsense

    Errrrrrr, NO !

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Peter (1,723 comments) says:

    Why is Pete George lecturing us about AGW nonsense?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Kea (13,352 comments) says:

    A nasty, brutish, imperial presidency

    Today’s White House definitely isn’t poor, lavishly feeding off the wealth of the American taxpayer, and the current presidency certainly isn’t short, with nearly four more years to run. But it is undeniably nasty and brutish, as veteran Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward has found after questioning President Obama’s narrative on the sequester issue.
    Woodward is hardly a conservative, and has been at the heart of the liberal media establishment for decades. He is, however, not afraid of challenging the status quo, as he did with his 2010 book Obama’s Wars. Woodward is not alone. Lanny Davis, another liberal columnist and former special counsel to Bill Clinton, who has penned several pieces critical of Obama’s policies, has also spoken out against similar White House tactics.
    The threats being dished out to Woodward, Davis and others are extremely disturbing in a free society, and are a reflection of an imperial presidency that acts with impunity and is highly intolerant of dissent. The heavy-arm tactics that Obama’s team have deployed for years against conservatives are now being increasingly implemented as well against liberals questioning the president’s record.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100204252/a-nasty-brutish-imperial-presidency/

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. kowtow (8,733 comments) says:

    Pete George is a boring link whore (that’s the expression I believe) who posts just about anything early enough to try and get idiots to go to his site.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Jack5 (5,145 comments) says:

    Found online….

    Minutes of meeting of Kiwiblog branch of Blogaholics Anonymous 1 March 2013

    Pete: Good evening. My name is Pete and I’m a blogaholic.

    Meeting: Good man. We’re with you. Stick with the programme.

    Pete: I am powerless over Kiwiblog and my own blog. I think of them during the night, and spring to the keyboard while I’m still eating breakfast. There’s a row at home because I want a line internet connection for the toilet – WiFi’s just too slow. I’ve tried hypnotism, Dunne therapy, cutting back coffee, gong to the gym, multiculturalism, meditation. Nothing helps. I’ve just got to get what’s inside me out.

    Meeting speakers: Work on the 12 steps Pete. You’ve admitted you are powerless before the blogosphere. Turn to a greater power. You have to believe in something – God, the Internet, electricity, feminism.

    Pete: But the Internet’s so strong. Perhaps the Gummint should ban blogs.

    Meeting speakers: Look within Pete. Prohibition won’t work! Never does. You’ve got to beat this yourself.

    Pete: You’re right. I’ll work on the Steps – after a couple of posts I’ve got to make tonight.

    Red: My name is Red and I’m really pissed off. Really! Really! Really! Pissed off with Left-wing bloggers and the whole country is fucked.

    Meeting: No swearing, Red. Admit your a blogaholic. Get on track. Address your anger.

    Red: If you say I’m a blogaholic then I’m damn well not. I’m not going back to anger management! Bunch of gay leftist therapists. I don’t need to be here any way. I’m going to the car to blog. I’ve got Vodafone 4G. And that’s while you stupid, Leftist, Greenie, decadent pricks jabber and look through your own navels while the Western world collapses.

    Jack5: Come back Red! You’re sometimes on the right track. You just need to slow…[door slammed]

    Micky: My name is Micky and I’m a blogaholic, but I’m getting great help from the State. I’ve had counsellors from Work and Income, from Public Health, from the Education Department, from Local Body Helplines, from several consultants, from Blogaholics HelpLine,from the Red Cross but this country is miserly in its help for ordinary people. It’s capitalism run amok.

    Meeting: Gotta do it yourself Micky. The state counsellors will wean you off the Net just long enough to build up your appetite for 30 all-nighter sessions in a row. Gotta come from within.

    DPF: My name is David and I’m Father Blogaholic. I know some of you think I shouldn’t be here because you think it’s like a publican at an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, but I really care about you, and I don’t want you buggering your lives just for Kiwiblog. I’m with you all.

    Meeting: Yeah, right.

    Kowtow: My name is Kowtow, and I’m a blogaholic. Blogs are just so addictive. I’m stuck on Step 5. I’m just not getting any messages back. I’m not sure I’ve got his right email address. Will someone help me with this after the meeting?

    Meeting: Of course brother.

    Kowtow: An I’m not sure how there can be an Internet spirit. The Internet is just wires and electricity.

    Meeting: So is our brain, Kowtow. And, didn’t you ever see that great sci-fi movie Solaris!

    Meeting chair for the night: Okay guys and gals, time to wind up for tonight. Europe’s coming on line, and America will follow soon. We’ll close with our prayer:

    Holy Internet, who gave us broadband:
    Grant us power over craven blogitis;
    and luck to escape keyboard arm-itis.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. kowtow (8,733 comments) says:

    So if morals are evolutionary,and we have evolved into such moral beings can anyone explain in evolutionary terms the utter immorality of the 20th century?

    The Stalinist ,Maoist,Khmer ,Nazi extremes.To name but a few.

    Then there’s the absolute but largely ignored disaster that the independant Congo is ,to this day.

    Evolution has a lot to answer for.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Jack5 (5,145 comments) says:

    Twelve steps of Blogaholics:

    1. We admitted we were powerless over blogging – that our lives and computers had become unmanageable.
    2. We came to believe that a Power greater than the ourselves could restore us to sanity.
    3. We made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of the great God of the Internet as we understood It or Him or Her.
    4. We made a searching and fearless moral inventory of our accumulated posts.
    5. We admitted to the Holy Internet, to ourselves, and to another recovering blogger the exact nature of our our impatience, our precipitateness, our irascibility, our petulance,our exasperation, and our pride in being omniscient..
    6. We were entirely ready to have the Holy Internet remove all these defects of character.
    7. We humbly asked the Holy Internet to remove our shortcomings.
    8. We made a list of all persons, especially other posters, we had flamed, ridiculed, or hounded, and became willing to make amends to them all.
    9. We made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
    10. We continued to take personal inventory, and when we were wrong, promptly admitted it.
    11. We sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with the Holy Internet as we understood It, Him,or Her, praying only for knowledge of Its/His/Her will for us and the power to carry that out.
    12 Having had an awakening as the result of these steps, we try to carry this message to blogaholics, and to practise these principles in all our postings.

    Ahwomen.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. James Stephenson (2,223 comments) says:

    Right?

    So question: What is the sanctity of life? Why would/could life be sacred?

    You’re asking me to explain an evolutionary development, that has made our species the most successful social animal on the plant, within your religious-thought framework? What’s the point?

    We can rationally say that it’s in each individual’s interests to treat others as they wish to be treated, because that does increase the chance of them being treated well. It’s an evolutionary strategy. It’s an alternative evolutionary strategy to look for narrow short-term advantage by cheating those societal “rules”.

    Science even has a name for people that are incapable of that instinctive understanding of how right treatment of others is to our own advantage…we call them psychopaths.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. virtualmark (1,536 comments) says:

    No, I’m asking you to think about if we are just an evolutionary development, just a latest result of a big cosmic accident, then why does life have any inherent value?

    The honest rational answer is that it doesn’t. In the atheistic framework you are just a collection of atoms that came to be, exists for a while, and then disappears. There is no right, wrong or purpose in your – or anyone’s – existence.

    So life has no inherent value of itself and there is no tragedy if/when you die. If a person dies that is just evolution moving on. Creative destruction.

    So if life has no inherent value then why is killing ethically wrong? Surely evolution is all about killing. That’s how the best adapted get to the top right? Nature red in tooth and claw.

    Rationally, why would an atheist be troubled by that?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. virtualmark (1,536 comments) says:

    BTW, I don’t consider myself a Christian. All I’m arguing is that Christianity has a lot more coherency than atheism. My experience is that 99.9% of the people who call themselves atheists have never deeply thought through the implications of atheism, and don’t lead rational atheist lives.

    Philosophy has a name for people who don’t live to the stated values of their beliefs … we call them hypocrites.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    Unfit cops to be hooked from the beat

    One clause is a 1.6 metre jump. That’ll take a lot of shorties out so police might as well go back to height requirements

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/8368774/Unfit-cops-to-be-hooked-from-the-beat

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. virtualmark (1,536 comments) says:

    We can rationally say that it’s in each individual’s interests to treat others as they wish to be treated, because that does increase the chance of them being treated well. It’s an evolutionary strategy. It’s an alternative evolutionary strategy to look for narrow short-term advantage by cheating those societal “rules”

    But surely the number one evolutionary strategy is “the strongest will out”? The strong kill the weak.

    When I read Darwin’s work on evolution I don’t see him suggesting the animals all get together for a round of kumbaya by the campfire. The tough eat the soft. If you believe in evolution then you should own that. Really own it and live it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Kea (13,352 comments) says:

    virtualmark, caring for each other and Altruism are explained by evolutionary science. I really own that and live it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. kowtow (8,733 comments) says:

    hinamu

    The jump is in there because you can’t “discriminate” against shorties etc. It’s just another tactic to get around “equality”.

    And there’s no “equality” anyway as girlies don’t have to be as strong as boys,or as fast etc.

    It’s all bollocks.( or to be non gender specific,it’s all genitalia)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    Pope Benedict departs Vatican

    http://www.reuters.com/video/2013/02/28/pope-benedict-departs-vatican?videoId=241392763&videoChannel=1

    Do Catholics feel betrayed. The Catholic community is very silent on this huge historical issue

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    They wouldn’t give a flying fuck about Pete if he wasn’t having some kind of effect on them. He obviously helped to make Bradbury impotent to the point Bradbury had to take blogging Viagra to launch an alternative site.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. sbk (313 comments) says:

    On Religion and souls…”American Dr Stuart Hameroff and British physicist Sir Roger Penrose have developed a quantum theory of consciousness asserting that our souls are contained inside structures called microtubules which live within our brain cells.”

    only a theory…but if the soul can be proven to exist !….hell!

    …it is interesting to note how some modern interpretations on the nature of reality(read Quantum) parallels some ancient and religious thinking…

    A betting man would probably hedge his bets…and attend a Mass or two.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. virtualmark (1,536 comments) says:

    But Kea,

    1. It’s clearly not the most rational response to evolution … “might is right” is … but atheists are supposed to be rationalists right?;
    2. It’s clearly not a rational lifestyle given evolution/atheism says there is no purpose or sanctity of life … the only rational responses are materialism and hedonism, not altruism;
    3. It’s clearly not something you can insist others abide by … on what basis can you insist others synchronise their moral codes, their choices about altruism etc, with yours; and
    4. If someone else was to muscle in on your life, someone stronger than you … then on what philosophical basis could you say that was wrong?

    Sure, you might be a nice person. Others clearly aren’t nice people. I guess you’re just resigned to that then right? And have no right to feel moral outrage if their unaltruistic behaviour harms you.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. James Stephenson (2,223 comments) says:

    I’m not troubled by that and the only life-after-death I care about is that of my children when my number’s up. Atheism doesn’t come with values, its only definition is not believing in any deity. All I’m saying, which you’re seemingly failing to grasp, is that it’s possible to be an atheist and rationally moral, even if most people calling themselves atheists just think the idea of god is silly and muddle along with their built-in rules of society without thinking about it much.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. publicwatchdog (2,797 comments) says:

    What do all you ‘freedom of expression’ loving Kiwibloggers think about THIS one?

    And – how appropriate/ proper/ LAWFUL is it for Auckland Council CEO Doug McKay to investigate himself, when it is HIS actions which are the subject of the complaint???

    DUH?

    ANTI-CORRUPTION ‘WHISTLE-BLOWERS’ EXPOSE HOW AUCKLAND COUNCIL CEO DOUG MCKAY HAS AUTHORISED THE ‘BLOCKING’ OF EMAILS TO ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES WITHOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE OR AUTHORITY

    Gary Osbourne http://www.allaboutauckland.com/video/1907/accusations-of-corruption-within-councils
    Grace Haden http://www.allaboutauckland.com/video/1907/accusations-of-corruption-within-councils/1
    Penny Bright http://www.allaboutauckland.com/video/1907/accusations-of-corruption-within-councils/2

    Also – what Bernard Orsman wrote about it in today’s NZ Herald:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10868429

    Kind regards,

    Penny Bright

    ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’.
    2013 Auckland Mayoral Candidate.

    http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. graham (2,346 comments) says:

    Please remember, everyone, that Penny is not to be sneered at or insulted. The sobering, somewhat sad conclusion I reached earlier this year is that Penny is to be pitied, for the lengths she will go to in order to effectively plead, “Look at me! Look at me!”

    When reading any of Penny’s writings, or observing her actions, we must remember one very important thing:

    She does not believe what she says. You cannot believe that she is sincere.

    For Penny, the prime motivation is definitively NOT to get her message out there. Think about it. If this was really her intention, would she act in such a way as to bring ridicule, scorn and pity upon herself? After all, ask anybody about Penny Bright and they may well say “Who?” But remind them of the shameful and embarrassing spectacle observed in Aotea Square when a certain lady was observed howling, squawking, abusing, and ultimately being taken away as much for her own protection as anything else, and you will see the spark of recognition, followed by scorn or possibly pity, enter their eyes. Mention that she was the lady who stood for public election, and then willfully vandalised the billboards of her opponent, and they will understand who you are talking about.

    Would someone who is supposedly such an experienced activist, who claims to be so politically aware, deliberately act in such a way as to guarantee that any message she might have will inevitably be overshadowed by her bizarre antics – if she truly cared about getting the message out there? I really don’t think so.

    The prime motivation for Penny, obviously, is to gain attention. That’s all. I’m no medical person, but surely this is a classic case of narcissism. Using other people without considering the cost of doing so; pretending to be more important than they really are; claiming to be an expert in various areas; and if you go through Hotchkiss’ seven deadly sins of narcissism (http://www.news-medical.net/health/Seven-Deadly-Sins-of-Narcissism.aspx), Penny ticks virtually every box.

    “Look at me! Look at me! PLEASE look at me …”

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Pete George (23,680 comments) says:

    kowtow at 10:57 am

    Pete George is a boring link whore (that’s the expression I believe) who posts just about anything early enough to try and get idiots to go to his site.

    Very funny kowtow. Did you not notice I have no links to my own in here so far today, I got more than enough from DPF yesterday when he linked to it.

    Yes, I have put in one link to another blog. And you have four different comments with links.

    Does that make you four times a whore? Or just pissy?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. RRM (10,001 comments) says:

    Executive summary, please Penny?

    No-one in their right mind is going to waste their lunch break wading through links of the form:

    http://www.LOOK-over_Here_New_evidence_of_Government_corruption_The_reptilians_do_not_want_you_to_see_this.nutblog.com/kumbayahmylord/1302.html

    just on the off-chance that it might NOT be utter bullshit from conspiracy theory lunatics ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. virtualmark (1,536 comments) says:

    James, I don’t doubt you think it’s possible to “be an atheist and rationally moral”. I just think you’re wrong. People like Kant, Nietsche, Kierkegaard, Hume etc spent their lives trying to prove the sentence you wrote. They demonstrably failed, and I doubt you’ve given it as much thought as they did.

    Given you’re an atheist then try this … Richard Dawkins is one of the great thinkers of rational atheism, read the first page of “The Selfish Gene” (you can see it at http://www.geoffwilkins.net/fragments/Dawkins.htm) and answer a simple question:

    Qu: If you believe in atheism & evolution, and that altruism is a rational response to those … then when Dawkins says that altruism is inconsistent with evolution where is he wrong?

    Dawkins makes a fine living travelling the world speaking to large audiences. Think of the riches that await you if you can crack the problem that he can’t solve.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    Montana House Votes 98-0 to approve anti-NDAA bill [updated]

    Arizona and Indiana also following suit.

    http://www.randpaulreview.com/2013/02/montana-house-votes-98-0-to-approve-anti-ndaa-bill-updated/

    Does anyone on here actually understand what the NDAA bill means ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. RRM (10,001 comments) says:

    The only real morality christianity teaches is the golden rule, and it’s not the only religion that teaches that.

    So if belief in an omnipotent sky fairy is the only path to a kind of morality where you treat those around you with the same fairness you’d hope to receive… well I’d be surprised! :-P

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Steve (North Shore) (4,587 comments) says:

    I printed the PDF that mickey savage posted at 8.02am. You know what? if you use an eraser you can uncover the email addresses of the senders.
    Please keep them to yourself, some may get really upset especially those cocks at the Stranded

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Kea (13,352 comments) says:

    virtualmark (1,322) Says:

    March 1st, 2013 at 11:40 am
    But Kea,

    1. It’s clearly not the most rational response to evolution … “might is right” is … but atheists are supposed to be rationalists right?;

    You are setting up strawmen. Evolution does not say “might is right”.

    I hope you realise that disputing evolution does not prove god, right ?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. virtualmark (1,536 comments) says:

    Kea,

    Firstly, evolution absolutely says might is right. That’s no strawman, it’s the absolute essence of evolution. The strong overcome the weak, and as a result their genes propagate. If might isn’t right then how do the best adapted come through while the less adapted are winkled out? You’re naive if you think evolution is kind and gentle.

    Secondly, I’m not at all trying to prove the existence of God. I’m not even disputing evolution. All I’m saying is that if you believe in evolution then you, inherently, also have to believe in a very cut-throat view of morals and behaviour. As Dawkins himself says in his writings on evolution.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. James Stephenson (2,223 comments) says:

    Look at the definition of “altruism” that Dawkins uses: an act which increases the likelihood of another’s survival at the expense of one’s own.

    I’m arguing that “moral” behaviour isn’t altruism in that sense, because by making society as a whole more successful it also benefits me. Morals are win-win, not you win at my expense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Kea (13,352 comments) says:

    virtualmark , I am surprised to learn your familiar with Dawkins writing on this subject. He explains things much better than I ever could. If he can not explain this to you, I doubt I can.

    Your not entirely wrong, but simply put, if a certain behaviour benefits the survival of the gene, then evolution will promote that behaviour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. kowtow (8,733 comments) says:

    pee wee g

    I’m linking to things that might be of interest or topical ,and they’re not mine.

    You on the other hand are linking to your own zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz,oops I dozed off there,site.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. TheContrarian (1,091 comments) says:

    ” it’s the absolute essence of evolution”

    No it isn’t. The absolute essence of evolution is changes allele frequency over time

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Kea (13,352 comments) says:

    virtualmark, this might help:

    “Dawkins coined the term “selfish gene” as a way of expressing the gene-centred view of evolution as opposed to the views focused on the organism and the group, popularizing ideas developed during the 1960s by W. D. Hamilton and others. From the gene-centred view follows that the more two individuals are genetically related, the more sense (at the level of the genes) it makes for them to behave selflessly with each other. Therefore the concept is especially good at explaining many forms of altruism, regardless of a common misuse of the term along the lines of a selfishness gene.

    An organism is expected to evolve to maximize its inclusive fitness—the number of copies of its genes passed on globally (rather than by a particular individual). As a result, populations will tend towards an evolutionarily stable strategy

    Many phenomena explainedWhen examined from the standpoint of gene selection, many biological phenomena that, in prior models, were difficult to explain become easier to understand. In particular, phenomena such as kin selection and eusociality, where organisms act altruistically, against their individual interests (in the sense of health, safety or personal reproduction) to help related organisms reproduce, can be explained as gene sets “helping” copies of themselves (or sequences with the same phenotypic effect) in other bodies to replicate. Interestingly, the “selfish” actions of genes lead to unselfish actions by organisms.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. TheContrarian (1,091 comments) says:

    “evolution absolutely says might is right. That’s no strawman, it’s the absolute essence of evolution. ”

    I mean really, that is utter shit.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. virtualmark (1,536 comments) says:

    James, surely you can do better than that? Dawkins refers to altruism as behaviours an individual makes that may not be immediately for their own benefit, but rather for the broader benefit of society.

    Do you have a different view of what altruism is???

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    Rand Paul

    I believe that the sequester is a pittance that does not cut enough. If the sequester were to take effect, our spending would only be cut by 2.3%. Let me repeat that — these “eviscerating” cuts will leave our country with 97.7% of our current spending, cutting a mere $85 billion from this years $3.6 trillion budget.

    But does anyone on here understand the sequester ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. virtualmark (1,536 comments) says:

    Kea. I think that last paragraph you cut-and-pasted from Wikipedia is a stretch from Dawkin’s core thesis in “The Selfish Gene”.

    Dawkins doesn’t shy away from saying that evolution and natural selection have unappealing rough edges. Unappealing being in the sense that the rational behaviours that evolution and natural selection rewards are not gentle and kind. That’s why he explicitly says “universal love and the welfare of the species as a whole are concepts that simply do not make evolutionary sense” and “Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature”.

    It seems to me atheists spend too much time singing kumbaya, and too little time thinking about the rational implications of their supposedly uber-rational beliefs.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. James Stephenson (2,223 comments) says:

    That Dawkins definition comes from the link you posted…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. virtualmark (1,536 comments) says:

    The Contrarian,

    “evolution absolutely says might is right. That’s no strawman, it’s the absolute essence of evolution. ”

    I mean really, that is utter shit.

    Nope. It’s not utter shit. Evolution is ruthless. It has no time for weaklings. It sheds them out the backdoor without a second thought.

    How do you think the strong survive??? How do you think the best alleles you refer to get through?

    You seem to be one of those people that sees meat in the supermarket freezer all tidily wrapped in plastic but doesn’t stop to think about the abbattoir behind the curtain.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Kea (13,352 comments) says:

    virtualmark, I agree, but my point is that evolution does support the bleak outcomes predicted by some who oppose the evolutionary fact.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    Ex CIA agent explains how to delete the elite! [VIDEO]

    http://www.secretsofthefed.com/ex-cia-agent-explains-how-to-delete-the-elite-video

    The US has already been told it is insolvent

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. TheContrarian (1,091 comments) says:

    All evolution means is ‘change in allele (gene) frequency over time’.

    It isn’t just through being strong – genes change all the time. Everything is born with mutations, some of which are beneficial and are passed on. Some evolution is driven by environmental change.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Kea (13,352 comments) says:

    virtualmark, what is your point anyway ?

    You seem to be implying we should reject facts, if we don’t like them, and just make something up ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. virtualmark (1,536 comments) says:

    James,

    What I’m saying is that Dawkin’s view of altruism, which I paraphrased, is effectively the same as yours. Behaviours that don’t immediately benefit the individual, but which the individual hopes will eventually benefit them via society being better off.

    And Dawkin says that bumpkiss.

    Is he wrong?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Viking2 (11,553 comments) says:

    Colville (604) Says:
    March 1st, 2013 at 8:55 am

    Wineoh, ONE mature pine takes up 30M2 ! (@ final stocked rate of 333 trees/Ha) Wouldnt read the same if the fire brigade were struggling to bring a burning xmas tree under control… :-)

    Hmmo…thanks (not!) I really didnt need that image in my head…!

    ————————-
    No worries about the Xmas tree but think about the poor fairy at the top.
    singed minge for Xmas.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. James Stephenson (2,223 comments) says:

    No Contrarian is correct, evolution says the fittest survive. I don’t need to outrun the lion, I just need to outrun you and I’m not altruistic if I share the job of keeping a lookout …you can’t have my running shoes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Kea (13,352 comments) says:

    That Dawkins definition comes from the link you posted…

    James Stephenson , do you mean this ?

    “it makes for them to behave selflessly with each other. Therefore the concept is especially good at explaining many forms of altruism, regardless of a common misuse of the term along the lines of a selfishness gene.

    where organisms act altruistically, against their individual interests (in the sense of health, safety or personal reproduction)

    Interestingly, the “selfish” actions of genes lead to unselfish actions by organisms.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. James Stephenson (2,223 comments) says:

    You’re misinterpreting Dawkins. When he talks about “biological nature” he isn’t allowing for humans ability to think about downstream implications and empathise with others

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. James Stephenson (2,223 comments) says:

    It wasn’t that bit no Kea, but it’s interesting that if I “altruistically” die in saving my child, then that’s my genes acting selfishly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Kea (13,352 comments) says:

    JS, yes and your GENES survive (in your child).

    It is about the genes, not about individuals.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Big Tim (20 comments) says:

    There is some very confused thinking about evolution in the thread.
    Evolutionary theory describes what is happening in the world. It does not describe morality.

    An analogy;
    the theory of gravity says that when a drop my pen it will be attracted to the objects with a high mass. This means it falls to the ground as the ground has the highest mass in the area. This a scientific theory which describes reality. No one is says that it is morally correct for the pen to fall.

    In evolution we say that organisms which are adapted to the environment are more likely to survive and pass their genes on to the next generation. (Strictly speaking this is the theory of natural selection not the theory of evolution). Evolutionary theory does not claim one organism is morally superior to antoher for surviving.

    Attempts to impose morality on observations fo raelity are likely to lead to slopply thinking.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. virtualmark (1,536 comments) says:

    The Contrarian, James,

    It isn’t just through being strong

    Contrarian is correct, evolution says the fittest survive

    Fittest. Strongest. Tom-ah-to. Tom-ay-to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. virtualmark (1,536 comments) says:

    Kea,

    Go back to the source … yes Dawkins refers to altruistic behaviour. But he explicitly says that’s in very limited and special circumstances. What he also clearly says is that is not to mean as the basis for a whole society.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. virtualmark (1,536 comments) says:

    Big Tim,

    To be clear … what I am saying is that if you take an atheistic view of the world, then clearly no God was involved in our development to where we are today, and the generally accepted alternative is evolution.

    Then I agree with you in that evolution itself implies no morals. However, there are rational responses to evolution. And those responses aren’t an attractive basis for a society. Rational for an individual, but not attractive for a society.

    More broadly, what I am pointing out is that if there is no God – and note I’m also not saying that there is – then the rational responses is self-interest. Hedonism, eroticism, materialism, lots of other isms.

    After all, if a rational humanist only has this one lifetime and then there is nothing then surely the rational thing to do is to cram as much self-enjoyment into life as they can. There is no reckoning with the sky fairy after they die. There is no diety who will hold them to account for the way they treat others. So the rational thing to do is to enjoy life as much as possible.

    It’s a short walk from “no God” to “no limits” to “hedonism” to “nihilism”. Welcome to Nietzsche.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Weihana (4,583 comments) says:

    virtualmark (1,327) Says:
    March 1st, 2013 at 11:24 am

    No, I’m asking you to think about if we are just an evolutionary development, just a latest result of a big cosmic accident, then why does life have any inherent value?

    The honest rational answer is that it doesn’t. In the atheistic framework you are just a collection of atoms that came to be, exists for a while, and then disappears. There is no right, wrong or purpose in your – or anyone’s – existence.

    So life has no inherent value of itself and there is no tragedy if/when you die. If a person dies that is just evolution moving on. Creative destruction.

    So if life has no inherent value then why is killing ethically wrong?…

    virtualmark (1,327) Says:
    March 1st, 2013 at 11:59 am

    James, I don’t doubt you think it’s possible to “be an atheist and rationally moral”. I just think you’re wrong.

    virtualmark (1,323) Says:
    March 1st, 2013 at 12:09 pm

    All I’m saying is that if you believe in evolution then you, inherently, also have to believe in a very cut-throat view of morals and behaviour. As Dawkins himself says in his writings on evolution…

    The problem with addressing these questions is that before they can be addressed you first need to understand what ethics are. For instance, kowtow asks why, if morality is evolutionary, does so much immorality exist today? This of course begs the question as to why kowtow’s conception of morality has any objective validity rather than just being his subjective opinions. But a similar question can be asked of evolutionary morality. If certain moral standards are selected for by some sort of evolutionary process what makes those standards “moral”? It doesn’t obviously follow that because something happens it is therefore “good” or “moral”. This of course is Hume’s “is-ought” problem and simply observing that some sort of evolutionary process may select for certain moral standards does not demonstrate that those standards are “good” or “moral”.

    But this problem is really just about perspective. Obviously the Universe doesn’t care if we live or die. The term “care” is meaningless in this context and, as you say, we are just atoms that come together for a while and then we die. All the Universe “cares” about is the laws of physics. But why does that negate the fact that WE care? What is the relevance of the Universe having some sort of embedded moral code in its fundamental structures? There is no relevance because morality is all about what WE want and what WE want to achieve.

    Thus the only rational meaning that can be attached to the terms “good”, “moral”, “ethical” is a conditional meaning that objectively describes the means of achieving some predefined goal. You say there is no purpose in our existence but this is wrong: we give ourselves purpose and no one and nothing else can ever do that for us.

    To this end morality is nothing more or less than an extension of computation: albeit a very high level of computation which associates human initiated goals with the means of achieving those goals through action in the real world. We want to live in peace so we don’t kill. We want security for our property so we outlaw theft. So while morality may have evolutionary elements which assists superior moral computation, fundamentally it is human desire that motivates moral reasoning in the first place and in no other context can morality have any real meaning. Any other conception is merely arbitrary rule making or mystic invocations of things which do not appear to exist.

    Simply put: morality is the tool by which a rational person achieves their goals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. David Garrett (7,523 comments) says:

    A wee suggestion DPF…in addition to the daily GD, perhaps we could also have a daily “God is real/No he isn’t” thread (someone can think of a much snappier title) so those interested in an endless debate with no conclusion – until the Grim Reaper gets you – can do it there? Saves the old scrolling finger….

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Weihana (4,583 comments) says:

    David Garrett,

    debate with no conclusion…

    Is there another kind? Even in a democracy debate is not ended when legislation is passed. Debate never ends. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    Why are central banks buying so much gold while demonising it in the media ?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    About time

    NZ First is drafting policy that would make it compulsory for government departments, state-owned companies and local councils to give first preference to NZ firms over foreign competitors.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Komata (1,196 comments) says:

    And what NZ companies does Winston (a Laawyer BTW), have shares in already?

    One wonders.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    ^^ Oh no! Winston’s form of Stalinism, with the big central plan. What an enormously regressive step!

    Won’t help our FTA’s too much either. So much for growing exports!

    I guess his next brainwave will be to have the same govt agencies buy all the exports, so that our exporters don’t suffer and continue to grow. If things then get a bit flaky he might try wage & price freezes to help keep things on an even keel.

    What an outdated, outmoded and fundamentally flawed idea.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Harriet (5,118 comments) says:

    Liars @ LGBT

    Gay sex is nothing like what ‘man-woman’ – humans – would ever do if they were the last two people on earth.

    Now, would the last lesbian and last gay-boy on earth please admit that they ‘are not born that way’?

    Or would gays really hate mankind that much and prefer to live like animals ‘naturally’ and kill humans off – forever?

    The jokes on the gays and the MP’s! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Pete George (23,680 comments) says:

    NZ First is drafting policy that would make it compulsory for government departments, state-owned companies and local councils to give first preference to NZ firms over foreign competitors.,/blockquote>
    That would open up some good business opportunities.

    If any government departments, state-owned companies or local councils tendr for something that isn’t normally supplied in New Zealand have an NZ registered company do a deal with one potential supplier to supply through the company, effectively excluding any other foreign competitors.

    Less competition, bigger margin, but hey, if Winston’s in Government his friend Russel will print him the extra money.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. TheContrarian (1,091 comments) says:

    “Now, would the last lesbian and last gay-boy on earth please admit that they ‘are not born that way’?”

    Are you attracted to Gerry Brownlie, Harriet?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    About time

    NZ First is drafting policy that would make it compulsory for government departments, state-owned companies and local councils to give first preference to NZ firms over foreign competitors.

    When will NZ First find the time to REPAY THE $158,000 they owe the NZ taxpayer?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. RRM (10,001 comments) says:

    Since we’re cross-posting from other threads into General Debate…

    Head over to the ‘husband and wife’ thread if you want a free lesson from Harriet on how to have a wank, or anal sex:

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/03/still_husband_and_wife_not_just_spouses.html/comment-page-1#comment-1105238

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Viking2 (11,553 comments) says:

    Exposing a complex software system developed from scratch to millions of users from one second to the next is not something that you would normally do.

    However, with all of our assets still restrained, we had to build the site with minimal resources and simply didn’t have the luxury of extensive pre-launch software and infrastructure testing. Nevertheless, the teething troubles were remarkably moderate, and within 72 hours, all major soft- and hardware bottlenecks were resolved.

    So if Mega can do this why couldn’t Novapay????

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10868503

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. virtualmark (1,536 comments) says:

    Weihana,

    Thus the only rational meaning that can be attached to the terms “good”, “moral”, “ethical” is a conditional meaning that objectively describes the means of achieving some predefined goal. You say there is no purpose in our existence but this is wrong: we give ourselves purpose and no one and nothing else can ever do that for us.

    Kind of.

    Practically all religions impose a universal moral law where everyone in the society shares a common view of what is “good”, “moral”, “ethical” etc. They can do this because they also have a universal moral lawgiver, and the religion says that ultimately that lawgiver is keeping score of whether each person is “good” or “bad”, and there will be reward and punishment.

    Atheism doesn’t have that universal moral lawgiver nor the reward or the punishment. So atheism devolves into everyone having their own individual view of what is “good”, “moral”, “ethical”. And in that worldview no one person’s idea of “good” is inherently superior to any other person’s view of “good”.

    You might be nice and love your neighbour. Someone in Papua New Guinea might eat their neighbour. Who is to say which of those two options is “good”?

    Ultimately all that creates is the fertile environment for the strongest person in the society to impose their view of “good” on everyone else. Enter Stalin, and every other totalitarian.

    From an atheistic point of view Stalin is just the logical extension of Kant’s attempts to create a universal moral law without God. Eventually Kant said the only way you can make that work is if individual happiness is NOT the objective. Instead everyone has to subordinate their own happiness for the greater good of the whole society. So who defines what that good of the whole society is? Why the dictator of course! So Kant saying “you can’t live for your own individual happiness, but only for the good of the society” leads directly to Stalin saying “don’t worry about whether you’re happy, your only goal is to live and die for the good of Mother Russia”.

    People like Kant, Kierkegaard, Hume, Russell etc have tried all the avenues for creating an attractive atheistic society. And all have failed. Atheism leads down a path to either totalitarianism, or hedonism, or nihilism. None of those are the basis for a society I want to live in.

    But “atheists” like we see here in GD aren’t really atheists at all. They say they are. But really they’re “Christians minus”. They live to Christian values, but minus God. They just don’t see that because they’ve been marinating in those Christian values all their lives, since they are baked into the very structure of our Western world. But they are uniquely Christian values … and clearly not present in societies based on Islam, Buddhism, Confucianism, Mayan or whatever other religion you want to point to. And they are clearly values atheism could not rationally and logically develop itself.

    I have no real problem with the “Christian minus” thing – people are free to choose the life they like. But I am bemused they then round on Christianity when their lives are actually 90% Christian and 10% atheist.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Harriet (5,118 comments) says:

    RRM#

    I was adding it into what Kea and others were talking about –

    “….What I’m saying is that Dawkin’s view of altruism, which I paraphrased, is effectively the same as yours. Behaviours that don’t immediately benefit the individual, but which the individual hopes will eventually benefit them via society being better off.

    And Dawkin says that bumpkiss…..Is he wrong?…”

    Well RRM is he wrong or right? if a lesbian and a gay male were the last two pwople on earth?

    Would they forgo the ‘I was born this way’ bullshit and be altruistic? :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Harriet (5,118 comments) says:

    virtualmark#

    Atheism is really only the ‘rejection’ of theism. Religions ect.

    It is not a ‘replacement’.

    ‘replacement’ for the most part is another topic altogether.

    “…But “atheists” like we see here in GD aren’t really atheists at all. They say they are. But really they’re “Christians minus”….”

    thanks. that is true.

    BTW. they are going to hate you forever. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. RRM (10,001 comments) says:

    I was adding it into what Kea and others were talking about –

    Oh what utter bullshit Harriet; all your words are still there in black and white on that thread, you cannot tell bare faced lies in this media and expect to get away with it.

    And I think it’s sad that you cannot comprehend a straight couple giving head or doing anal :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Harriet (5,118 comments) says:

    RRM # 2:48pm

    “…Since we’re cross-posting from other threads into General Debate……”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. thedavincimode (6,869 comments) says:

    RRM

    Thanks for that. I came back here to get away from Auntie Harriet’s Introductory Homosexual Sex 101. She seems remarkably well informed – unnaturally so in fact.

    BTW, do you know what is with harriet’s : :cool: ? Every time a coconut yet there doesn’t ever appear to be anything cool, clever or even vaguely sensible in what she says.

    Oops, how could I forget: :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Northland Wahine (667 comments) says:

    RRM… I don’t have a penis, so does that mean I can’t masturbate?

    …awaits for Mrs H’s condemnation….

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Pete George (23,680 comments) says:

    Atheism is really only the ‘rejection’ of theism. Religions ect.

    Nonsense. I’ve never rejected ‘theism’, I’ve never believed in theism so couldn’t reject it.

    We are all born without any beliefs. We learn and acquire beliefs of others as children, so theism is acquired as part of the learning process – by some, and others don’t become thiest at all, while others become theist when they get older and decide for themselves. And only some become theist and then reject it – although many only partly reject it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Harriet (5,118 comments) says:

    Yep!

    If a gay boy and a lesbian from NZ were the last two people on earth – mankind would die out!

    Because they were ‘born that way’!

    Gay MP’S in the parliment of NZ are lying ! :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Harriet (5,118 comments) says:

    “…and others don’t become thiest at all,…”

    Fucken bullshit Pete!

    No man is an island. One way or another they DO subcribe to at least one belief!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    @RRM,

    The stream of nonsense from Harriet that you linked to does not really reflect at all on gays or lesbians. It does, however, reflect a great deal on Harriet…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. TheContrarian (1,091 comments) says:

    “So atheism devolves into everyone having their own individual view of what is “good”, “moral”, “ethical”.”

    So if religion was the opposite we’d see a cohesive religion without schism or fracture. But we don’t see that, we see all different religions and factions of the same religion all proclaiming themselves to be the absolute truth and the absolute moral authority. All of them having their own individual view of what is “good”, “moral”, “ethical”.”

    “But “atheists” like we see here in GD aren’t really atheists at all. They say they are. But really they’re “Christians minus”. They live to Christian values, but minus God.”

    These ‘Christian values’ aren’t really Christian values at all. The Code Hammurabi outlines laws and ethical behaviour and it predates the ten commandments and wasn’t based on Christianity at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Pete George (23,680 comments) says:

    One way or another they DO subcribe to at least one belief!

    Some who have strong religious beliefs seem to have trouble comprehending being able to have no religious beliefs.

    Do any religious people accept that it’s possible to have no religious belief, or is it a foreign concept to all believers?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Harriet (5,118 comments) says:

    Yep!

    If a gay boy and a lesbian from NZ were the last two people on earth – mankind would die out!

    Because they were ‘born that way’!

    But to save mankind they could ‘change’ – surely then they would!

    SOooooooo if a gay wants to ‘get Married’ and RESPECTS the institution of Marriage[one man one woman] – like they say they do – then why don’t they recognize Marriage for what it is – the safest and best place on earth for children to be reproduced and develop into adults – the future generations!

    Gay MP’S in the parliment of NZ are lying ! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    It’s beer-o’clock.

    Time for a scrummy Three Boys Porter.

    Yummmmmmm…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Weihana (4,583 comments) says:

    virtualmark (1,331) Says:
    March 1st, 2013 at 2:52 pm

    You might be nice and love your neighbour. Someone in Papua New Guinea might eat their neighbour. Who is to say which of those two options is “good”?

    You can’t. But you can if you rephrase the question in terms of a predefined goal. The guy in Papua New Guinea can go eat his neighbour. Then maybe another neighbour will come and eat him. Meanwhile me and my neighbour will be living in peace and harmony. Now if he truly values living in a society where people cannibalize each other and enjoy a shared miserable existence then sure, who is to say his way of life is any worse or better than mine? But I bet if given the choice he wouldn’t prefer it and in that context, when that basic premise has been agreed to, one can make logical and objective conclusions about what is “better” and what is “good”.

    It is a mistake to expect that you can construct a moral code and have it apply to the sociopath. That’s like expecting a shark not to eat you simply because you don’t want to be eaten. It’s in their nature and so it is in the nature of a sociopath to do what they do. But that doesn’t negate the validity of a moral code agreed to by rational people based on a set of simple shared values.

    Ultimately all that creates is the fertile environment for the strongest person in the society to impose their view of “good” on everyone else. Enter Stalin, and every other totalitarian.

    From an atheistic point of view Stalin is just the logical extension of Kant’s attempts to create a universal moral law without God. Eventually Kant said the only way you can make that work is if individual happiness is NOT the objective. Instead everyone has to subordinate their own happiness for the greater good of the whole society. So who defines what that good of the whole society is? Why the dictator of course! So Kant saying “you can’t live for your own individual happiness, but only for the good of the society” leads directly to Stalin saying “don’t worry about whether you’re happy, your only goal is to live and die for the good of Mother Russia”.

    No dictator comes to power on his strength alone. Every dictator comes to power by manipulating public opinion. Every dictator has a base of support and his rule depends upon keeping that base happy, not the other way around.

    People like Kant, Kierkegaard, Hume, Russell etc have tried all the avenues for creating an attractive atheistic society. And all have failed. Atheism leads down a path to either totalitarianism, or hedonism, or nihilism. None of those are the basis for a society I want to live in.

    You have referred to some philosophers. These people write philosophy, they do not create societies. Moreover, atheism is merely a disbelief in God, it does not imply any particular moral code. Your assertion that atheism “leads down the path to totalitarianism” is an assertion offered without proof and based on the flimsiest of historical analyses.

    But “atheists” like we see here in GD aren’t really atheists at all. They say they are. But really they’re “Christians minus”. They live to Christian values, but minus God. They just don’t see that because they’ve been marinating in those Christian values all their lives, since they are baked into the very structure of our Western world. But they are uniquely Christian values … and clearly not present in societies based on Islam, Buddhism, Confucianism, Mayan or whatever other religion you want to point to. And they are clearly values atheism could not rationally and logically develop itself.

    Balderdash. :)

    Christianity is not unique… at least not for the most part.

    But more importantly, the “Western World” as we know it today is a recent phenomenon. Christianity has existed for many many centuries and for most of that time civilization did not progress beyond the accomplishments of Rome. The “Western world” as we know it was born from industrialization which came much later than the advent of Christianity and is more closely associated with the scientific and enlightenment revolutions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Weihana (4,583 comments) says:

    krazykiwi (8,885) Says:
    March 1st, 2013 at 4:01 pm

    It’s beer-o’clock.

    Hallelujah for that!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Weihana (4,583 comments) says:

    Harriet (1,204) Says:
    March 1st, 2013 at 3:39 pm

    Yep!

    If a gay boy and a lesbian from NZ were the last two people on earth – mankind would die out!

    And if a single person was the last person on Earth they could not procreate with themselves. Mankind would die out! Death to all single people!! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. virtualmark (1,536 comments) says:

    Weihana,

    It is a mistake to expect that you can construct a moral code and have it apply to the sociopath

    I’m not saying you can create a universal moral code and compel every person to follow it – the sociopath will still be the sociopath. But you can create a universal moral code that (a) >95% of the population follow and (b) they can use these shared values as the basis of all saying the sociopath is “bad” or “evil” and (c) they can use their shared values as the basis for a set of laws that can reasonably apply across the whole society.

    Meanwhile atheism can rely only on individual relativistic morals … who in that world could say the sociopath is “bad”. They just are what they are. In an atheistic world sociopaths aren’t bad, they’re just misunderstood …

    No dictator comes to power on his strength alone. Every dictator comes to power by manipulating public opinion. Every dictator has a base of support and his rule depends upon keeping that base happy, not the other way around

    Sure. But what I said is that totalitarianism is one of the natural outflows of atheism. What you’re talking about is the mechanics of how it happens. I’m talking about why it happens, and why we shouldn’t be surprised that it does happen.

    These people write philosophy, they do not create societies. Moreover, atheism is merely a disbelief in God, it does not imply any particular moral code

    And philosophy is, ultimately, the study of how our values and societies come into being. Of why we hold certain values and not others.

    And absolutely atheism doesn’t imply any particular moral code. Which is my central point.

    But remember, atheists still believe in values and morals – it’s just that those don’t rest on a God. Modern atheists (aka rational humanists) profess to believe in hard proven facts (that’s Hume by the way). That is their equivalent of “God” (ie that is the central belief of their “religion”).

    Balderdash.

    Christianity is not unique… at least not for the most part.

    No. Think harder. What I said is that “atheists” in the Western world overlook the extent to which they have absorbed Christian values by default through having grown up in a Christian-based world. It’s got nothing to do with industrialisation or science. Even Westerners who don’t profess to be Christians cannot escape the extent to which our society is based on Christian values. The types of values I’m referring to are things like:
    * the sanctity of life (all life is precious, life is to be preserved and protected, and it is a tragedy when people die);
    * the sanctity of each individual (each person has a set of “human rights” that they are entitled to);
    * the responsibility to protect the weak and disadvantaged.

    etc. As an example, feel free to take any of those three examples above and construct a rational string of statements starting with “There is no God” and ending with “That is why life is sacred” or “That is why we must protect the weak” etc. Take your time, it won’t be easy.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. TheContrarian (1,091 comments) says:

    A theocratic government is no better than a totalitarian government. Both demand adherence to a deity. In the totalitarian government it is the leader, in a theocracy it is whomever the leader believes in.

    “absorbed Christian values by default through having grown up in a Christian-based world”

    And Christian forget the absorbed the laws handed down before Christianity

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Ross12 (1,453 comments) says:

    What a load of garbage we get from many in our unversities

    http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/16275640/charter-school-board-desperate-and-undemocratic/

    Does getting quoted in the MSM count toward their annual publishing target these days ? ( the old publish or perish syndrome)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. James Stephenson (2,223 comments) says:

    No. Think harder. What I said is that “atheists” in the Western world overlook the extent to which they have absorbed Christian values by default through having grown up in a Christian-based world.

    Christians in the Western world overlook the extent to which out culture is firmly rooted in pre-Christian times. Democractic ideas were developed by the Greeks, the Vikings and the Saxons well before the concept of monotheism arrived from the middle east…

    We had polytheism then we had monotheism, the next stage in human development is atheism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. axeman (252 comments) says:

    Pete George (16,486) Says:
    March 1st, 2013 at 8:03 am

    On climate change:

    1. There’s no conspiracy. The accumulation of evidence demands serious attention.
    4. There is more than enough evidence to cause major concern.
    5. Overwhelming scientific consensus is discredited with fallacious and irrelevant claims.

    Do you mean like this?

    Collapsing consensus!
    http://notrickszone.com/2013/02/25/collapsing-consensus-another-german-meteorology-site-wondering-about-the-global-temperature-stagnation/

    “Us climate scientists oversold. We said we had to announce the basic truth, and not to overload the people with too many details. Thus the problem arose because climate science did not understand its own role.”
    http://notrickszone.com/2013/02/26/von-storch-blasts-climate-scientists-not-the-keepers-of-the-truth-says-they-oversold-the-science/

    German Media Reopen Climate Discussion – Concede Warming Has Stopped And Other Factors At Play
    http://notrickszone.com/2013/02/28/movement-german-media-reopen-climate-discussion-concede-warming-has-stopped-and-other-factors-at-play/

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. axeman (252 comments) says:

    Obviously Mr George has never seen this summary of GLOBAL WARMING SCEPTICISM

    “First they tried to convince us with the evidence
    Then when we showed the evidence didn’t support them, they manufactured the evidence
    Then when we explained that their “evidence” didn’t prove their case
    … They tried to tell us we (the majority) were the ill-informed minority
    Then when it became clear we were far from ill-informed and far less a small minority.
    They tried to ridicule us
    Then when we laughed at their attempts to ridicule us
    They tried to sue us
    Then when they realised that threatening to sue when the evidence supported us
    They tried to tell us we were mad. etc.
    Finally … in the face of overwhelming evidence and lack of public interest in their non-science they get over their tantrum, they stop writing idiotic papers to journals and stop helping to write ridiculous articles for journalists … it all goes quite
    and then they try to pretend it never happened.”

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. thedavincimode (6,869 comments) says:

    RRM… I don’t have a penis, so does that mean I can’t masturbate?

    NW

    It seems that you can’t. But the good news appears that you are in fact equiped to masturbate a homosexual male on his wedding night. Don’t hold me to it though because Harriet is taking us into new territory here and I’m still trying to get to grips with it all (so to speak).

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Steve (North Shore) (4,587 comments) says:

    Seems many here are blind, they can’t read what they write ——>

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Weihana (4,583 comments) says:

    virtualmark (1,332) Says:
    March 1st, 2013 at 4:43 pm

    But you can create a universal moral code that (a) >95% of the population follow…

    True but popularity doesn’t mean such beliefs are rational. It is important to remember that a rational ethics requires non contradiction and if they start from the premise that they value life, for instance, but have incorrect ideas about how to achieve that then they are acting immoral according to their own values.

    Meanwhile atheism can rely only on individual relativistic morals … who in that world could say the sociopath is “bad”. They just are what they are. In an atheistic world sociopaths aren’t bad, they’re just misunderstood …

    Not true. The subjectivity of our values does not change the fact that we exist in a world with physical and natural laws and that you cannot realize your values by arbitrary means. The world imposes constraints on us that we must account for. I cannot kill people and expect my own life to be secure (generally speaking). In that context the sociopath is “bad”. However, morality is still conditional and the sociopath is only “bad” within the context of predefined values. Inventing (or believing in) God doesn’t change this. Even if God does exist and he imposes rules, what makes those rules “moral”? I do not see that God solves the is-ought problem. That God imposes rules does not logically imply that those rules are “good”.

    Sure. But what I said is that totalitarianism is one of the natural outflows of atheism. What you’re talking about is the mechanics of how it happens. I’m talking about why it happens, and why we shouldn’t be surprised that it does happen.

    It didn’t happen because of atheism. Imagine you were a Russian in 1917. You really think some philosophical musings on God is at the forefront of the ordinary peasants daily concerns? Or do you suppose that the skyrocketing inflation from financing WW1 might be more capable of getting you to support some sort of revolution against the Tsars?

    And absolutely atheism doesn’t imply any particular moral code. Which is my central point.

    A valid point if the point was that religion in primitive society serves the useful purpose of organizing a population around a moral code. I agree with that, but I don’t agree that makes religion necessary for a moral society and I do not agree that accelerating rates of non-religious belief have resulted in people who are less rational or less ethical.

    No. Think harder. What I said is that “atheists” in the Western world overlook the extent to which they have absorbed Christian values by default through having grown up in a Christian-based world. It’s got nothing to do with industrialisation or science. Even Westerners who don’t profess to be Christians cannot escape the extent to which our society is based on Christian values. The types of values I’m referring to are things like:
    * the sanctity of life (all life is precious, life is to be preserved and protected, and it is a tragedy when people die);
    * the sanctity of each individual (each person has a set of “human rights” that they are entitled to);
    * the responsibility to protect the weak and disadvantaged.

    I am not aware that individualism (i.e. individual human rights) is a significant feature of Christianity per se, and charity and protection of human life is not unique to Christianity.

    etc. As an example, feel free to take any of those three examples above and construct a rational string of statements starting with “There is no God” and ending with “That is why life is sacred” or “That is why we must protect the weak” etc. Take your time, it won’t be easy.

    I will not start with the premise that there is no God because that premise is irrelevant. My argument should hold irrespective of the existence of God. The argument is:

    I value my own life. Other people value their life. If I do not value the life of others they are inclined not to value mine. If they don’t value mine, my life is at risk. Therefore, I should value and respect the life of others as I value my own.

    Q.E.D. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Viking2 (11,553 comments) says:

    So the boot goes in.
    Sell off assets, Peter Costello audit tells Queensland Premier Campbell Newman

    PETER Costello has handed Queensland a radical blueprint for privatisation, outsourcing of transport and health services and public sector industrial reform that could erase almost half the state’s debt.

    A commission of audit headed by the former federal treasurer today released an executive summary of its 1000-page report with a warning Queensland will not be able to reclaim its AAA credit rating without selling major assets, including state-owned electricity generators and several ports.

    It has also recommended outsourcing across the government, particularly in health, education, transport and prisons.

    The call is in line with the Newman government’s current push for government departments to undergo “contestablity” analysis to compare its cost and efficiency in delivering services against the private sector.

    “Contestability should be introduced progressively on a phased basis, concentrating initially in southeast Queensland where competitive market conditions are most likely to be found,” the audit report says.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/sell-off-assets-peter-costello-audit-tells-queensland-premier-campbell-newman/story-e6frgczx-1226588376565

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Azeraph (607 comments) says:

    Anyone interested in this? The first thing is how many actually read this and then there is the fact that a lot of Americans read it.

    http://literallyunbelievable.org/

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/gay-teen-worried-he-might-be-christian,2888/

    The net use to be knowledge, a virtual library but the reality is quite different in today’s world.

    What did one cia source say? That Obama gets 30 threats a day, making him the most spotlighted president in american history, how does this make the news? it doesn’t and it wouldn’t but a lot of pattern inferrecing does about the nwo he leads.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. kowtow (8,733 comments) says:

    james stephenson

    the next stage in human development is atheism.

    OK and what are tomorrows’ Lotto numbers.

    When the US went to war against the Axis ,the training films from the govt (secular)for it’s soldiers rooted the democratic cause firmly in the tradition of the world’s major religions with quotes from the Bible ,Old and New Testament,Koran ,Confusious.

    See the Frank Capra series Why we Fight.

    Allied morality was based on religious morality. Even Stalin allowed public prayer when the nazis were at the gates of Moscow.

    The British Parliament adjourned to St Margarets Church for a Thanks Giving Service on VE day.

    You don’t like it but our culture is based on Christian ethics.

    And that human development you say will lead to atheism is actually on a path, due to demographics ,human rights and migration to an Islamic future ,not atheism.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. nasska (11,788 comments) says:

    Ref: https://www.dropbox.com/s/5ueor8wzqa721r5/not_gay.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Scott Chris (6,176 comments) says:

    Based on a justice system based heavily on Christian values and ethics.

    Err no. Laws forbidding murder predate Christ – or Moses for that matter. [wikipedia]One of the oldest known prohibitions against murder appears in the Sumerian Code of Ur-Nammu written sometime between 4100 and 4050 BP. The code states, “If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed.

    Goes to show – morality is a product of society – as are we to a large extent.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. nasska (11,788 comments) says:

    For his final project in a statistics class, a student decided
    to conduct a survey. So it wouldn’t be a boring project, he
    chose to find out peoples’ favourite pastimes.

    The teacher required that he sample at least 100 people, so
    he started out his project visiting a fairly large apartment
    building near the university.

    He knocked on the first door and a man answered.
    “Sir, what is your name ?” ; asked the student

    “John” ,replied the man.

    “Sir, I’m doing a school study and would like to know what
    is your favourite pastime ?”

    “Watching bubbles in the bath,” Came the reply.

    He liked the esoterical answer and continued down the hall,
    until he came to the next door, when he asked again.
    “Sir, what is your name ?”

    “Jeff !” ,said the second man.

    “Sir, Would you please tell me your favourite pastime ?”

    “Watching bubbles in the bath,” was the answer.

    Quite amused and confused he went on to ask a good number
    of people in the building and all of them had the same pastime
    “watching bubbles in the bath”.

    He left the building and walked across the street where there
    were several houses to continue the survey. At the first
    house, he knocks and an attractive college girl opens the door.
    Our surveyor starts again
    “What is your name?”

    “Bubbles.”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. TheContrarian (1,091 comments) says:

    “You don’t like it but our culture is based on Christian ethics”

    People keep saying variations of this and I have mentioned several times today that the laws as held by the 10 Commandments pre-dated Christianity and were basic laws lived by in Babylonian times as one example. The Greeks as another

    We don’t live on Christian Ethics – we live via ethics that have evolved 100’s of years before Christianity.

    Why do people here pretend this isn’t the case and repeat such falsehoods, provable falsehoods, as “our culture is based on Christian ethics”?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. kowtow (8,733 comments) says:

    because c@ntrarian says something several times ,it makes it fact!

    Meanwhile another narcissist has forgotten the US Civil War was about States’ rights.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/8370372/Obama-backs-gay-marriage-in-Supreme-Court

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. TheContrarian (1,091 comments) says:

    “because c@ntrarian says something several times ,it makes it fact!”

    It IS fact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi for starters. Right there, all you need do is click the link.

    You think before Christianity there was no law, no morals?
    Your throwaway comment is just that, throwaway.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Rodders (1,755 comments) says:

    No man is an island

    Although Harriet could be likened to Krakatoa.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. kowtow (8,733 comments) says:

    When Parliament opens with a Prayer to Baal and MPs swear an oath on the Code of Hammubari,or witnesses in court for that matter,or when our Head of state becomes the Head of the Cult of Fertility I might be persuaded that our culture is based on a very ancient Fertile Crescent pagan religion.

    Till then I’ll stick with the conventional view.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. thedavincimode (6,869 comments) says:

    We don’t live on Christian Ethics – we live via ethics that have evolved 100′s of years before Christianity.

    Blasphemy.

    kowtow

    c@ntrarian

    Great material. Your own or was it divine inspiration?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. thedavincimode (6,869 comments) says:

    Sooo. This is interesting. Is it JK, was it Lam, is it the new coaching support staff, was it the old coaching support staff, is it the new management setup or was it the old management setup.

    Whatever happens, there is a very tangible change in the headspace that augers well for the latte lovers.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. TheContrarian (1,091 comments) says:

    “Till then I’ll stick with the conventional view.”

    Yes, the conventional view is that laws and ethics pre-date Christianity by some 100’s if not 1000’s of years and that laws and ethics of Christianity are just a continuation for what has existed, in some guise of another, since ancient Sumeria.

    Glad you agree.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. TheContrarian (1,091 comments) says:

    Should also mention that laws and ethics sprung up in Japan, China and the Americas long before Christianity reached them.

    But since you hold to the conventional view you must already know that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. cha (4,078 comments) says:

    I can hear the howls from here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    No man is an island

    Although Harriet could be likened to Krakatoa.

    I quite like Harriets’ posts… but I laughed at that comment Rodders. Well done :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. James Stephenson (2,223 comments) says:

    Crusaders were robbed alright (says this ‘canes supporter)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. cha (4,078 comments) says:

    This ‘canes supporter reckons the TMO overstepped.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. James Stephenson (2,223 comments) says:

    No cha, TMO powers are expanded this season, he was just flat wrong. Dagg wasn’t held

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. dime (10,095 comments) says:

    Crusaders – too small, too slow.

    The game has passed them by.

    Maybe after this season when they fail to make the finals they will finally sack Blackadder.

    Im scared to think what the Chiefs will do to them.

    As for my boys – im just happy we are playing with heart. its been a long time. Dime has to think back to 2002 when henry was technical adviser to think of when we last played with heart.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. dime (10,095 comments) says:

    As for that cocksucker “TJ”, great to hear him making excuses for the cantabs “its because they had the bye last week”.

    Didnt they play warm up games? the highlanders, blues and chiefs all played well first game up.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. hmmokrightitis (1,595 comments) says:

    No man is an island?

    You put big Gerry in a Speedo and try saying that again…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Rodders (1,755 comments) says:

    krazykiwi – Cheers, mate :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. wat dabney (3,805 comments) says:

    You don’t like it but our culture is based on Christian ethics

    This is why we applaud genocidal racial wars against our neighbours, endorse slavery and happily stone to death disobedient children, women who are not virgins when they marry, and those who do even the slightest amount of work on the Sabbath.

    Because if we didn’t do all those Biblical things then our ethics would not be based on Christianity… which they are…so we do.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    wat – when was the last stoning of someone who did work in the sabbath? In your own time. To the nearest 1000 years is close enough

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. wat dabney (3,805 comments) says:

    krazy,

    when was the last stoning of someone who did work in the sabbath? In your own time. To the nearest 1000 years is close enough

    Er, you do realise you’re making my point for me?

    Apparently you don’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    wat – Not at all. You’re insinuating that because an Old Testament stoning rule existed that modern-day Christians are barbaric. That’s a bit desperate. That’s all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Kacang (36 comments) says:

    WineOh 9:28
    You forgot: Herald (picture of Whangarei fire engine)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. kowtow (8,733 comments) says:

    wat ,in his blind hatred, ignores the New Testament.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. wat dabney (3,805 comments) says:

    krazy,

    Quite the reverse.

    So-called Christians are not barbaric, and this is shown by the fact that they ignore all the barbaric teachings in the Bible. Thus demonstrating that they don’t draw their ethics and morality from the Bible, subscribing instead to modern humanist notions of freedom and compassion.

    The point being that our culture is not based on Christian ethics, if it were then it would look something like Afghanistan under the Taliban.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. TheContrarian (1,091 comments) says:

    Yeah, the new testament.

    Exodus 21:17 is pretty easy going

    “The point being that our culture is not based on Christian ethics”

    Most of our culture, laws, ethics, language and politics comes down to us from the Greeks. Not Christians.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    So wat, your vision of modern Christianity is Jesus preaching the sermon on the mount to a receptive Teleban? Seriously, you clearly have no (zero, none, zilch) idea about the teachings of Christ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    wat – I’m done for the day, mrs kk has been away all week and I’m, well, ‘sleepy’ ;)

    However I’m genuinely interested to know if you believe being a Christian requires following the Levitical food laws (ie no shellfish etc), and other Old Testament directives?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. TheContrarian (1,091 comments) says:

    Exodus 21:17 is in the new testament. Do you follow it?

    If not, why not?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. wat dabney (3,805 comments) says:

    Seriously, you clearly have no (zero, none, zilch) idea about the teachings of Christ.

    In this particular belief system the deity called Yahweh – who has committed an endless litany of cruelties and barbarities – wields a little hippy sock-puppet called “Jesus.”

    And you think that the warm’n’fuzzy stuff that the Jesus puppet spouts somehow renders all the atrocities of Yahweh moot?; that if we just focus on Reinhard Heydrich’s undoubted commitment as a husband and loving father that all his sickening butcheries count for nothing?

    However I’m genuinely interested to know if you believe being a Christian requires following the Levitical food laws (ie no shellfish etc), and other Old Testament directives?

    They must, because they are supposed to be moral teachings and not arbitrary laws.

    If they were arbitrary – if Yahweh just tossed a coin and decided that those working on the Sabbath should be stoned to death – then every teaching and lesson in the Bible can be dismissed as having no moral basis.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. kowtow (8,733 comments) says:

    Contrarian wrong again.

    Roots of the English language is Germanic.A huge proportion of words are French and Latin based. Not so much Greek.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    thedavincimode @ 8.45

    What is it that you need, a sliderule or a fukin abacus to work out that Pat Lam was useless.

    Maybe even with an abacus, a sliderule, a protractor and a set square it would be beyond you to
    figure out the obvious.

    Tatoo this on your forehead to help you understand.

    “Pat Lam was a useless football coach.”

    Second thought, tatoo it on your knob, you may see it more often.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. TheContrarian (1,091 comments) says:

    Kowtow skips to main point in order to attack a somewhat irrelevant point in an attempt to mask the fact that he is completely wrong about laws and ethics originating from Christianity.

    Nice dodge yet somewhat obvious.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    TheContrarian, Exodus is – obviously – in the Old Testament. The verse you refer to – people who curse their parents being put to death – is mentioned in the New Testament. It is quoted by Jesus. Here it is in context, with the religious leaders of the day trying to trap him

    Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

    Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’

    But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

    You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
    “ ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
    They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.’ ”

    (Matthew 15:1-9 NIV)

    The vast majority of the New Testament is commentary and context, and it’s extraordinarily light on rules, despite some suggesting that it’s nothing other than rules. Those folks probably think (hope?) that the verse “Judas went out and hung himself” is divine instruction for the faithful :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote