About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

August 21, 2006 5:12am by David Farrar

A Pollice ruling I don’t disagree with!

Just ity I will be overseas on Wednesdayfor the actual parade!

Share this:

Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Reddit
WhatsApp
More

Pinterest
Print
Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading…

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment515

Uncategorised
New Zealand

Related Stories

Steve Crow wins again
Why are we funding a golf tournament?
Michelin stars won’t bring people to NZ

Comments (515)

Login to comment or vote

A.J.Chesswas

Man who even says that? What woul she think if she knew you told people she was taking advantage of you? That is quite strange…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 22, 2006 4:47pm
SB

“What would she think if she knew you told people she was taking advantage of you?” she would laugh, then laugh some more probably spilling her drink, then she would slap me and tell me I am a silly P*i*k and laugh again. With luck later she would drag me of to take more advantage of me……and she would love it ,love it all………

But rereading you posts I have realised something AJ, something disturbing, your approach is all a smoke screen, you really hate women don’t you.

They say the wrong things, they wear the wrong clothes, they go to the wrong night clubs, watch the wrong videos, ride on motorbikes (topless)without asking your permission. They make decisions you don’t approve of,they have sex with men without getting married first, they perform in porn movies that are against THE moral code, the list is almost endless……..

I fear for any women near you.

SB
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 22, 2006 4:59pm
weizguy

My moral code I meant the principles of human dignity and justice (how many times do I have to day this). What difference would it make if I told you my moral opinion on any and every matter under the sun?

No. You didn’t. You said there was a universal moral code that was based on the principles of human dignity and justice. You then failed to explain what the moral code was.

You claim to care about me, because I don’t follow the code, and then do nothing to help me. I hate to say that it’s typical of the Christian response. Patronise, claim to care, and then leave dangling.

The simple fact is that you are arguing from position, rather than from principle. You have a twisted perception of love, women, and relationships, and this seems to be hampering your ability to relate to women.

I’ll have to go home tonight and tell my wife that I took advantage of her, despite the fact that she pretty much made all the first moves.

There’s still a number of questions you haven’t answered, which seems to be your Modus Operandi… Did you miss them, or are you avoiding them?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 22, 2006 5:01pm
A.J.Chesswas

Actually, SB, it is men liek you who ae the problem. Men liek you only notice their wives when they’re wearing the wrong things. Men like you only give them attention when they go to the wrong night clubs, men like you notice the women in those videos more than their own wives, men like you hire women to ride topless on motor bikes. Men like you con women into having sex with them without giving them the security of marriage. Men like you consume the porn movies that are against the moral code…

Libertarians like you are all the same. Behind teh smokescreen of choice, individual autonomy and human rights is the confidence you can manipulate women into making the choices you want them to make, making a mockery of their autonomy and their human rights. If you don’t understand think of George Bush and Iraq – he promises them freedom, democracy and human rights, but in effect is simply establishing an order that helps him get what he wants – oil, and copntrol of the Middle East…

Sorry, we’re not that stupid…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 22, 2006 5:06pm
Graham Miller

Oh dear – AJ has finally reviewed a pride-and-prejudice perspective.

I wouldn’t go so far as to put you in the camp of Graham Capill, who fell spectacularly from grace, but it’s always struck me as ironic that those who preach the gospel of human decency and morality, on closer examination, turn out to prone to allegations of hypocrisy.

In your case, AJ, I would say you’re prone to allegations of blissful ignorance in your masculine-framed worldview of women.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 22, 2006 5:17pm
phil u

is cheswas only 26..?

feck..!..he reads like he’s the other way around…about 62..

(betcha he’s got wild taste in music/movies ..eh..?…)

‘sound of music/streisland/houston/bolton..?

whaddayareckon..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 22, 2006 5:32pm
Ben Wilson

I think it’s time to give AJ a rest. He’s trying to give too many people responses and his entire case has fallen to pieces.

An unmarried virgin preaching about women’s sexuality is like a child trying to tell a mechanic about how a car works – very long, and mostly wrong.

I’m not the least bit surprised you have a fixation, AJ. You need to get some. It’s really that simple. And whatever you do, don’t get married just for that, or your life will become a misery. Whoever you marry, you’ll be having sex with for the rest of your life, so take care that the sex is worth it. You’ll need to have sex in order to grace the Lord with children, so you really do need to be able to get it up.

Or don’t have any sex, if that’s your bag. But seriously man, you’re in a really tiny minority if you reckon that’s a good idea. Why do you think God gave you balls? It wasn’t so they could be kicked around on forums.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 22, 2006 5:50pm
A.J.Chesswas

lol well my case hasn’t fallen apart, and I know how I would answer that last question – times like this I realise the good Lord’s provision isn’t always for the reasons we would prefer…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 22, 2006 6:25pm
george

I am perplexed why AJ does not just come out and say he bases his morality on biblical scripture, and the counter bloggers have a morality based on ??? The contra resent standards based constraint, even though somewhere they will have their own inate line in the sand. Even jailed murderers and rapists will thrash a child molester because they beleive he has crossed a line between right and wrong. Its a question of degree. Hence the appeal to ‘whats legal’ as the cop explained some 200 posts back. Relativism versus objectivism.

A rosy and respectful view of women is his and good for him, but go work with a mob of them for a while and that should peel off. You can’t live with and you can’t live without them. But don’t let me put you off AJ. Good luck to you.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 22, 2006 6:32pm
A.J.Chesswas

oh weizguy, just noticed your post..

sorry if I promised to deliver a moral code based on the principles of human dignity and justice. I didn’t mean to. That would be a very stupid promise. Perhaps you misinterpreted me.

Look if you can’t comprehend those vital principles, of human dignity and justice, then don’t start crying to me. You can’t really expect me to provide you with a whole moral code here in this post, tonight. C’mon, I know it might not seem like it but I do have other things to do. The Bible is pretty much generally accurate, so if you really need to know get stuck into the gospel of Matthew.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 22, 2006 6:33pm
Redbaiter

So many of these people are such low IQ narrow insular morons AJ, you deserve a medal for your patience..
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 22, 2006 6:53pm
A.J.Chesswas

Cheers Redbaiter…

Who is this Graham Miller guy? Flip he’s the most trying of the lot. Doesn’t even read the comments and then wags on as if he knows what he’s talking about…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 22, 2006 7:18pm
phil u

aj..just taking another tack here..

what have you got against using pornography…?

when (for the user)it’s the safest sex there is…?

phil(whoar.co.nz)

btw…you never answered my earlier question..

how do you ‘handle it?’…

or do you rely on nocturnal emmissions..?

(spilling your seed upon the sheet..
as it were..)

(isn’t there some biblical injunction against that..?..

the spilling of the seed upon the sheet..?..)

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 22, 2006 7:28pm
Ben Wilson

LOL AJ, are you suggesting your balls actually are for getting kicked around on this forum? But then, since God forsees all, it seems so.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 22, 2006 7:39pm
Redbaiter

I don’t know AJ, but this ranting small minded idiot Phil U is one of the most worthless of all. I’m not religious myself but I have no problem with Christians and regard them as a net positive for society. As opposed to narrow simple fuckwits like Phil, so ignorant they couldn’t even get close to thinking about the real issues, and so desperate to be seen as part of the socially ascendant class they will say and do anything before they would ever think of swimming against the socialist stream. He reminds me so much of that saying, “its the dead fish who travel with the flow”

The rank intolerance for Christianity that is so widely prevalent in NZ is another social characteristic that really disappoints me. Such bigotry is just another manifestation of the overall Marxist mood that is so socially ascendant here. The same weak minded and trendy mood that generates the sappy assumption that to embrace pornography, and be socially liberal, is somehow akin in principle to classic liberalism, when it isn’t, and never has been. The classic liberal sees wimmin in a way that is much closer to your own perspective. These people cheering for the money grubbing little creep Steve Crow and his dumbfuck harlots are by and large just shallow trendy morons. I wonder how many of them are family men.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 22, 2006 7:50pm
Danyl Mclauchlan

One of my favourite cities in the world is Copenhagen, not least because in the summertime the office girls sunbathe topless in the Kongens Have gardens.

Sadly the lovely sophisticated girls of Denmark don’t have AJ to tell them that this behaviour is ‘an abomination’ but if they did I think the conversation would go something like this:

AJ You need to cover your breasts.

LISE Why?

AJ Because they’re sacred and publically exposing them is profane.

LISE My breasts aren’t ‘sacred’.

AJ Yes they are.

LISE I don’t think so.

AJ Well you’re wrong.

LISE Who are you to tell me that I’m wrong?

AJ Ah! (Proudly) I happen to know that there is a universal moral code derived from principles of justice and dignity and this code tells me that I am right and you are wrong.

LISE Is this, like, a religious thing?

AJ Not at all. Like I said, it’s derived from universal truths emanating from principles of human dignity and truth.

LISE So what does this non-religious moral code look like?

AJ It’s identical to Christianity in every respect. You can read all about it in the Bible.

LISE Hey! This IS a religious thing!

AJ (Sighs) Not at all – my argument has NOTHING to do with religion. This is about a universal moral code! (At this point AJ quotes a passage from scripture after speaking each sentence)

LISE So YOU aren’t religious . . ?

AJ Yes. I am. Deeply religious. I’ve thought long and hard about this and concluded that Christianity is simply the one true religion, and that its moral teachings are the divine word of God and that his son Jesus died on the cross to save us from our sins.

LISE (Sceptical) So how do you know that your beliefs are right and those of all the other religions are wrong? Aren’t their beliefs just as valid as yours?

AJ (Confidently). Of course not. I’ve come to my conclusions about religion and morality through reason and logic, while all those people in those other religions have just been brainwashed. It’s all groupthink. They only believe that nonsense because they’ve been bought up with it.

LISE So you weren’t actually raised as a Christian?

AJ Of course I was. So . . . as I was saying, the one true code of morality dictates that you have to cover your breasts.

LISE But your morality is just religious and I don’t believe in your religion!

AJ It is NOT religious! This has NOTHING to do with religion! I mean, when did I ever even mention religion?

LISE Just before!

AJ When? Tell me! Give me one example!

LISE All that stuff you said about the Bible and Jesus, and all those quotes from Job . . .

AJ Listen Lise, you can go off on these irrelevent tangents all you want. The point is that you have to cover your breasts because I say they’re sacred and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong.

LISE Listen. You only THINK I’m wrong. But they’re my breasts and I . . .

AJ You are wrong, because I’ve thought about what the one true morality is and I’m right.

LISE So all the other thinkers and philosophers and prophets throughout history who have reached different conclusions to you . . .

AJ . . . Are all wrong. (PROUDLY) Yes – I’m rather pleased with myself as well, having solved the greatest philosophical problem in human history by the age of twenty six.

LISE But all the other people who have different beliefs think that THEY’RE right and YOU’RE wrong, so how can you . . .

AJ But I AM right and they’re ALL wrong. Can’t you understand that? You’re not very bright, are you Lise? So, anyways, as someone who has absolute knowledge of what is and is not moral I’m also an authority on the subject of sexual morality . . .

LISE Have you ever actually had sex?

AJ No. Why do you ask?

LISE No reason.

AJ So as an absolute authority on sexual matters I’m telling you that you HAVE to cover your breasts.

LISE And what will happen if I don’t?

AJ . . . ?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 22, 2006 7:53pm
A.J.Chesswas

lol… *in stitches* even though I’m a Christian, I love your use of language… so sinful of me!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 22, 2006 7:55pm
A.J.Chesswas

That last comment was for Redbaiter, but you gave me a good laugh too Danyl!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 22, 2006 7:59pm
dave

WOW I cant believe it, this thread has exceeded
30,000 words.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 22, 2006 8:01pm
Gryf

The classic liberal sees wimmin ???????

Chalk one up for the leftie troll theory.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 22, 2006 8:43pm
Graham Miller

Who is this Graham Miller guy? Flip he’s the most trying of the lot. Doesn’t even read the comments and then wags on as if he knows what he’s talking about…

*Sigh*
Ad hominem does not an argument make. But as Ben rightly points out, this thread has already been done to death.

And, Danyl, that was actually very witty of you – well done 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 22, 2006 8:47pm
Lucyna

Ben Wilson, he’s not “preaching about women’s sexuality”, if he’s preaching at all it’s that many men see nothing wrong with porn-stars parading through Auckland topless on the back of motorbikes. That’s so far from “women’s sexuality”, I’ve got to ask the question – are you a virgin as well?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 22, 2006 8:52pm
A.J.Chesswas

Just in case you thought it was over…

Danyl did make me look like an idiot with that comment, but only because he misrepresented me a number of times, as well as misrepresenting other people and groups…

MISREPRESENTATION # 1

LISE So what does this non-religious moral code look like?

AJ It’s identical to Christianity in every respect. You can read all about it in the Bible.

The word Christianity can be interpreted a number of ways. It is my opinion that the purest definition of the word is the teachings of Christ as recorded in the gospels. If this is the Christianity Danyl is referring to then yes the universal moral code is consistent with “Christianity”. Come on, show me one teaching of Christ’s that could be considered immoral.

But here’s the key point. Morality is not morality simply because the human Christ said it was and some people wrote it in a book. All he did was point out that which was already true, and understood already by many. This is why I don’t like to consider my morality “religious”, because people tend to understand “religious” to mean “superstitious”, “groundless”, even “biased”, especially “not applicable to the ‘secular realm’. A poor definition of religion I know, but one so commonly held its best not to use the term.

MISREPRESENTATION # 2

AJ I’ve thought long and hard about this and concluded that Christianity is simply the one true religion, and that its moral teachings are the divine word of God and that his son Jesus died on the cross to save us from our sins.

Likewise, this statement while true, needs to be qualified with my definition of Christianity above, and my subsequent points.

MISREPRESENTATION # 3

LISE (Sceptical) So how do you know that your beliefs are right and those of all the other religions are wrong? Aren’t their beliefs just as valid as yours?

“All those other religions” actually tend to be consistent on maters of morality and human dignity. Where they aren’t, one CAN use reason and logic to differentiate that which is true, or at least better. Lucyna illustrated this well with the difference between fundamentalist Muslims and conservative Christians on the matters of modesty. She has since reproduced those same comments on a separate post over at Sir Humphreys:

http://sirhumphreys.com/lucyna/2006/aug/21/fundamental_differences_between_islam_and_christianity

MISREPRESENTATION # 4

AJ (Confidently). I’ve come to my conclusions about religion and morality through reason and logic, while all those people in those other religions have just been brainwashed. It’s all groupthink. They only believe that nonsense because they’ve been bought up with it.

Again, much of the rest of the world’s “religions” is consistent with the conscience, and with pure Christianity. But yes, the crazy ideas and doctrines are simply that, and I do think groupthink can account for people holding such crazy ideas. Have you actually looked into what Mormons believe, for example?

FUNNY BIT

AJ Listen Lise, you can go off on these irrelevent tangents all you want.

That bit especially made me laugh 🙂 Fair representation…

MISREPRESENTATION # 5

LISE So all the other thinkers and philosophers and prophets throughout history who have reached different conclusions to you . . .

Who are “all” these other thinkers and prophets who would disagree with me on matters of human dignity, particularly with regards to sexuality? However many it is, it would hardly be a consensus.

MISREPRESENTATION # 6

AJ So, anyways, as someone who has absolute knowledge of what is and is not moral I’m also an authority on the subject of sexual morality . . .

LISE Have you ever actually had sex?

AJ No. Why do you ask?

“A silly idea is current that good people do not know what temptation means. This is an obvious lie. Only those who try to resist temptation know how strong it is… A man who gives in to temptation after five minutes simply does not know what it would have been like an hour later. That is why bad people, in one sense, know very little about badness. They have lived a sheltered life by always giving in.” – C.S. Lewis (seeing as you don’t like me quoting The Bible)

30, 000 words – isn’t that like a thesis?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 22, 2006 9:05pm
phil u

redbaiter…as i am able to ring your bells/make you spit dummies.. on a regular basis..

do you think i have earned the title redbaiter-baiter..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)

(see…i’ve just rung them agai
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 22, 2006 9:43pm
Danyl Mclauchlan

t is my opinion that the purest definition of the word is the teachings of Christ as recorded in the gospels.

Rubbish. I read the Gospels last year and they don’t make the slightest sense. In terms of a coherant moral framework you guys are dead in the water without Pauls Letter to the Romans.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 22, 2006 9:56pm
stan

oh, so they Gospels didn’t make sense to Danyl, therefore they are crap and that the millions of people who have read them all over the world must just be stupid?

well weizguy, according to your argument i could walk down the streets with my genitals showing under the guise of a “parade” promoting some event at my house, say a viagra exhibit. and it would be perfectly fine and i shouldn’t be arrested or anything for it because it is acceptable to society. regardless of your moral view, if you want to do that you have to change the law, not change the interpretation of the law. if you honestly think the police are legends at interpreting the law, well from my personal experience the ones i’ve had to deal with are some of the most stupid and ignorant meatheads i’ve ever met in my life who are completely out of touch with compassion for those who are going through crap in society

i mean i’m sure there are good cops out there, but i don’t see them as gods who know the law and that what they say about the parade MUST be correct just because they said it (which is the basis of your argument against mine)

as for the Films Videos and Classifications Act – you’re saying that is the statute to look to, therefore anytime someone decides to show some flesh in public, breast feeding or promoting pornography, so long as it is not in print it’s ok. i suppose you think if you make a death threat to someone verbally you look to the letter writing death threat statute and because the verbal threat was not in writing it’s ok?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 22, 2006 10:09pm
stan

to adjust what i said above – what i’m basically saying is the police are humans just like you and i and you only have to look at their decisions for example not to prosecute the Labour government under public pressure to know they let their personal ideologies get in the way of their job. i’m assuming the majority of the police share the same views as you guys (ie. see nothing wrong with porn) and therefore let that dictate their interpretation of the law. i’m saying well if you do have that view, which you have a right to have, then you have to change the law first, then allow the parade, rather than mould the law to suit your view, because the police are not the lawmakers, Parliament is. if Parliament chooses to pass a law allowing public nudity and exposure to minors then make a law that says that, but the law as it currently stands does not allow for this but the police decide they want to play the judicial activists and so do the Christians who think they have the patent on the laws that can and cannot be passed
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 22, 2006 10:14pm
jamie

bahaha!

AJ and Redbaiter buddying up!

where’s murray when you need him?

the holy trinity of blog comment trolls!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 22, 2006 10:17pm
stan

re: Jamie – if you have an alternative answer that is as if not more convincing as Christianity is then i’m open to it. i think it’s more incredulous to just believe that there is nothing after life, and that we were born out of a big bang and that life is only science
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 22, 2006 10:20pm
Logix

There is only one reality. True religion and true science would in principle perfectly harmonise. Regretably our understanding of both remains profoundly incomplete.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 22, 2006 10:55pm
err..

Well stan, I’d like to tell you that you’ll probably be disappointed after death were it not for the fact that all the actual available evidence tends to suggest you’ll just be a bit rotting lump of meat.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 22, 2006 10:59pm
Paul Marsden

My God! I think this subject matter has had more posts than the deaths of the Kahu twins. What planet are you people on here??? Steve Crow is laughing all the way to the bank. And who said hypocrisy dosen’t pay..??!!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 22, 2006 11:15pm
Danyl Mclauchlan

if you have an alternative answer that is as if not more convincing as Christianity is then i’m open to it.

I think its time that Stan learned the truth about The Flying Spaghetti Monster!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 12:00am
phil u

yay…!….it’s boob-day…

see ya there….

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 5:24am
weizguy

as for the Films Videos and Classifications Act – you’re saying that is the statute to look to, therefore anytime someone decides to show some flesh in public, breast feeding or promoting pornography, so long as it is not in print it’s ok. i suppose you think if you make a death threat to someone verbally you look to the letter writing death threat statute and because the verbal threat was not in writing it’s ok?

Stan, your understanding of the law is clearly lacking. The thing is, we have many laws. Most of them are contained in statute, some come from the common law, some are enshrined in treaties, and are ratified through practice.

Let’s look at your comment.

therefore anytime someone decides to show some flesh in public, breast feeding or promoting pornography, so long as it is not in print it’s ok.

First, are you equating breast feeding with promoting pornography? Seems to be the implication.

Secondly, where did print come in? We’re talking about objectionable publications, like porn movies and magazines. There are other statutes that govern indecent exposure – they don’t have age limits. You’re trying to use the wrong piece of law… Keep on studying, you’ll get there one day.

i suppose you think if you make a death threat to someone verbally you look to the letter writing death threat statute and because the verbal threat was not in writing it’s ok?

Again, you’re way off. You were the one who made up the contents of a statute and got it wrong. Accept your mistakes, and chalk it up as a lesson.

Verbal threats could come under any number of statutes. It’s also common law assault.

Hit the books dude.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 8:34am
A.J.Chesswas

Me:

It is my opinion that the purest definition of the word is the teachings of Christ as recorded in the gospels. If this is the Christianity Danyl is referring to then yes the universal moral code is consistent with “Christianity”. Come on, show me one teaching of Christ’s that could be considered immoral.

Danyl:

Rubbish. I read the Gospels last year and they don’t make the slightest sense. In terms of a coherant moral framework you guys are dead in the water without Pauls Letter to the Romans.

Case & point. Can’t do it.

Mr Marsden, I think we all would agree that the murder of the Kahu twins was a tragic and IMMORAL act. I would not expect the morality of that murder to be the subject of a 250-comment debate.

Logix:

True religion and true science would in principle perfectly harmonise. Regretably our understanding of both remains profoundly incomplete.

Gosh, and you guys have me on for making lofty and unjustified generalizations. Does this statement even actually say anything?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 8:40am
Jamie

Stan:

if you have an alternative answer that is as if not more convincing as Christianity is then i’m open to it. i think it’s more incredulous to just believe that there is nothing after life, and that we were born out of a big bang and that life is only science

Convincing? Christiantity? You actually believe there God looking down on us judging whether we’ve been ‘good’ or ‘bad’, and deciding whether we go to heaven or hell when we die?

Okay, here’s my alternative answer, it’s fairy easy to follow: you live, you die, end of story.

Although, the Flying Spaghetti Monster does offer some convincing arguments…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 8:43am
stan

weizguy – you were the one who was equating breast feeding with pornography, and you were the one who brought in the Classifications Act as the relevant statute (in your post at August 22, 2006 2:36 PM). i was pointing out the complete irrelevance in your arguments in my post by giving examples of how stupid your logic is, and in pointing out the flaws in those examples you’ve just rebutted yourself and your original argument
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 8:48am
stan

so you’re effectively closing your mind to anything else, like why we are even alive in the first place? whether there is any reason?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 8:52am
stan

AJ i have no idea why you attacked Logix’s statement, i thought it was one of the most intelligent things that have been said so far. if you’re a Christian you have to watch your pride and stop giving praise to your own understanding, but to God
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 8:54am
A.J.Chesswas

Thanks Stan…

But for what purpose does Logix say the following:

“Regretably our understanding of both remains profoundly incomplete”

Typical PoMo pessimism… we have more than enough to go on Logix…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 9:01am
weizguy

No stan – you said:

i can’t be bothered looking for the relevant statute or case law, but i am willing to bet $10 (cheque and postage paid) that what i have stated above is fact, and in order to prove me wrong i challenge you to visit http://www.legislation.govt.nz and find a statute which allows for children under 18 to watch porn in a public place. clearly the topless parade falls under the category of pornongraphy and not art

The statute that prevents people exhibiting porn (objectionable material) to under 18s is the classifications act. Being topless is not a publication. QED

You really have no clue do you? You have to understand the logic before you rebut it.

As for your argument about the police being wrong about the legality of the parade, you don’t think constable pete down at the station wrote the statement do you? You think the poice might have legal advisors? Ones with actual law degrees?

Maybe you should use the $10 to buy a clue…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 9:01am
Danyl Mclauchlan

show me one teaching of Christ’s that could be considered immoral.

As a Christian Agrarian I’m sure you’ll concede that it’s immoral to lose your temper at a tree and kill it for a patently absurd reason.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 9:02am
A.J.Chesswas

lol… explain…? (I know the story, but I want to know why you consider that act immoral)…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 9:04am
Jamie

like why we are even alive in the first place?

1) lucky planet placement
2) evolution
3) then my daddy and my mummy loved each other very much…

whether there is any reason?

Well, perhaps there is. Perhaps the Universe is some giant computing mechanism, a sort of internet, created by scientists from another universe. And knowing the uses our internet get sput to, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of it was dedicated to ‘adult’ movie storage. Maybe the Milky Way is, in fact, nothing more than a cosmic representation of a breast, designed to give our alternate universe creators a cheap thrill…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 9:10am
stan

“The statute that prevents people exhibiting porn (objectionable material) to under 18s is the classifications act. Being topless is not a publication. QED”

no but YOU have turned it into an argument regarding publications. so it’s ok for two people have sex in the middle of the street because it’s not a publication? you have found a statute that deals with publications – not public nudity. and i was betting $10 that there is a statute dealing with that. you just turned it into an argument about publications

as for the police’s legal advisers – just because they are lawyers doesn’t make them right, why do you think we have lawsuits? i just don’t feel the need to waste my money to sue them. their legal argument says you can go down a street naked if it’s a parade promoting a pornographic event. so if that is your view and that it is correct then my above viagra example is valid and that someone doing that would not be arrested for it – yeah right! it’s only because this boobs on bikes thing is so novel that we’ve decided to not apply the law as it is. it’s like the Muslim cartoons – if say in an Islamic state the citizens no longer find it as offensive as their ancestors did, they would have to change the law saying that those who draw the cartoons should be stoned, not that because it’s not such a big deal today the law doesn’t apply anymore
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 9:24am
A.J.Chesswas

Stan, apparently the police and the courts have deemed that the law dealing with “indecent exposure” relates only to genitalia… the only other area of legislation relevant is “objectionable behaviour” and they don’t deem being topless to be objectionable…

I heard an interview with Steve Crow and he said he challenged police that to rule against female exposure of breasts but not male would be discrimination…

Really, though, there is little equality in restricting indecent exposure to genitalia. A woman could probably get away with walking down the street fully naked yet claiming she wasn’t exposing anything. Bit different for those of us with outdoor plumbing…

The line is terribly blurry. I thought we had it right up until now, but the police don’t seem to agree…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 9:31am
Craig Ranapia

Just as a sidebar, who actually owns the venue for the Erotica Expo – the Auckland Showgrounds? I may well be wrong, but I understand that it’s operated by a business unit of… the Auckland City Council.

If I’m right, is Dick Hubbard a flat out hypocrite (‘promoting pornography’ on Queen Street is wrong, but it’s A-OK to profit from that ‘vile, degrading’ industry hiring a civic asset) or just his usual, adorably clueless self?

Still, I have a solution – why doesn’t Dick Hubbard put up a by-law dictating dress standards for all women who want to enter his city? I’d sure like to ban the offensive sight of chicks with ‘muffins’ of fat oozing between the top of their bumsters and the bottom of their tank tops.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 9:33am
weizguy

Stan

try to keep up. You are talking about something that is R18. The only thing that is R18 is the display of objectionable publications.

Your argument is as follows:

I say A (it is illegal to be naked in front of under 18s)
In order for me to be proved wrong, you have to find B (the statute that allows you to show nudity to under 18s)
(B doesn’t exist)
Therefore A is right

It’s rubbish.

Statutory rape/carnal knowledge/sex with a minor is not illegal with anyone over the age of 16 (in this jurisdiction). Are you saying that they are allowed to have sex, but not see nudity?

You’ve cobbled together a set of things that you think should be the case, claimed it’s a law, and then asked others to prove you wrong.

I pointed out the problem with your argument – by pointing out that R18 only applies to publications.

Is it okay for the two people to have sex in a public place? Read the police statement. Unless you plan to refute their position with legal arguments, your opinion isn’t worth much.

Stan: It’s illegal.
weizguy: Why?
Stan: Because there is a law that says it is.
weizguy: where?
Stan: You find it.
weizguy: The police have considered it, and their legal advice says it’s legal.
Stan: They’re wrong.
weizguy: why?
Stan: Because they’re stupid.
weizguy: Are they poo poo heads too?
Stan: …

What year are you at law school? I’m hoping not too far down the track – so much to learn…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 10:01am
Lucyna

I’d sure like to ban the offensive sight of chicks with ‘muffins’ of fat oozing between the top of their bumsters and the bottom of their tank tops.

Craig, far better for those women to be topless?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 11:19am
A.J.Chesswas

Well things have finally gone quiet around here.

Mr Graham Miller has finally taken the time to ponder my use of reason and logic (with no Bible verses whatsoever) to show that a topless parade of pornstars down New Zealand’s premier street is immoral.

Weizguy has realised that providing a whole moral code would make no difference to the application of principles of human dignity and justice in my judgment of the parade.

Danyl can’t be bothered doing the research that would be necessary to support his claim – that the gospels of Christ don’t make sense, and don’t identify a universal moral code.

Ben couldn’t refute my point that as men we don’t always choose porn or lust because we conclusively want it; that we are generally in two minds between our sensual and moral desires, and that the porn industry manipulate and exploit this condition of ours. He also helped me discover that a certain part of my anatomy is not necessarily unemployed despite my being a batchelor!

SB, Phil & George have shown clearly their views are grounded in their lack of respect for women, and obviously don’t agree that principles of human dignity and justice are a universal moral imperative.

No-one could identify one positive about pornography, apart from Average Kiwi who said it helped him “jack off”. And of course it is arguable that this is a good thing 😉 And Phil, for your information, N.I. would be the most moral way of managing one’s testosterone…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 11:27am
weizguy

And AJ has clearly missed the point of the dissent to his position. He’s failed to do any more than assert his position. In short, he’s sermonised, and converted no-one else to his way of thinking.

Ain’t it a bitch when other people think for themselves?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 11:40am
weizguy

Seriously, it’s like coming off after a rugby match that you’ve lost by 50 points, and claiming that you won, because purpose of the game was to kick the ball out on the full the most times.

AJ’s not confused, he’s just playing a different game from the rest of us.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 11:46am
Craig Ranapia

Lucyna:

I’ll repeat this in very small words: I don’t really give the proverbial flying fuck at a donut. The world is full of stupid and vulgar women making fools of themselves every time they leave the house – and I really have better things to do with my time and energy than try and elevate my aesthetics and morals into a general imperative. What a shame the spectacularly ineffectual and clueless Mayor of Auckland doesn’t feel the same.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 11:47am
A.J.Chesswas

As far as I could tell, the purpose of the post was to ponder whether the approval of “Boobs on Bikes” was a good decision or a bad decision. I’m probably the only one who really gave their opinion, and reasons for their opinion. You guys spent your time critiquing my approach, coming up with a whole lot of extra rules of how to play the games, what you’re allowed to say and what you’re not, what you quote and what you can’t etc. etc.

I enjoyed the game cos I had my hands on the ball most of the time. You guys were too busy going awww Ref. Just as well the Ref has a sense of humour…

“The Lord laughs at him, for He sees that his day is coming.” Psalms 37:13
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 11:51am
noddy

“that we are generally in two minds between our sensual and moral desires”

or to put it another way…”Having testicles is like being chained to the village idiot. Sad, but there it is. And when we have solved every racial, political and economic problem, we will still be stuck with that one.”

shamelessly stolen from this guy
http://chasemeladies.blogspot.com/2005/01/non-kinky-sex-is-waste-of-time.html
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 11:56am
err..

“He also helped me discover that a certain part of my anatomy is not necessarily unemployed despite my being a batchelor!”

All those in favour of nominating this for my newly-introduced Kiwiblog Annual Award For Veiled Homoeroticism say aye!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 11:56am
Redbaiter

“Ain’t it a bitch when other people think for themselves?”

weizguy you pathetic non capitalized little wanker, its the lot of you that aren’t thinking for yourselves. AJ right or wrong, is the only one with an independent viewpoint. You’re just swimming with the awfully trendy socially liberal Jerry Springer style stream…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 11:57am
weizguy

As far as I could tell, the purpose of the post was to ponder whether the approval of “Boobs on Bikes” was a good decision or a bad decision.

I suspected you missed the divergence. No-one had a problem with you giving your opinion. People had a problem with you claiming that there was THE moral code – and discussed your inability to produce this moral code. You made claims and then retreated, and then acted like your opinion was fact.

In other words you missed the point of more than 200 of the posts.

You had your hand on the ball all the time, thing is, we’re just not sure whether it was your left one or your right one.

It’s like arguing with a five year old – “I know you are, you said you are, but what am I?

Are you seriously incapable of seeing the flaw in your argument?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 11:59am
A.J.Chesswas

weizguy I never promised to produce a moral code. All I did was say that morality is guided by principles of human dignity and justice and that I interpreted this issue in that light. It is your inability to grasp this or dispute this that is the reason that this is post # 262.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 12:04pm
weizguy

Oh redbaiter…

I’m not capitalized? Do you mean I’m not a capitalist, or that my worth hasn’t been paid out in cash, or something else?

Independent from what? His religion – apparently not. Go back to your corner and froth.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 12:08pm
Danyl Mclauchlan

Me: As a Christian Agrarian I’m sure you’ll concede that it’s immoral to lose your temper at a tree and kill it for a patently absurd reason.’

AJ lol… explain…? (I know the story, but I want to know why you consider that act immoral)…

It’s immoral based on the principles of justice and arborean dignity. If you can’t comprehend these principles then its your loss.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 12:09pm
Craig Ranapia

Redbaiter wrote:
You’re just swimming with the awfully trendy socially liberal Jerry Springer style stream…

I reply:
Well, it would actually be nice if the ‘mind your own business and I’ll repay the courtesy’ strain of social conservatism came back into fashion. There also used to be a strain of conservative thought that believed we didn’t need Nanny State to solve every problem, but that seems to be a rapidly fading memory as well.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 12:12pm
weizguy

You said that there was such a thing as “THE moral code”. Then failed to provide any evidence of it. Instead you talked about the principles behind morals – which are open to interpretation.

Go back to your favourite Oxford dictionary and tell me what code means:

Here’s some from the net.

A systematically arranged and comprehensive collection of laws.
A systematic collection of regulations and rules of procedure or conduct: a traffic code.

You claimed that such a thing exists for morals. I want to know where it is.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 12:13pm
A.J.Chesswas

Weizguy, why do you make the judgment that I am not “independent from my religion”? What does that even mean? In reality you’re asking me to be independent from my philosophy. Which makes no sense at all. Shall I ask you to be independent from yours?

Yes, I know, lets all through away those philosophical convictions we all cling to so dearly, and start having a discussion…

yeah, it’ll be a hoot.

It’s impossible, ok, you can’t even use language – not a single word – without being biased towards some hostorical, political, philosophical or religious ideology…

Man, why am I still taking you seriously? Oh that’s right, because it’s not just you who has these silly ideas… and for some reason when I was young I used to believe them – not because they were reasonable, but because thy were what my rebellious spirit wanted to hear…

Still, there was no-one confronting fools like you – and that’s why I am here today. And boy am I enjoying it…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 12:13pm
Ben Wilson

Lucyna, yes AJ was preaching about women’s sexuality. A lot. Read the thread and you will see. I know it’s long, boring and mostly silly, but it’s there.

As for my sexuality, I’m married with child. So no, not a virgin.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 12:16pm
Graham Miller

Since AJ appears to have an extreme case of selective amnesia, or wilful blindness, or perhaps both, here’s a walk-through guide for those who weren’t able to join us yesterday:

The law is the external and political recognition of, and protection of, morality.
Posted by A.J.Chesswas | August 21, 2006 8:47 AM

Morality? Please discuss…

Gooner check out the latest post on my blog to find out that what you’ve believed all along is a lie. There’s no difference between the principles of morality, ethics and law…
Posted by A.J.Chesswas | August 21, 2006 9:07 AM

Morality? Please discuss…

Morality isn’t just rules, there are deep and powerful principles involved…
Posted by A.J.Chesswas | August 21, 2006:37 AM

Morality? Please discuss…

It is not “my” moral code I refer to, it is THE moral code… In this case there is plenty of legislative empowerment for the police to prosecute, because THE moral code has traditionally been recognised in this country.
Posted by A.J.Chesswas | August 21, 2006 11:13 AM

THE moral code? Please discuss…

It’s obvious you live by a different moral code than I do Graham. All I’m saying is mine is right and yours is wrong. Mine deserves to be recognised by law, governance and police – yours doesn’t!
A.J.Chesswas | August 22, 2006 10:04 AM

So toodle-doo to you too!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 12:20pm
Redbaiter

Craig- I’m not talking about nanny state solving problems.. and if you’d taken the time to read my previous comments to the thread rather than bursting into print in a typically hurt liberal style knee jerk reaction, you’d have seen my true position…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 12:20pm
weizguy

Weizguy, why do you make the judgment that I am not “independent from my religion”?

You claimed that you came to your position on morals independent of religion. I call bullshit. Simple.

Still, there was no-one confronting fools like you – and that’s why I am here today. And boy am I enjoying it…

Inflated sense of self importance anyone?

Here are some simple questions. I’ll number them for you so I can keep up with your biting logic.

1. What is THE moral code?
2. Where can I find THE moral code?
3. Why is THE moral code different from my morals?
4. Why are you right and everyone who disagrees with you wrong?

That’ll do for starters.

Maybe you should turn down the cognitive static a little…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 12:21pm
A.J.Chesswas

“It’s immoral based on the principles of justice and arborean dignity”

Shall I take you seriously Danyl? OK, if Jesus was not the Son of God, and just a man, and he decided to curse a fig tree by the power of his spoken word, and it died, and he did all this for no good reason – then yes it would be immoral, because the dignity of vegetation is important (no joke)…

However, in the gospels Jesus claims that he is the Son of God, or pretty much God. He uses the fig tree to communicate a message, and while the dignity of the tree is abused, a greater moral good is gained. Much the same as The Bible states that God “hardened Pharoah’s heart” when the Israelites were trying to get out of Egypt. And if Jesus is God, then he must be they guy who created morals – so he gets to have a bit of artistic license along with that…

But show me a general principle, or requirement of humanity, that could be considered immoral…

Now weizguy, re: “The moral code”. Mr Miller was the first to use the term in this thread, he accused me of “insisting that others live by *my* moral code”. I asn’t used the term, and had already made statements like “There’s no difference between the PRINCIPLES of morality, ethics and law” and “Morality isn’t just rules, there are deep and powerful principles involved”. When Miller said “your moral code”, given I’d been referring to principles rather than rules I thought he must be too. You’re right, though, the dictionary definition clearly talks about rules and regulations. But I’m sure we know that deeper than that “code” simply means “message”. But I do admit that by clarifying the matter earlier I could have saved us a lot of confusion!

And finally, if you’re going to call BS on me, can I call BS on you that your choice of “morals” and “lifestyle” would be the result of a thought-through understanding of life? After all, I have articulated the thinking behind my judgment, and you haven’t said a word.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 12:33pm
Danyl Mclauchlan

Shall I take you seriously Danyl?

Since I’m repeating your own arguments back to you I find it amusing that you doubt their seriousness.

So what moral story is Jesus telling us by using the power of God to blast a fig tree? Well both Matthew and Mark make this quite clear – he’s saying that if you believe in God and pray to him he will do anything he wants you to.

In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. Peter remembered and said to Jesus, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!”

“Have faith in God,” Jesus answered. “I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, `Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

Unfortunately, this is patently and demonstrably false. It seems clear to me that AJ believes in God very devoutly but no matter how hard he prays God will not make me a Christian.

I’d also like to point out that since Jesus is – effectively – God, then he could have made the tree bear fruit and demonstrated his point without robbing the fruit tree of its right to justice and dignity.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 12:41pm
Graham Miller

This thread is ultimately about the Police’s non-prosecution stance in relation to the Boobs-on-Bikes.

Going right back to AJ’s first contribution:

When are the police, the media and David Farrar going to wake up and realise that moral standards have not changed one iota. In fact, those to profess not to believe in them seem to gain their most satisfcation in life from willfully rebelling against them, only further proving their eternal and universal spiritual reality.
Posted by A.J.Chesswas | August 21, 2006 8:30 AM

This introduces the language of spirituality and morality into the debate. And then, when asked to clarify your thinking on morals and morality, you said:

It is not “my” moral code I refer to, it is THE moral code… In this case there is plenty of legislative empowerment for the police to prosecute, because THE moral code has traditionally been recognised in this country. The interpretation of the police on this occasion is groundbreaking and revolutionary, and worse, unnecessary and without mandate…
Posted by A.J.Chesswas | August 21, 2006 11:13 AM

So why are you now trying to retreat from your original position that the police are acting contrary to THE moral code? If THE moral code has traditionally been recognised in this country, and provides legislative empowerment for the Police to intervene, but they choose not to, then the question remains: what are you going to do about it?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 12:45pm
A.J.Chesswas

OK with the fig tree, my understanding is it was a picture of Israel, and that because it did not bear the fruit (blessing of the nations with the knowledge of God) that he’d called it to, he would essentially focus instead on the church – Jew and Gentile under the headship of Christ. Consider the context – he also talked of the temple being destroyed (Matt 24), and of himself being rejected by Israel (Matt 21:33-46.

Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:
” ‘The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone;
the Lord has done this,
and it is marvelous in our eyes’?

“Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed.”

He chose to demonstrate and illustrate his point by curing the fig tree (a symbol of Israel), because he deemed it most effective. You might ask does God have a right to treat humanity the way he treated that fig tree. If he’s God, then of course he does…

And don’t go nuts saying I’m Anti-Semitic because I’ve talked of Israel being cursed. They bore God’s wrath for a time, but Romans 11 talks about the day they will be restored, and blessed by God, and surely we are living in that day.

Still, you’re right Jesus did use it as an example to his disciples of the power of prayer. And what Christ professes about prayer here certainly hasn’t been my experience. But then it’s pretty hard to pray for something without doubt in your heart – you’d have to be adamant it was God’s will in the first place. And according to Mark 11:25 you’d have to be in a position where you held nothing against anyone, a state of complete forgiveness.

Yeah, it is a shaky one, I will admit that much!!

Now Graham, how can we really have an opinion on whether or not the police prosecuted without bringing morality into the debate?

I am not retreating from my position that police are acting contrary to THE moral code. I’m just saying I don’t think it’s necessary to talk about an entire moral code in order to address one issue. The principles of human dignity and justice will suffice.

I think the concern isn’t really what I am going to do about it. You guys someone bigger to worry about than just me…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 1:04pm
weizguy

I’m just saying I don’t think it’s necessary to talk about an entire moral code in order to address one issue. The principles of human dignity and justice will suffice.

But we’ve demonstrated that they aren’t enough for the kind of absolutism you’re preaching. Those principles allow us to come to different conclusions. Mine are different to yours. In fact, many people have come to different conclusions. Consequently, morals can’t be absolute, unless we’re all wrong.

Which leaves you with the question – why am I wrong? Why are you right?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 1:09pm
SB

Well back from the parade, it was great if a little short!

Gota be 2-3 times as many people watching it as last year. The cheerleading by Major Dick and Bob McCoskrie in the Herald really worked a treat.

Crow is going to be laughing all the way to the bank.

I wonder if it will translate into more people at the Sexpo. I suspect it will, which in some ways is a pity as the halls were packed previous years.

Got some interesting pictures though with all the people there I got some shots of the back of peoples heads!

No protesters so AJ will be disappointed – noted approx 1 in 3 of the people watching were women.

SB
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 1:13pm
SB

Forgot to say somebody upstairs liked it, it was raining and grey until about 10 mins before then the rain stopped and the sun came out and it was a summers day!

Possible its not against THE moral code then?

SB
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 1:20pm
Graham Miller

Possible its not against THE moral code then?

No no no… it’s apparently about human dignity and justice. You need to bring yourself up to date, SB 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 1:23pm
SB

Graham: What! I thought THE moral code was “human dignity and justice”. They are changing their definitions so fast I can’t keep up.

SB
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 1:27pm
phil u

here is a nunga report for you ..a.j.

now..in the interests of journalism..(you understand)..i went up to the staging area…deep in sodom..(cross st..newton..k. rd..shudder..!..)
and got right in amongst it…

so..aj…i was there when they let their ‘puppies’ out..and hopped on the bikes….

and after displaying a steely determination to cover all bases…i can report there were only two pairs of nungas i would walk over the road to see…

and they were quite small..and brown…perky nipples..
(very nice..!..)

(settle..!..aj…settle..!..)

but all in all..a.j…

it was a bit of an anti-climax..

and certainly not worthy of 30,000 something words..eh..?

phil(whoar.co.nz))
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 1:30pm
Graham Miller

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10397686

A massive crowd has turned out to watch the Boobs on Bikes parade on Auckland’s Queen Street this afternoon. The street was packed with a crowd of thousands which was thought to be bigger than that for the annual Santa Parade.

Uh oh…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 1:32pm
Lucyna

80% male, too.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 2:01pm
SB

There were some topless male pornstars on the tanks to give the girls something to perv over.

I was in the middle of a group of approx 7 20’s something women (not on purpose!) and they had a good shout at the boys.

SB
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 2:17pm
A.J.Chesswas

Weizguy, you haven’t shown us HOW you have interpreted those principles to arrive at the your conclusion that a topless parade of pornstars is not immoral.

That is why I would call BS on your call that you have used the same principles to come to a different conclusion. Give me some proof.

That is why, if this were ever considered official debate, I would be deemed to be the victor.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 2:28pm
weizguy

I believe it’s immoral to presume that I can tell a woman that she must cover up her breasts. Her body belongs to her, not to me.

Justice is about the right to participate in society within guidelines set down by the legislature. If we disagree with those guidelines, we can lobby, or vote for a new set of legislators. I agree with the current legal position, so my view is in line with justice.

Human Dignity is less important to me, but not in this situation. The ability to choose is the most important dignity of all.

That is why, if this were ever considered official debate, I would be deemed to be the victor.

You are taking the piss right? My debate with you was not about whether boobs on bikes ws moral, but whether THE moral code existed – you have resiled from your original position – therefore, you have already admitted defeat.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 2:37pm
err..

“80% male, too.”

Funny, that.

In other news, I saw a rather large group of women gawping at some firemen the other day. Didn’t seem to be many men doing it…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 2:49pm
Danyl Mclauchlan

Well I think that’s pretty well put, weizguy.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 2:51pm
A.J.Chesswas

You would have done well to forget about picking on THE moral code and focus on THE debate. There would have been NO debate if justice as a concept was so Foucaltian that it simply meant “the standards enforced by legislators and police in this day and age”. You can’t argue for something to be moral by saying “because the cops say so”. It’s as bad as saying “because The Bible says so”.

I will give you credit, though, for actually explaining why you think there is morality, justice and dignity in a woman displaying her breasts.

1. “It’s immoral to presume I can tell a woman she must cover up her breasts. Her body belongs to her, not to me”.

If by the use of my body I could offend someone, and that offence could be reasonably justified, then I have no right to follow through with that action. Explain to me a principle or an authority that would suggest otherwise.

2. “Justice is about the right to participate in society within guidelines set down by the legislature”

According to this statement there could be now such thing as an unjust law. I hope I never see you lobbying on Bills that are passed through parliament, otherwise I would have to call you a hypocrite.

3. “The ability to choose is the most important dignity of all”

What about the ability to live a good and moral life? Is it really just to exploit those weak in conscience and morality for the sake of their ability to choose?

Aaaah…. Finally…. THE debate 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 2:58pm
err..

“If by the use of my body I could offend someone, and that offence could be reasonably justified, then I have no right to follow through with that action.”

So what you’re saying is that all those nice Christian people who’ve tried to convert me over the years were actually violating the principles of justice and human dignity?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 3:08pm
weizguy

You were arguing from a false premise. We could not continue until you’d either provided evidence, or retreated from you untenable position. You chose the latter.

If by the use of my body I could offend someone, and that offence could be reasonably justified, then I have no right to follow through with that action. Explain to me a principle or an authority that would suggest otherwise.

Of course you do. Women in the 50s offended many people by wearing bikinis. They had the right to follow through with that action. The question is really – why you should be able to dictate to another what they should do?

According to this statement there could be now such thing as an unjust law. I hope I never see you lobbying on Bills that are passed through parliament, otherwise I would have to call you a hypocrite.

And if you did so, you would be unfairly maligning me. Note that I pointed out the right TO lobby, and to vote in a different government. That’s part of access to justice, as is the right to judicially review decisions, and take private prosecutions. Your version of THE moral code doesn’t leave room for any challenge to your decision.

What about the ability to live a good and moral life? Is it really just to exploit those weak in conscience and morality for the sake of their ability to choose?

Sorry – the ability to choose comes first. But with that choice comes the potential of consequences. With the ability to choose comes the ability to choose to be “good and moral”. Without the choice to do so, being good is merely compulsion, and without moral character.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 3:12pm
A.J.Chesswas

“You were arguing from a false premise. We could not continue until you’d either provided evidence, or retreated from you untenable position. You chose the latter.”

The premise I was arguing from was the “moral code” of human dignity and justice. The use of the word code was not helpful, I admit. But to use the principles of human dignity and justice as a premise for arguing about morality is not false. You have actually accepted it, and you are using the same framework for making your current argument.

You still haven’t told me why I have more right to do something that causes offence, than the offendee has a right not to be offended. The difference in principle between the topless parade of pornstars and me trying to convert you is that the former does so not to edify you, but to exploit you, whereas I try to convert you to edify you, not exploit you.

“I agree with the current legal position, so my view is in line with justice”

The implication of this statement is that you think our current legislative position is just, and you are using the ruling of judges and police to back up your claim that you are right. If you want to have a relativist view of justice that’s your choice, but if you do then there’s not much point getting into a debate entitled “A Police Rulling I Don’t Disagree With”. Implicit in Farrar’s title is that there is a more authoritative source of judgment than the police. I think he still believes in the application of reason.

“Sorry – the ability to choose comes first. But with that choice comes the potential of consequences. With the ability to choose comes the ability to choose to be “good and moral”. Without the choice to do so, being good is merely compulsion, and without moral character.”

Well, I think you have a higher view of human nature than I do. And that is a typical difference between a liberal and a conservative. My experience, in observing myself and my contemporaries, is that no matter how hard we try, or how much we beg God to change us, we again and again stumble in ways that we regret. Sure, free choice is important, and I would never want to be ruled a commie or a totalitarian government. All I am saying is that there are some vices and temptations so difficult to avoid that it is worth doing all we can to protect ourselves against them.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 3:27pm
Graham Miller

The difference in principle between the topless parade of pornstars and me trying to convert you is that the former does so not to edify you, but to exploit you, whereas I try to convert you to edify you, not exploit you.

A carve-out for Christianity from the moral standards which you would impose on others?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 3:29pm
SB

Given the results of the B.O.B. today I would say that AJ initial post where he stated

“It is official – the police are completely out of touch with the moral, hardworking, everyday New Zealander.”

has proven to be wrong. The moral,hardworking New Zealanders came out and supported the parade.

The police were correct with their call and Dick H was wrong.

I don’t know how many thousands or people were out there today but it was orders of magnitude more than sent emails to the council.

I do hope this ends the talk about banning it next year!

SB
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 3:59pm
Ben Wilson

SB, yes the world flows around the wowsers as they sit in remote virginal outrage. Fair enough, I remember feeling quite bitter when I was a virgin too. Fortunately their numbers are small. It’s one of those clubs where the bulk of the membership wish they weren’t, and only the strangest fools actually dig it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 4:25pm
A.J.Chesswas

The thing is, you guys really do need to be a bit more considerate of us virgins. We could do with some encouragement and support in our commitment, rather than having to withstand the sexual saturation of our and media culture. Again, it’s about justice and equality. Keep it to the bedroom and quit flaunting it.

I feel sorry for the young people coming through our schooling system. Like me there are a number of them with a moral convction to wait until marriage. Yet they’re treated like gormless, hormone-controlled idiots and it is just expected they will do it. School teachers use the word SEX as an anagram to help them remember concepts and ideas.

Please, just get over yourselves and realise there are people who don’t have it as sweet as you, and haven’t met the right person for them yet, but still have to deal with the same desires and urges as all of us. We should do all we can to help people who make commitments to chastity, not make it hard for them.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 4:47pm
Graham Miller

School teachers use the word SEX as an anagram to help them remember concepts and ideas.

Really? Come up with, say, three such anagrams that are in common usage. Otherwise we’re obliged to interpret your statement is hyperbole.

And could you please address my point above about a carve-out for Christianity from the moral standards which you would impose on others? Is the balance between the “right” not to be offended and the “right” to offend others appropriate struck if, on your reasoning, a Christian has the right to preach to others no matter how much they may find that offensive?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 4:56pm
A.J.Chesswas

“School teachers use the word SEX as an anagram to help them remember concepts and ideas”

This fact was relayed to me last week from a high school student that I know. I trust him, and given other things I know about the school I believe him. I don’t know, though, what the particular words were.

I didn’t understand what you meant by “a carve-out for Christianity from the moral standards which you would impose on others”. Could you explain?

“Is the balance between the “right” not to be offended and the “right” to offend others appropriate struck if, on your reasoning, a Christian has the right to preach to others no matter how much they may find that offensive?”

The question is a matter of why the person is offended, and the context in which that preaching is occurring. You will need to flesh out a bit more what you mean by “A Christian preaching to others”.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 5:00pm
Ben Wilson

I feel sorry for virgins. Most of them are not by choice. And they’re missing out on something good.

The few that claim not to have found the right woman can’t have been looking very hard – the world is quite literally full of women who could give you a taste.

Unless you really want to get married beforehand. That seems like the ultimate foolishness to me. Why go to all the trouble of a wedding if you then find she’s not your bag? I can tell you for an absolutely certain fact that there’s no point at all getting married to a woman who you don’t want to have sex with. Unless you are gay, too scared to come out, and she’s a willing beard. Is that what you’re after? Don’t bother man, just come out.

Sure I’m ‘tolerant’ of you AJ. But I don’t envy you. I don’t respect your choice or even understand it. And I sure as hell can’t stomach taking any kind of advice or sermonizing from you on a matter that you know almost nothing about. It’s like me giving Dan Carter pointers on goalkicking.

Do you know what an anagram is btw? Hint, with SEX, there are 6:
SEX
SXE
ESX
EXS
XSE
XES

I’m not sure what any of those could help in the remembrance of, but if they do, so what?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 5:16pm
SB

Aj: “We could do with some encouragement and support in our commitment” if you want that then you have to explain what the point of it is?

I am a lot older than you and I can’t see what the point is. If you are looking for a madonna and keep on finding whores you have a problem.

If you wait for miss perfect to turn up you may never find her.

SB
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 6:25pm
Graham Miller

You wrote:

You still haven’t told me why I have more right to do something that causes offence, than the offendee has a right not to be offended. The difference in principle between the topless parade of pornstars and me trying to convert you is that the former does so not to edify you, but to exploit you, whereas I try to convert you to edify you, not exploit you.

The two sentences are in stark contrast. The first sets up a proposition. The second purports to explain why that proposition doesn’t apply in the case of religious edification. Sorry, but this immediately runs into the problem that the means (your religious edification) justifies the end (the offence) – as a matter of your subjective judgment.

We’ve now moved from a universal law of morality to a subjective law that can be applied over the opposition of others, depending on whether it is edification or exploitation, as judged by you. Not great progress, I’m afraid, but at least we’ve moved on from where we were yesterday.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 6:32pm
SEX

Statement
Explanation
eXample

Sex
Excellent
X-Men
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 23, 2006 6:47pm

More comments:

‹
1
2
3
4
5
›

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« The Reagan Ranch

Supporting our Allies »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 13K other subscribers

Highlights

Target achieved II
Good progress on attendance
Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments

Top Stories

General Debate 03 June 2026
Another British policing scandal
General Debate 04 June 2026
A win for democracy
Abolishing HR
Meet the Greens - ACC
Democrat says lock up the Jews
$600k on a website for a building!
Words that are now meaningless
General Debate 02 June 2026

Recent Posts

Words that are now meaningless 4 June 2026
Abolishing HR 4 June 2026
General Debate 04 June 2026 4 June 2026
Meet the Greens – ACC 4 June 2026
Democrat says lock up the Jews 3 June 2026
Another British policing scandal 3 June 2026
General Debate 03 June 2026 3 June 2026
A win for democracy 3 June 2026
$600k on a website for a building! 2 June 2026
Set housing outcomes not outputs 2 June 2026
General Debate 02 June 2026 2 June 2026
Of course GP wait times will skyrocket under Labour 2 June 2026

Recent Comments

General Debate 04 June 2026
Jack5
Words that are now meaningless
Maggy Wassilieff
General Debate 04 June 2026
Ra Henare
Words that are now meaningless
Maggy Wassilieff
Words that are now meaningless
CJames
General Debate 04 June 2026
Ghost
Words that are now meaningless
David Garrett
Words that are now meaningless
David Garrett
Words that are now meaningless
Maggy Wassilieff
Words that are now meaningless
Charlotte Wells
Words that are now meaningless
CJames
General Debate 04 June 2026
David George
General Debate 04 June 2026
virtualmark
Abolishing HR
imalwaysright
Words that are now meaningless
mandk

Links

Parliament fails to defend transparency
No Right Turn
"The principal view of human laws is, or ought always to be, to explain, protect, and enforce such rights as are absolute, which in themselves are few and simple."
Not PC
Word of the day
Hompaddock
The response to Budget 2026 has been unusually muted
Point of Order
You know what “does not pass the sniff test”? Labour’s incremental response to blatant corruption – this is why they plunged 7.5%
The Daily Blog
When is a Free Speech Union not a Free Speech Union?
The Standard
We Are a Country That Decided Housing Was The Economy
No Minister
My Opening Statement for the UATX Caplan-Jones Immigration Rematch
Utopia
Playing with numbers.
Kiwipolitico
Another non-tariff barrier
Offsetting Behaviour
Rugby Premiership Predictions for Round 18
Stats Chat
Budget 2026
NZCPR
UK Conversion Therapy Ban, Digital ID, Rallies, Elections
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
A central banker’s fiction
Croaking Cassandra
THE WORKING FROM HOME RACKET BY PUBLIC SERVANTS
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Get Vaccinated Tomorrow Or Shut Your Pie Hole
Cactus Kate
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker

[email protected]

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

© 2003-2026 David Farrar

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d

%d