Posts by andin
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
This is a democracy after all.
But you have to admit that there has to be more to it than one person one vote.
For a start not everyone is fully up to speed on all the issues and the points of difference that make one choice or the other the better one for the majority of people in the democracy.
That statement is full of unanswered questions and points to a lot of variables, that are just mind boggling for me.I wish I could be bothered putting them all down but what would be the point. There's the role of the news media, the spin that is so often put on press releases, and the level of engagement (of understanding educating oneself for no better reason that it is your civic duty) in the whole process by those most affected by it the population at large.
And was it just voter fatigue, people were sick of looking & listening to Helen Clark or Michael Cullen that lead to the election of a National govt that has the same faces virtually as it did 10 -15 yrs ago. With a leader whose activity in his previous employment at one point looked like ruining this countries currency.
And worst of all maybe they are still baby boomers with all the bi- polar baggage that they still havent ever seen a psychiatrist about, and maybe they should, because it is like a festering boil on their forehead.
And you just know they are going to lie and smile doing it. They are going to do unknown damage not take any responsibility or blame someone else, and then swan about waiting for a knighthood.And I would like a democracy where I could walk into the debating hall and voice my objections and I dont have to make an appointment or inform anyone. And I dont have to worry that the armed constabulary will accost me.
Sorry this is not a participatory democracy, it is a sham. An ill informed public votes every three years then gets ignored or lied to for the rest of a govt's term. And how is it reported? In a way I can only call disgraceful, with rare shining exceptions and they should know who they are.
Anyway I gotta get back to the job search. -
my perennial heritage hobbyhorse?
It is this: a modest contestable fund for the digitisation of works held in public archivesYou should mount it more often.
I would just add actively getting it out into the public domain.You actually can't ignore the baby-boomers: that cohort moves through the national statistics like the juggernaut it is.
All that movement and so little changed for the better longterm.
Oh sorry you meant in a statistical way only?Per capita crime, for example, was highest when the boomers were at crime committing age.
Even without the upside down b scourge. And the judges were so much more understanding and forgiving back then too.
Oh shame. -
Now I'm flinching involuntarily at the thought of your next post.
Thats the spirit!
-
I, for one, welcome the baby boomers as my overlord.
Did your knee just jerk then Ben?
And having observed the baby boomer phenomenon close up. At a time when the moribund state of a section of this thing called humanity (thats western culture, the thing thats going tits up at the moment) needed to grow up. What did my contemporaries do? Hmmm
They just fell into the old trap of hanging pretty baubles round their neck and going awww look at me. Now you lot have to do what I say.
As if this is an effing sandpit.*puts on best Jon Stewart impish tone*
And having observed Kevin Roberts close up I can tell you that his head is so far up his arse.
That thing sitting atop his shoulders....*sly smile*
That is his haemorrhoids.Kapisi an atheist, dont think that can be called irrelevant.
More likely those who fall for the childhood indoctrination we are all subjected to havent grown up yet.
But then some people never do. -
As the stunt unfolded, there came the depressing realisation that it was really the Baby Boomers back again. Roger Kerr, pulling the strings, paying the bills. Paul Holmes, for whatever reason – ratings, realisation, simple ego –
I fucking hate it that by the accident of birth dates I get lumped in with these f*#^king blights on this country. Where can I apply for a new birth date?
I think I was one of very few scowling darkly and muttering out of earshot "fucking hippies" in 1969. And knew they would cock things up. I've never fitted in since. Well at least the drugs were cheap and plentiful till T Clark fucked it up. And circa 2001 there was another fine few years.And Craig if there ever was a damnable omniscient being maybe Homo sapien neanderthalensis should have been its pick instead of Homo sapien sapien.
Sure, we would have had slopping foreheads and hairy backs but we wouldnt have bothered with getting hung up about it.A fine bit of writing RB I look forward to the up dated version.
-
Yeah, lucky a snippet of Aristotle's writings survived to have that influence.
Thanks Ben.
Oh and people who use the word inclusive send a shiver down my spine.Dear Ms Emma Hart
You overcame your Kiwi reticence to mention the subject of religion. Thanks.
Isnt it funny that most of the people who turned up to comment profess no religion. I guess it says something about the readership of Public address.
Well there was the one catholic, the resident PA supposed contrarian the dear luv, he was out of here quick.It is an awkward subject mainly I think, because when it is talked about, it goes to the very heart of what goes on in our minds it isnt really about gods. I dont find have difficulty with that as a subject but many people do.
It is a private domain usually, until something goes wrong in the world we all live in. Then it is of vital importance that we open up I think. But it is a counter intuitive thing to do for many. And when times are tough, as they surely will be for the next couple of years in NZ and with a crew of ninnies holding the reins of Govt, dialogue and introspection just dont figure.
So I guess Brian Tamaki and his ilk, must be rubbing his hands with glee. They have an identifiable target -atheism, people hurting and a govt they can cosy up to.
Is this a perfect storm, I hope not.
And remember follow you own rule, if someone mentions god change the subject quick.
Thanks again anyway very brave of you.
APS
It will be interesting to see what kind of reception Richard Dawkins gets when he appears by video link (chicken) at the upcoming writers, is it a conference. I cant remember off the top of my head. -
You left out "Philosophers"
Starting in Ionian islands and then on through troublesome relationships with religions that were around over time, so I kinda left it out on purpose.
Cause thats when the idea of proofs started to appear. And so the distinction between the religious and the scientific started to appear.
And proving something evidentially such as a supernatural being, is foreign and I would say impossible, for a religion. And probably a non starter if you wanted funds from the church.Cheers
-
From WSJ quote
and the island nation grew smartly.
EH Is there a dress code here now?
I wish some one would tell all those slovenly people in the WINZ offices looking for jobs.
I love misunderstanding stuff hehe -
I'm not quite ready to commit to the idea that Evolution can explain everything about the human mind, because so far it has not. It is a possibility that it never will, and if you are not dogmatic you have to accept this.
Evolution only explains how we got this mind. Explaining its workings could take eons or never, who knows not me.
So I guess we agree.It seemed to me that you were taking the position that evolution will absolutely certainly be able to explain it one day, which seems like a very bold claim, going well beyond the evidence.
Um no, not taking that position or being that bold.
I imagine that I have a far more inclusive view of the word science than you do.
Now thats a bold claim.
Again this is because I don't want it to become a church.
Im guessing here but you saying this because you see theist's and atheist's as two sides of a coin, ying and yang? Yet you say you are an atheist but of a different stripe?
Im completely nonplussed as to why you say this.
Are you trying to insult me or something. I find it bizarre.To that end I have no qualms about saying that people who theorized about creation in the ancient world were scientists. Having a theory is better than no theory at all, even if it is a totally wrong theory. At least it gives you something to disprove.
And I thought the usual descriptions for people in the ancient world who theorized about creation was priest, shaman or holy man. But if you want to think them scientists go ahead.
And I thought that once a creation theory was um created. Its creators didnt try to prove or disprove it, they just passed it on to the next generation.But I'll never know I wasnt there.Nice chatting ciao.
-
So the wine was good?
Yes t'was.
Oh Ben Ben Ben.
There are so many fallacies in this statement, I just dont know where to start and sorry I dont have time at present to go over them so, I'll just have to leave you to ponder them further.Or it could be completely inadequate for the task. It's a possibility. If you really have a scientific mind then you have to countenance it.
Could be, but lets give it a chance.
Enquiry into the workings of the human mind in a scientific way, starting with the Vienna school I suppose. That is now virtually dead in the water, except for New agers who still like to quote Jung.So 80 - 100yrs? It only really kicked off when Freud and Jung made it to the US where a gullible populace awaited eager to fill their leisure hours wondering about themselves. Not an auspicious start.
Psychology has languished thru most of the last 2 decades, if it's ridiculed in sitcoms you know it's screwed.Evolutionary Psych well could be still born if it overreaches itself, like the various therapies dreamt up by those Austrian Herr Doctors.
And so far this has been the case, most writings of EP's is excretable. As I said speculation, educated of course but there's just no way any of it can be backed up. But let people put their thoughts into words I have no objection to this and it's a start.
Lets not reject possibilities before they have been explored.Because clearly the religious explanation, that a supernatural being blessed us in with this marvellous gift and we should all just have faith cause he might be back one day (I dont buy into Pascal's Wager), is crap.
Just as Theists seem to think they have all the answers, I've noticed Atheists do too.
You observations are probably based on the ?atheists you know, not a good platform.
To take a strong position on the non-existence of God is to give a lot more of a shit about God than agnostics do.
So you would think of yourself as an "I dont give a shit agnostic".
I have no objection to talking to anyone about anything. I am not dogmatic, but I do require more than just a persons's say so or unsubstantiated quotes from an old book. And I have had people resort to threats of eternal damnation because I dont believe as they. So if my position is strong in the face of such language, so be it.To wish to explain all of creation on terms that humans can handle is something that both Evolutionists and Creationists share.
The explanations are different and this does make a difference.
There is a huge difference between Evolution and Creation. They are not equal and competing theories.
Only Creationist wish to explain ALL of creation "on terms that humans can handle". But that explanation is woefully inadequate. And all societies have creation myths. Are all of them right? All of them wrong? Or all of them wrong except one? Which One?
And I am happy to say I have no fucking idea about a lot of things.It can be hard sometimes to accept that both are just theories, one is just older and more discredited than the other.
How are you using the word theory?