Posts by DexterX
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Chris Waugh,
If I have a question of ethics or purpose, a philosopher or theologian is going to be more useful..
So whilst one is ill would they be mowing your lawns, doing the dishes, cooking the meals , washing your clothes and changiong the bed?
-
The cynic in me thinks that Keys support for marriage equality is a thing by which he seeks to define himself - to be remembered in history as being the reasonable man – that he will perhaps shepherd his flock to follow suit (in the conscience vote).
The parallel is perhaps Labour and Lange - Privatisation and Nuclear Free NZ. The Nats and Key - Assets Sales and marriage equality.
Whatever way the bill progresses it needs to be passed and become a (global) beacon for equality/tolerance/acceptance/love.
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to andin,
Tho scientists working on the Higgs Boson say its properties are godlike.
Two geezers, one Lederman (Nobel award winning physicist) and the other Tresci (a science writer) co authored a book called - The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question? – which provides an overview of the history of particle physics – particle physics for almost dummies.
Physicists generally resent the “God Particle” tag as sub atomic particle theory has nothing to do with “God” – however the label initially helped promote the work and may well help with spending a shit load of cash funding related research.
So if anyones has in the back of their mind that the species is on the brink of some event horizon thang and God will appear saying this is how its done then they are pretty wrong.
Most metaphors don’t bear close examination and most branding is largely nonsense.
-
An interesting angle that may likely develop is that a Catholic Priest (or for that matter other Minster of Christian religion) may interpret the Gospels (his personal faith) in away that will not allow him in good conscience to discriminate against administering the sacrament of marriage to a same sex couple. The heat would really go on in that situation.
I would say that it is likely the Catholic Church would be centuries away from widely administering the sacrament of marriage to same sex couples.
The basis of Christian teachings on marriage are based on the teachings of Paul the Apostle, he opens his teachings on marriage (Corinthians 7 (New International Version)) with “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”
Should the churches based in the Christian faith follow Paul the Apostles’ opening ideal on marriage, the abstinence of sexual relations, it would solve the problem - in that heterosexual couples would stop having children. This would in turn stop gay people from being born and wanting an equal right. . Of course the species would end but at least it would be a theologically sound ending.
In essence theology is just making stuff up to suit ones purpose which is one reason why anything assigned a theological basis, say marriage, is complete chaos.
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Tess Rooney,
A right to a belief systems stops short of the right of other people to be who they are.
Although I find the arguments against to be largely nonsense – one can’t help but feel sad for people living in places where there is no possibility of the debate even taking place.
The wider Christian principle, as I see it, is that one accepts people as they find them without any judgement; what sits alongside this is people have the right to find themselves as they actually are.
The debate on same sex marriage is proof of a significant moment of civil and cultural evolution taking place - a milestone on the road to human equality.
I have felt that those opposed to same sex marriage are to hung up on what they imagine the sex lives of others to be.
When any persons want to form a union under the guise of “marriage” it is about more than an act of sex. All people of whatever gender should have the right not to be denied – the right to make vows to another and to commit to that set of vows. One doesn't need a church to be married.
I support marriage, even though saying this and what follows rankles with me as being against my better judgement, I support gay marriage – gay people have the right to be married and then, on the law of averages, be just as miserable as most everyone else.
Once this milestone passes recognising the rights of all people to marry – it would be good to just see “it all” as “marriage” rather than gay or straight – it is after all a union and an exchange of vows between people that should not be denied.
-
Legal Beagle: Presuming innocence, in reply to Steve Barnes,
John Banks is the kind of guy who will adhere to the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit.
Banks doesn't have a problem with the law, neither does Brash, and Key doesn't have a problem with people who don't have a problem with the law.
Banks has been around a long while he knows how things work and how to milk it to the max - same for Brash and Key.
The electoral return bullshit isn't the first time Banks has escaped a prosecution for putting his signature on something that was false.
Banks and Brash escaped having to defend themselves in court for signing a prospectuses for the Huljich KiwiSaver scheme, the prospectus contained false and misleading statements and Peter Huljich pleaded guilty to the charges bought against him, though Banks and Brash who as Directors also signed the prospectus had no charges bought against them.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/6555638/Petition-stalks-Banks-Brash
Mum and Dad investors are expected to trust the NZ Govt – a bunch of Asshats hell bent on Assets Sales regardless of the fact it makes no fiscal or economic sense.
Look at how the Nats took over Act, then dumped Brash for Banks and we have the whole Teapot Tape saga.
The behaviour of Key, Banks and Brash is consistently foul and highly cynical towards the electorate (populace) as a whole and even towards the people that voted for them – their behaviour is to my mind inherently dishonest even for politicians.
Look at Sky City, The Dot Com Saga, MFAT, Education – the list goes on and on – not only are they to my mind dirty dealers – they are incompetent and think they are more than they really are or ever could be.
I would not be surprised if Key and Banks shared the same bath water.
-
Heard a sound bite today from Dishonest John banks - the gist of it all was that his innocence had been proven, that there was no wrongdoing on his part and he had been exonerated.
Exxonerated in the sense of the Exxon Valdez traveling through Prince William Sound.
Banks also said of Kim Dot Com, “He stole my Rap”. Banks is looking to sue Kim Dot Come for copyright infringement in the song “Amnesia”,
Banks acknowledged that getting away with dishonesty had both short-term and long-term consequences – namely he was happy to still be the Member for Epsom and Minister of Small Business, and that long term he really wanted to be the Minister for Big Business.
Banks considered the further destruction to the “existence value” of the electoral process, the value to the public of having faith in a clear and accountable electoral process, was priceless. Banks when questioned about matters further said, “Who cares if I am innocent or guilty, I got away with it and that is what counts”.
When explaining his strange laughter on the Paul; Homes interview earlier in the year Banks said, “What do you expect? My phone is well packed away and always on vibrate, Woof Woof.”.
-
Yes, paintergate does spring to mind. Though I think Banks deed is far worese than Clark's.
What it represents, to me, is the ongoing and gradual erosion of a NZ society - equal treatment for all in the eyes of the law. It is said that Justice is blind - however - she turns a blind eye much too often.
What amazes me is Nick Smith goes but Banks stays as "Minister for Small Business".
-
Hard News: John Banks: The volunteer did…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
The problem isn't ordinary person vs. extraordinary person
The problem is, more than an impression, that themz that is the political elite can get away with whatever they want to get away with regardless of any provision at law be it electoral law or otherwise.
-
Legal Beagle: Johndotbanks - the law is…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
But the offence provision in the statute makes you responsible for it, whether you've read it or not.
In relevant judgements on tax matters - The judge will always refer the person to their declaration - which the IRD kindly print on all returns - "I declare that the information given in this return is true and correct"
This form of declaration is given in judgements as the basis for refusing to remit substantial penalties or grant an errant taxpayer any consideration that results from an honest error.
What I always do is qualify my tax returns declaration to "I declare that the information given in this return is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and ability".