Cracker by Damian Christie

Read Post

Cracker: Wallywood

735 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 25 26 27 28 29 30 Newer→ Last

  • BenWilson,

    Sure, but that doesn't stop us putting a time period around our "fastest drag car" fact. In practice, it will be needed anyway because the records keep getting broken. Guiness calls them "Progressive speed records" for a reason.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    Anybody ever been given a decent answer as to why double-belt safety-harnesses for drivers (i.e the kind pilots and racing-car drivers wear) are not allowed in yer average vehicle?

    My guess is for the same reason that crash helmets are not allowed, nor roll cages. They might encourage dangerous driving. LOL. But adding 200 horsepower is all good.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • Islander,

    I think you're right BenWilson. Although some vehicles already have the equivalent of inbuilt roll-cages...and I fail to understand why my 2977cc vehicle could be driven faster than the 143kph it has done on racetrack just because I was wearing an enhanced safely-belt system...I mean, chuck in 200hp and whoa! But otherwise...

    Big O, Mahitahi, Te Wahi … • Since Feb 2007 • 5643 posts Report Reply

  • Keir Leslie,

    Sure, but that doesn't stop us putting a time period around our "fastest drag car" fact.

    But it does mean that the idea of `drag car' changes over time and place based on subjective issues. Hardly a rock solid objective fact now.

    Since Jul 2008 • 1452 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    and illegal things legal,

    As Brownlee just announced with regard to Schedule 4 conservation land around the country. :(

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel,

    I think we should look for unobtainium under
    Gerry Brownlee's house....
    Gawd, he was smug on Campbell Live tonight,
    and superciliously patronizing with it...

    Apparently all this mining is so we (the country?) can make more money - are we
    starting a state owned mining company?
    Otherwise the bulk of the dosh and minerals
    will go offshore, business as usual...

    I wonder how many times we will hear that the
    land involved is "the equivalent of a post card
    on the pitch at Mt Eden" an imperialist measure
    we can all use...

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7953 posts Report Reply

  • Islander,

    We are being told that it is a tiny wee part of our land - and hey! look! so much more (crap) land will go into the conservation estate- and it doesnt matter anyway, because, jobs! Jobs! Jobs!

    Anyone here of Scots descent and knows the other meaning of 'jobs"?
    As in, "Go do your jobbies dear"?

    We are being sold such a lot of shit-

    REBELL!

    Big O, Mahitahi, Te Wahi … • Since Feb 2007 • 5643 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic,

    Otherwise the bulk of the dosh and minerals
    will go offshore, business as usual...

    Precisely. It could be a much bigger issue than the actual mining itself if NZ sees little of the profits. At least in Aussie the mining co's seem to be largely Aussie-controlled.

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5443 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Parks,

    ...do 9/11 "truthers" have an equally valid view of those events as you and I?

    No. And the reason why they don't is that their appeal is bogus and their arguments dishonest. This can be exposed relatively simply.

    Yes, but can you see how what you just said looks a lot like you are making an objective assessment about issues that relate to what is the truth?

    Trying to drag me back into it?

    No, it’s not like I manipulated Sacha into asking that question.

    Best not lift it out of context or turn it into a straw man then.

    If so, I certainly didn’t do it deliberately. Here’s the full quote, for the record:

    Whereas from where I'm sitting it's simply a matter of having found Avatar awful and being willing to back it up with argument - an argument which is in turn open to being accepted or rejected on its merits.

    There's been "arguments" both ways, and of course everything in them boils down to subjective opinion of artistic worth. After a while it moves from anything resembling argument, to cheerleading. I think this happened months ago, wrt Avatar.

    People can judge for themselves, but “of course everything in them boils down to subjective opinion” doesn’t seem that far from “it’s all just opinion” to me. My summary was (obviously) a little flippant, but not unfair.

    You're conveniently eliding the subjective element: that each car is being driven by someone.

    I’m conveniently eliding many elements – that’s what people do with analogies. In any given race, the faster car might get hit by a freak bolt of lightening before it can win the race.

    Wellington • Since May 2007 • 1165 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso,

    Yes, but can you see how what you just said looks a lot like you are making an objective assessment about issues that relate to what is the truth?

    That would be because I am.

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

  • Hilary Stace,

    I hear that in Australia the mining companies are not too concerned about preserving Aboriginal sites which are blocking their way to the minerals. Although the way that two storey high wahi tapu site in the King Country was blasted for a private hydroelectric project recently, maybe signals the way of the future here too.

    Wgtn • Since Jun 2008 • 3227 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Parks,

    ...examining those thing that are [objective], and the relationship between them and the things that are not, might tell us more about the latter, and therefore about the nature of quality in art.

    Well said.

    Call it what you like, but which car is fastest in the context given is an objective truth.


    But what is a legal car to use in a drag race? That's hardly objective.

    But (as you admit) the fastest car in the context given is.

    Absolute truth.

    Is wrong. Absolutely.

    Wellington • Since May 2007 • 1165 posts Report Reply

  • Keir Leslie,

    But (as you admit) the fastest car in the context given is.

    Well no, because car is itself a subjective term. That object mightn't be a car.

    Since Jul 2008 • 1452 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Or a cigar

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Parks,

    That would be because I am.

    Yes but you have to say so that it gets through my dense head. You referred mockingly to "the Truth" before. I just wanted to be clear you were saying you disagreed with positions such as Rich's on fascism (namely that it is clear that it is only subjectively wrong).

    Well no, because car is itself a subjective term.

    Not in the context given. 'Which is the faster of the two cars' is the question.

    Wellington • Since May 2007 • 1165 posts Report Reply

  • Keir Leslie,

    But what if one of the cars is a plane? I mean, that's a serious question. Which is the faster of the two objects is less subjective question but I am still suspicious.

    Since Jul 2008 • 1452 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    People can judge for themselves, but “of course everything in them boils down to subjective opinion” doesn’t seem that far from “it’s all just opinion” to me. My summary was (obviously) a little flippant, but not unfair.

    It's not that far, but it's also not the same. Boiling down is a process which could be valuable. I used that terminology deliberately, though, because boiling down tends to degrade in return the longer it goes on. By the time you've laid down all your subjective tastes, and everyone else has done the same, you're mostly done. What more is there really to argue about? What is ultimately rational or reasonable about an argument that can never end, never be resolved, never come to any conclusion, never come up with any new points? It's actually more reasonable to accept the subjective nature of the subject matter, and move on. That's if finding some 'truth of the matter' is your objective. If you have other objectives, sure, you can argue until doomsday.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • recordari,

    This is my truth tell me yours.

    No, actually, don't.

    AUCKLAND • Since Dec 2009 • 2607 posts Report Reply

  • Rich Lock,

    But (as you admit) the fastest car in the context given is.

    Serious question: can something really be called an objective fact when you've had to define it by hedging it around with a whole bunch of subjective/arbitrary rules and definitions?

    back in the mother countr… • Since Feb 2007 • 2728 posts Report Reply

  • Rich Lock,

    Black-or-whiters being absolutist about relativism is mighty tedious many decades after the death of unchallenged modernism. Considerably more sophistication (and humanity) shown elsewhere here than either end of that old spectrum.

    There's an implication here I've been chewing over. You seem to be suggesting that only by taking an absolutist position on, say, moral matters can we act with more humanity.

    That's uncomfortably close to the position taken by some religious fundamentalists, who state that only by having a belief in god can we know right from wrong, and that if we don't believe, we'll inevitably slide into some sort of anarchic devil-worshipping, blood-drinking, 'do what thou wilt'-style of society.

    Not that there's anything wrong with drinking the blood of virgin sacrifices by the light of the full moon... I mean, who am I to judge?

    back in the mother countr… • Since Feb 2007 • 2728 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    Rich, seems like a fairly simple yes. Just because rules are arbitrary doesn't mean the satisfaction of them is. The length of a meter is an arbitrary measurement. But there are still a lot of statements involving that measure that are as close to certain as anything in the world can be. New Zealand is over a meter long. For some things that are close to a meter, it can be a bit iffy, but there are still clear calls.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso,

    Yes but you have to say so that it gets through my dense head. You referred mockingly to "the Truth" before. I just wanted to be clear you were saying you disagreed with positions such as Rich's on fascism (namely that it is clear that it is only subjectively wrong).

    If you subscribe to the view that there is no such thing as a single Truth, but rather a series of contingent truths in constant negotiation with one another, then you can and in fact should categorically and, yes, objectively reject Fascism. I don't think that this is in fact a contradiction, quite the contrary.

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

  • Rich Lock,

    OK, I can dig that. In which case it would seem like it would actually be a fairly straightforward job to show that fascism is objectively wrong.

    Either way, I'm agin it, just so as we're clear on that.

    back in the mother countr… • Since Feb 2007 • 2728 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    If you subscribe to the view that there is no such thing as a single Truth, but rather a series of contingent truths in constant negotiation with one another, then you can and in fact should categorically and, yes, objectively reject Fascism. I don't think that this is in fact a contradiction, quite the contrary.

    Not so sure about that. It's a different meaning of "objective", then. It becomes "Fascism has a very small bank balance at the table of contingent truth negotiation". This might change if other systems lose too much currency. I think in the countries that are still rather fascistic, this is exactly how it came about. Fascism might have seemed better than violent anarchy, which may have resulted from a breakdown of other forms of government. Fascism might also seem like a very good system for dealing with a very powerful external threat.

    Which seems an altogether more sane way of seeing it. Fascism = Bad is far too simplistic. There are reasons for and against it, for different places and times.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    You seem to be suggesting that only by taking an absolutist position on, say, moral matters can we act with more humanity.

    Eh? Can't see how you made that link. I was decrying both unfettered absolutism and relativism in favour of a more shades-of-grey approach -- which to me seems more human. People hereabouts have shown considerable ability to bring that to our conversations. Just not this one for some reason.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 25 26 27 28 29 30 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.