Posts by nzlemming
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Gaying Out, in reply to Kracklite,
I find that rather charming, actually, when it’s sincere. I know a number of faithful Christians who demonstrate true humility, which manifests as “I cannot claim to know the will of God, or to speak for Him”. That I respect – and it makes them of a fundamentally different order from the Ratzingers, Bushes, Capills and Phelps of this world
Your argument is about respecting individuals for who they are, not what they profess. You are also calling for disrespect of individuals for what they do and say. I agree with both of these positions. It actually has nothing to religion, just as religion has nothing to do with spirituality.
And while you may "know a number of faithful Christians who... [do not] claim to know the will of God, or to speak for Him”, there are many, many more who claim and do both of those things.
-
Actually, watching this and the Gaying Out thread, I’m reminded of a discussion on Twitter the other day about PAS being all hipsters and indie music clones and all.
So #not.
[ETA] I'm hoping Russell posts something on the Whichness of Why so we can really get our philosopher-geek on!
-
Up Front: Say When, in reply to ,
Accepted, Now I’m going out to burn my bra…
I'm hoping dyslexia doesn't mean your bar is now at risk. Men need more bars!
-
Up Front: Say When, in reply to Megan Wegan,
I’m glad you’re grateful for the debate. For me, I feel like we spend a bit too much time talking about the definitions, and not a lot of time talking about the real problems. Like, for example, teh focus on women’s appearances Emma was talking about in the original post.
Yup, which is why I pointed out that Sally had redirected the discussion to where she wanted it to be by making - let's say "deliberately provocative remarks" and leave it at that. Idealogues do that a lot, rather than discussing actual ideas.
-
Hard News: Gaying Out, in reply to Martin Lindberg,
In response to your pointed and pertinent comment, I can only say "Ooooo arrrrr!"
-
Hard News: Gaying Out, in reply to DCBCauchi,
If the only reason for banning incestuous relationships is inherited health issues (since we’re ignoring the ‘ick’ factor), then should we not also ban all other relationships that would result in inherited health issues
Ah, eugenics-baiting. Let the fun begin!
Seriously, if poking the FamilyFist nest has caused all the crazies to come over here, I'm going to be mightily pissed at those of you who did
-
Up Front: Say When, in reply to Danielle,
Is that because you don’t believe men can be feminists (I totally disagree with this, but realise that some people think it) or because you don’t believe in equal rights and opportunities for men and women?
I can't speak for Bart but, for myself, I don't take on any label to make someone else's life easier. The term "feminist" is loaded enough when applied to females - for males, it's a minefield.
And, according to certain persons, males can't be feminists because we're all rapists, perhaps because we like to see females dressed in as little as possible. </sarcasm>
I have 5 sisters. I grew up thinking they could do anything (and dammit! they can! Awesome women, all) and I have never understood why some people (both male and female) think that the situation is other than that. Undoubtedly, some people do think this way, as some people think the Pope is infallible, or that the sun will not rise if you don't ask it to. They're not people I give much credence to. I've worked for and with males and females, and I don't see any demonstrable gender bias in how insane some people can be, or in how good others can be. The best boss I ever had was female, and so was the worst.
If I had to pick a label, it would be something like "people-ist" as I believe in people's rights. I don't like to see anyone marginalised because of anything others might see as a "defining characteristic".
A discussion of "who is a feminist, anyway?" is doomed to failure, in my view, precisely because terms like those, while they may have reasonably accepted dictionary definitions, have emotional connotations that vary widely from individual to individual and it's the connotations that are brought to the discussion rather than the definitions.
Further, if one can review the thread dispassionately (always difficult in such discussions - even more than copyright!), one can see that Sally has successfully managed to divert and direct the discussion by misquoting or, at least, misunderstanding Giovanni's comment which is a standard tactic in ideological argument, regardless of the flavour of the ideology.
-
Up Front: Say When, in reply to Bart Janssen,
I share in your opinion, Bart, and in Sacha's succinct but trenchant comment. However, I've found, in other discussions with idealogues, that actual data points don't weigh as heavily as dogma.
-
Hard News: Gaying Out, in reply to Kracklite,
And he's in advertising (he says). I'd expect better written posts if that were the case.
-
Hard News: Gaying Out, in reply to Emma Hart,
However. He’s really real, and he really does want you to vote for the hottest Kiwi Female blogger of 2011. What a guy.
Hmmm Blogspot seems unable to deliver scalianz any more. I wonder why?