Posts by Neil Morrison
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
a hideous lounging outfit
is Obama the one on the right?
-
you bet me to it Rob.
empathy is the way out of the dilemma. and it's not reliant on reason. we generally do show concern for the well being of others - and that does have an evolutionary basis. but some people have less than others and some poeple have none at all.
some of our problems lie with stopping those that don't have empathy from getting power and other problems lie with the upscaling of psycho-social abilitites, that were developed in the context of small groups, to societies with millions of people. that's why politics is often so dreadful but it's a saving grace that we can do it at all.
-
Since we are trying to work out the principle we can't use the principle to do it. Again we fall back to our feelings.
well God is dead after all- there is no ultimate justification for any moral view. We get to choose.
but "we fall back to our feelings" - and feelings are the mechanisms evolution has provided us to enable us to work (or fight) in groups. Just like our endless ability to moralise. The moralising comes first, the morals second.
-
I'm conflicted. Obama is better than Clinton on foreign policy. Clinton, for the most part, is better on domestic stuff.
I agree on domestic policy - Clinton's policies are more generally developed and she's got far more change of getting thru her sorely needed health sector reforms.
As for foreign policy I don't there's a lot in it. During the campaign they both of course will look for the slightest opportunity to create some sort of difference but these will be arguments about mere wording. US foreign policy will look the same with either as Pres.
Where there will be a difference is the learning curve Obama will have to go thru on dealing with the international political community. Clinton has already been there and will know all the potential pitfalls. Her first hand observations her husband's dealings with Bosnia, North Korea, Israel/Palestine, Iran and Saddam will be a huge advantage.
Obama's a bright guy and will respond to such a challenge well, after a time getting to grips with things. I also doubt that he wouldn't be taking allot of advice from the Clintonites.
So I can't see any big difference between Obama and Clinton on foreign policy.
-
I don't think everyone thought that.
not everyone but it works both ways. If the world wants a more reality based Pres then perhaps the world's criticism of the US should be a bit more reality based - when Clinton was in office a lot of it wasn't.
-
Is America - and the world - ready for a President who can be mistaken for an adult with the lights on?
well I think Bill Clinton qualified in that category and The World at the time was full of talk about evil America was. So maybe this time round with a Dem pres the world will be ready to ditch all the crap about imperialism.
-
He wants Creationism taught in schools...
he won't be interrested then in The Genetic Basis for Political Participation
-
I believe the phrase is "love the sinner not the sin".
That might be some sort of justification for the supprt Rickards has got from some quarters if those supporters weren't so keen on trivialising the sin that occured and if Rickards had shown the slightest humility or sense of shame over his actions.
Jackson is another one whose outrage over police actions in Ruatoki should be compared with their views on Rickards. Has anyone who alleged the police "terrorised" the Ruatoki community suggested that a more appropriate use of that word would be to describe what Rickards and his mates got up to?
-
But so should you, RB.
i think you miss understand RB's point - which was a comment on how Rickards would react as a father, it's not a comment or reflection on his children.
-
...a more than usually toxic example of the MSM's 'Te Borg' approach to reporting Maori,
yes, I was quite prepared to take exception to the Herald article's heading but after reading the artilce i couldn't get all that worked up by the implied generalisation.
I was thinking that a slight change in Sharples' wording might make things clearer -
Dr Sharples said that when a case was before the court nothing was proven or disproven, and supporting Maori men was what Maori men did.
But then, where's Anette Sykes on this?