Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Here's another similar assumption of correlation=causation:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/6/story.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10474303
Are boys more likely to become aggressive from watching violent TV? Or does violent TV appeal more to aggressive boys?
I found it especially interesting that the same correlation was not found in girls who watched violent TV. The researchers were quick to dismiss that with 'genetic predisposition' but didn't think that genetic predisposition might explain the violent TV watching in young boys destined to a life of aggressive violence.
It's bloody hard to prove causation from correlation. Correlation is definitely interesting wherever it is found, but even scientists seem to have extremely hazy thinking when they draw conclusions from it.
-
The "system" is not a monolithic structure that was set up to oppress the masses, its a constantly renegotiated compromise of incompatible forces and desires.
Or at least should be. There are some monolithic systems set up to oppress the masses, but I don't see it here in NZ.
-
True, would piss me off. I guess you have the right to refuse a photo, but you're probably afraid that would be seen as suspicious.
-
There is found to be a link between heavy cannabis use and sexual abuse.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=204&objectid=10474241
As with almost every statistical link ever found in history, the proof of which causes which is not established. Does pot smoking increase your chances of being abuse? Or are girls who are abused more likely to smoke a lot of pot?
This always happens. Doesn't mean it's not an interesting statistic though.
-
I'm pretty much over the whole self-pitying anti-Police leftist thing.
I really don't care about them. It seems like a silly game, but let the kids play. As dangerous games go, rugby or boxing is worse. As entertainment goes, I've seen worse street theater. As causes go, at least human rights are 'righteous'. As criminal behaviour goes, it's safely on the lame side. As heavy handed policing goes, I'm pretty happy that I'm living in NZ, where attempting to protest near the head of state doesn't involve risking your life and liberty.
What I'm over is being associated with it, by virtue of being 1 degree to the left of center. It's not being an 'appeaser' to wait a few weeks for more information about what is possibly a landmark case in NZ. There is no established pattern yet, to assume that the charges are bullshit, that the accused are being fitted up, that there are political motives behind the prosecution. We (the general public) just don't know what is going on. If it continues this way then sure we will start to get very angry, but right now it just looks like police pursuing criminal charges using the powers they legally have.
The only thing that seems 'off' to me is what others have also mentioned, the wearing of balaclavas during the raids. But we also don't know the reason for that - I still think it may be to protect the identity of secret agents or undercover police, rather than to intimidate. It definitely is intimidating, though.
-
You have to judge people by the standards of their time, as well.
I think Churchill was a wanker even by the standards of his time. He was just our wanker.
-
I think Rich is suggesting that just as Churchill was the kind of wanker who had some useful part to play in WW2, and he allied with an even bigger wanker who also helped us out (at whatever cost), so the anarchist-dreamers see the kind of wanker who dreams of reverting NZ into an island of warring states as a useful ally. Because when the state is smashed everyone will spontaneously see all the advantages of anarchy. No one would want to join a tribe then, when you've got the whole brotherhood of man as your tribe.
-
Those wanting to have a go at the fascist coppers might consider a protest-holiday in Karachi. They would probably have the people behind them, at least.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10474008
-
Well the UK went for over a thousand years (up to about 1840) with no organised police force.
What do you call the Knights of the Round Table then?
Seriously, yeah, society won't collapse just because there's no police. It won't collapse with no broadband either, but in both cases it might be better off with them.
The idea of amateur police is an interesting one. Most of the places where it has been tried tended to have a strong tradition of military training and experience on the part of the civilians, though. It wouldn't have been hard to find gung ho guys in the ancient or medieval world (or in some anarchist revolutionary society, for that matter) who would happily tussle with an accused murderer. Arrest procedures probably were a bit laxer too - there were probably quite a few violations of human rights committed by said amateurs, particularly beating the living shit out of prisoners who were even slightly lippy, or burning them out of whatever barn they may be hiding in.
It seems to me to be an idea that would work in a very small, isolated, primitive place, where evading arrest could involve more privation than just taking the punishment. Leaving the tribe/city, and throwing yourself on the mercy of nature/other tribes, could actually be the greater of two evils. In the modern world it is easy to move, easy to start up elsewhere. And it is hard to track people down, a highly specialized job, which can be very dangerous at times, requiring coordinated action of large numbers of people and expensive equipment. As with most things today, it is specialized work and having specialists do it has lots of advantages.
-
S'alright. Long, thoughtful comments are our brand!
You gonna regret you said that man.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 … 1066 Older→ First