Posts by Sacha
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Snap. Incredible.
-
Heh. Now I'm imagining burglars peddling furtively homewards wearing balaclavas and with the flat-screen tellies of Herne Bay strapped to their backs.
-
Fair enough. Where's that sarcasm tag when we need one?
-
But I think it's unfair to focus on mis-using a word that has met a similar fate from others recently. The intent was clear, and it's a red herring. There's more than enough to find disagreeable without resorting to spelling or grammar.
-
Only one person around these parts introduced the concept of "light punching". Look in the mirror, Chuck, and wonder why others see you as a fool.
Believe whatever you like but don't expect others to politely agree to disagree every time when you publicly challenge some of their core beliefs or characteristics of their being. There's a big difference between a one-on-one conversation and blurting your prejudices for all to read.
-
Tess, I know there are much deeper theological discussions which I do not plan on exposing myself to. However, that link uses contradictory leaps of logic and moral sleight of hand to support what it wants to: that sex has to involve procreation, that human life starts at conception rather than viability or birth, that contraception is murder - and that there is a real difference between choosing two courses of action which have the same intent at a day-to-day human level - having sex without pregnancy as part of a loving relationship.
Finally, I would argue further that there is more to contraception than its contra-life character. The sex act embraces in itself two intelligible human goods: the unitive and the procreative. These two goods constitute the human good of marriage. Thus, there is a nuptial or conjugal meaning to the sex act. The unitive and procreative goods together form a whole, and the attack on one is an attack on the other, which in the end amounts to an attack on marriage. By intentionally rendering the marriage act sterile, the two actually intend to limit their mutual self-giving (the unitive good); for their self-giving is completed in the conception of new human life. The NFP couple only accepts the limitation of their mutual self-giving; they do not intend it.
Surely you can see why many would find it both absurd and offensive to imply that sex in a loving relationship is only legitimate if it involves having babies (or choosing to allow the risk of that).
You carry on believing it if you like - and thanks for taking the time to discuss with us here - but please do not be surprised when others are not keen to subsidise your church's work through tax breaks, especially when the persistent conduct of some of its leaders breaches both morality and law.
There are historical, social and political arrangements at play here, not merely a matter of independent individuals choosing whether or not to act in certain ways.
-
dave, you appear to be fighting against something that hasn't been said here
Actually, that thought occured to me as well.
My "issue" if you could call it that is that many people have been looking at this case through the window of it being a test case for the section 59 legislation - including the police initially - when clearly it was not the case.
I think Russell has already dealth with this upthread. From the fragments we have had reported and from the Judge's direction, it seems at least as likely that rather than invoking that specific s59 discretion, the Police chose not to prosecute early because they took Mason at his word that his actions did not even meet their pre-s59 thresholds for prosecution - until other witnesses contradicted his version.
They would have subsequently conducted their usual investigation process to a robust evidentiary standard, knowing by then that Mason's speedy media blurting and the recent s59 debate would increase scrutiny. We do not know whether they had grounds to be satisfied that his children were not at further imminent risk during their investigation, but otherwise a couple of weeks doesn't seem like a huge time compared with other investigations. I presume they also had their usual murders, beatings and boy racers to attend to.
-
Tess, I get that you're sincere in your beliefs and that you are motivated by what you describe as conscience.
From what you say you are actively seeking to prevent conception by timing of intercourse. That sounds awfully like contra-ception to me, and I'm sure there are other church teachings about the moral similarity of actively and passively committing sin, particularly from the social justice strands of your faith. Standing by and allowing harm where you could prevent it by intervening, that kind of thing.
Masturbation is a no no, for the same reasons I expressed above about the sexual act.
So there needs to be a risk of procreation? Some questions occur to me. Is sex about ejaculation rather than orgasm in Catholic theology? How does that apply to women as well?
-
Dave, I believe Mason himself probably positioned it as a "test case" by lying to media that he had lightly corrected his child rather than punched him in the face.
-
Speaking of enabling, TVNZ knew about kicking reports the DomPost.
During the meeting, the TVNZ managers agreed to help Veitch find a lawyer and one of those managers later told police: "We said it wasn't our concern, it was not an employment matter for us."
When the Veitch story broke, TVNZ chief executive Rick Ellis said he had just learnt that Veitch and Ms Dunne-Powell, a former TVNZ employee, had been a couple.
TVNZ's minutes from the meeting with managers, later supplied to police, showed Veitch had identified Ms Dunne-Powell by name and said that they were partners when the assault took place.
Managers had not been told Ms Dunne-Powell was kicked repeatedly and suffered a broken back, Mr Ellis had said. The managers had deemed the incident a private matter and handled it appropriately prompting the prime minister, Helen Clark, to say she was "deeply concerned" at how the broadcaster had handled the saga.
I suspect the word is meant to be "accordingly" rather than "appropriately," to be fair. However, you may recall ex-employee Ralston's take on CEO Ellis's knowledge of that meeting and what the Broadcasting Minister should be asking about it.
Last week, Ellis, who says he had no prior knowledge of the alleged domestic assault, revealed three of his senior managers and a company lawyer met Veitch, at his request, on December 17 last year to discuss what Ellis says was "a serious personal issue". Present were Ellis' second-in-command, the head of television Jeff Latch, the head of news and current affairs Anthony Flannery, the head of corporate affairs Peter Parussini, and an unnamed news and current affairs counsel.
The first question for Mallard must be; how did all these heavyweights come to be present when, presumably, no one but Veitch had any idea of the content of what would be discussed, other than it was a "personal issue"?
To have the head of television present for a meeting with a presenter means someone knew the discussion would be very serious indeed.
To have a lawyer present implies someone knew weighty legal issues would have to be evaluated.
To have the company's top spin doctor present means someone had to have realised there was potential reputational damage looming for the company. To have that line-up of individuals present, simply to hear an employee talk of his relationship issues, does not ring true.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 … 1971 Older→ First