Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I'm surprised so many people think suicide is OK. I guess the question matters a lot for that one.
I'm also really surprised about the depth of feeling about fur in farming nation. All leather must be nude?
Frankly, I'd like to see some polling on meta-ethics: how many people prefer Kant's categorical imperative to Benthamite utilitarianism, for instance.
LOL, you'd need a huge sample to find the people who knew the difference. It's also a hard question, since they might not be mutually exclusive - you could apply Kant and get Bentham in a lot of cases. Which is really more a problem with Kant, I think. In trying to be more general, he simply becomes unclear.
That said, I'd argue that most moral questions boil down to the "icky/not icky" test for most people. Just how we're wired, I suppose. Plus, if you hear about people who have derived a substantive moral principle and actually stick to it (say, Kant, Peter Singer), they usually come across as inflexible, humourless prigs. Who may be right, but that's beside the point. ;)
Not really. They may also be wrong. Or (my view) there might not be any "absolute" right or wrong about the matter at all. The problem with moral theories is that the only litmus test is "moral intuitions". It's also, generally, the only source for the base axioms of most theories. So rejecting moral intuitions later on seems like a particular untenable position - in doing so you are rejecting the very basis your theory sits on.
Mine is not a popular position though. I've heard it described as "ethical non-cognitivism" or "emotivism". It boils down to saying that morals are like tastes - totally arbitrary, although probably shared amongst groups, but certainly without "logical" or "scientific" basis. It makes it hard to argue about morals, since you have to change the language you use to describe the things you are talking about. Right and wrong in morals are not the same as right and wrong in propositions, despite using the same words. Practically, it's not a particularly useful position in moral debate (in fact it suggests that moral debate is basically a popularity contest). So I have to mentally code everything I say about morals as "I like", or "I don't like" in place of "It's right" or "It's wrong". But I still think non-cognitivism is true.
-
>NZ is dull for kids
Please elaborate....
Well NZ is the kind of place where a bunch of fuckwits getting pissed and acting like dicks is front page news, and worthy of over 200 earnest posts by its most intelligent internet commentators, every year.
We all know the problem. The solution I've most like so far was the idea of formalizing this insanity. A small street, preferably with only student flats in it, could be the perfect zone for a collective staging of the annual traditions of South Island Uni Student Drunken Tomfoolery. Anyone wishing to dispose of an old couch can contribute, and no one can be arrested for throwing anything, nor can any complaints be laid for police behavior. For safety, all drink bottles should be made of sugar glass. A media staging point just outside of the action zone should be set up for interviews, prizes for the most stupid comment is a 10 second setup clip of some police brutality involving the commenter. The police need to also use it as an excellent platform to push for increase in powers and weapons, showing that a tazer is totally ineffective for riot control but rubber bullets, or running pigs work better (with live demonstrations of each option). Subbing out of the action should be as simple as lying down screaming, or running inside a flat. When the action is complete, an enormous bonfire could be started in which every last piece of burnable detritus should be tossed on, and a huge double conga line of police and rioters should perform an elaborate dance, in which they first shake hands, then spiral around the bonfire frenetically, getting optionally more and more naked. The last act would be the fire department turning up and hosing the entire street clean of fires, couches, glass and people. The whole thing should be subsidized by the Student Unions of the contributing Universities.
NZs version of Pamplona.
-
My money (50 cents down) says we'll have the same conversations in 10 or 20 years time. Maybe they'll even reprint "ritual song of defiance" so people can get some perspective?
I'll see your 50 and raise you 50, on the guess that it's only going to get worse. NZ is a dull place for kids, and Dunedin is especially dull. It's also cold which seems to make sinking piss and fighting feel like a good idea. Particularly when there's nothing worth fighting for, because several generations of parents had all the fun sorting out the actually worthy causes.
Sure, not everyone can afford a university education, but referring to these students as white, rich and privileged only seems to vent anger against a strawman stereotype.
I've been thinking exactly that through most of this thread. Glad to see a wave of OTOH on the 4th page. A predominance of that stereotype doesn't make anything that happened better or worse.
-
The people crusading for their light-bulb liberty were, in effect, declaring their wish for the government to spend more tax dollars on one or two new electric power stations.
Well, I have to say I'd definitely like some more power stations much more than I'd like light bulb restrictions. But I also use efficient bulbs anyway cause it just makes sense . Except in some cases - I want my outside lights to be super bright, for instance.
As was the case for the light blub standards, the bottom-line impact for government finances was overwhelmingly positive. The Australian government's folate requirement came into force last week.
This one's quite different really. It's a public health issue, not an environmental one. It's a bit like fluoridated water, and the obvious impact that has on dental health.
Personally, I find the idea that no idea should be discussed if there is a possibility it might whip up well-organised moral hysteria pretty depressing.
Hell, yes. Although I'd hardly call Kiwiblog frothers well-organized.
-
Islander
I'm amazed if it is true that women are better shots than men in general. Do you have some evidence? Some things about that just seem a bit unlikely - firstly men have generally better depth perception, secondly they are stronger, which goes to stability of the shooting platform, able to move a big gun more easily etc. But then again, the physical factors are possibly mostly quite minor, which would suggest there wouldn't be much difference at all.
Hayden
Just curious, what sports are these?
I dunno, actually. Certain gymnastic events seem the likely candidate, and a few other odd talents like being able to handle cold, or contort. I've never seen male gymnasts working the high beam or the uneven bar, but that could just be an oddity based on the historical chance of landing groin first on them. I was going to say things where being small helps, but of course there are still small men, and they still have the same advantages over women their size - jockeys for instance - the men are still 'stronger', which probably helps. My motivation for the aside that women can dominate some sports was really to suggest that women aren't inferior athletes in every way.
Dyan
You're actually bringing me round on this. I guess "it's unfortunate for hermaphrodites because they don't have anyone to compete with" is less of an evil than "it's unfortunate for women because hermaphrodites have a huge advantage". It seems pretty uncontroversial that they do.
-
Steve, you go a little further here with why stability is so important that it requires dropping proportionality for minorities (under the threshold, whatever that is). You say the stability provided by a threshold leads to a chance for parties to implement their policies and make them work, and this is supported by the claim that frequent elections and other interparty wrangling make it harder to implement policy and make it work.
But my response to that is that the reason for most of these collapses is shitty policy, not "too much democracy". The extra democracy just helps to point out how shitty so much policy is, that it runs roughshod over the interests of the minorities, and if in doing so it makes the coalition fragile, then it is actually not something that has majority support after all.
Which goes to the idea that policy should be worked out in much greater detail, over a longer period of time, in cases where it is controversial, rather than the more established and time-honored Kiwi method of "ramming it through".
I will agree on this though - NZers generally, and NZ politicians in particular, may not be ready for full proportionality. We may just be a nation of rammers-through, who really don't have a taste for working hard on seeking broad support for ideas, however long that might take. As I recall the joke being over in Ozzie when I was there in the 90s, that NZers "like the taste of the whip".
I, however, do not like the taste of the whip, and will continue to try advocating the idea of the carrot for minorities instead.
-
But women aren't just smaller versions of men. There are a lot of differences between the sexes.
By man-sized, I was pretty much meaning "a naturally superior female athlete in every dimension that men tend to be superior". Which is not every dimension, of course. Men can't match women in some sporting events. But in the sports where men excel, there are many women who have an extraordinarily naturally apt physique. Because of this, they tend to resemble men in some ways (since we are talking about sports in which men's physiques make them superior). I think that seeking to find ways to rule these women out of the competition is every bit as unfair as seeking to rule out men who have the same blessings. They will be rare women. They will be unusual women. But they are still women. I guess this controversy is about whether she was a woman before, and changed, but is hiding it, or if she was a man before, and changed, and is hiding it. If she is neither a man nor a woman, and has never changed it, and is hiding nothing, then I think her choice figures highly.
Intersex people are beginning to reject the idea that they need to be assigned a gender, and the wider acceptance of this is a good thing in society.
Sure, but "not needing to be assigned a gender" is different to "not being allowed a gender". Especially since gender could be considered quite a different thing to sex.
I do agree that she needs to be evaluated though, I change my mind on this. But it doesn't seem like testosterone levels will be enough evidence.
-
These things matter to mums. I'm often meeting people whose kids went to creche or kindergarten with me, despite never having been seen since infancy. NZ's that kind of place. It's always pointed out with relish, and the conversation is unavoidedly one sided. It seems a bit rough to point out that the most memorable thing from creche to a child was probably the place, not the people.
-
I tend to be a forgive and forget kind of person. I've forgotten most of the people I've met, so how can I not forgive them? I do keep in touch with those I wanted to from school (most of my best friends), but do feel curious about what's happened to the odd person I liked or lusted after who has remained in my memory. But I forgot about the reunion too, and missed both the 10 and 20 years ones. I'm about as gutted as when I missed Terminator 4 at the cinema - I know it'll eventually be on DVD there waiting for me, and it'll probably be a disappointment.
I attended my wife's 10 year reunion, though, back in Ozzie. It was actually pretty cool, for me, because a bunch of her friends dragged their boyfriends along too, and I finally got to bond with a bunch of blokes that I quite liked and have kept in touch with ever since. I even got free accommodation in Scotland for a week out of it, not bad for a night's boozing. Please no one mention this to my wife, but we actually got pretty bored of the reunion after about 30 minutes of watching people who knew each other well catching up, and sneaked next door to drink colder beer and play pool. We were not missed, but it did feel strangely like we were wagging off and having a sneaky smoke (some of my fondest actual memories from school). The wife had a good time, despite having been, by her reckoning, unpopular at school. I often wonder how many people think that they were more unpopular than they really were.
The most weird thing about high school reunions seems to be that they are oriented around the final year of school. I played sport, and had many friends either side of my actual year, some of whom have become very good friends over time. A reunion of the class of '89 would seem a very shallow layer of those I do remember from high school.
-
Ben, that is an unfair reduction.
I'll give you that in light of your follow up that it's disproportionate say for minorities you don't like. I wouldn't like that, nor do I like disproportionate say for majorities, and it wouldn't be how it works in MMP (because of the P). At least you've got some work to prove that it goes that way on average. The "holding to ransom" angle is frequently brought up, but it doesn't seem a particularly cogent point - if the coalition is really that finely balanced, then anyone can hold it to ransom, and they probably should, if it's over principles they believe in. That's about the only time they do get any say whatsoever, after all. Which goes to the point that the coalition leader needs to work harder in MMP to forge a decent deal. Clark broke new ground for NZ in this, I think. The "unthinkable" angle of just approaching the more moderate Opposition party really seems hard for people to grasp, but it's not impossible at all.
and that their numerical size is often correlated with their unpleasant beliefs
This seems to just be a reiteration of the point that they are in a minority, expressed a different way - using "unpleasant" as perhaps defined by what "most people would not like". A good example being gay sex. That gays should be allowed to do their thing has been considered an unpleasant belief many a time, probably on account of it being rarer than the other way.
Now I'll give you that some beliefs that are in a minority are indeed highly unpleasant. Some beliefs that are in a majority are highly unpleasant too. The idea with the system is to give them power proportional to the number, rather than to ensure pleasant beliefs are held all round. I suggest that very little has been done in this thread yet to prove that under MMP they have disproportionate power.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 852 853 854 855 856 … 1066 Older→ First