OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus
954 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 20 21 22 23 24 … 39 Newer→ Last
-
Isaac Freeman, in reply to
I’d say their policies (‘2’) are so strong that they’ve been adopted by other parties, notably things like capital gains tax. And are now touted by Shearer as his overall goal for Labour (admittedly before any further reworking of that party’s platform).
True. It happens to be policy I personally agree with so perhaps I underrate its strength with non-me people. They have many strange ideas.
-
John Armstrong, in reply to
the intellectual differences that are displayed . . .
are not real.If you mean that the differences of opinion expressed here tend to fall within relatively narrow limits, fair enough. But I'm not sure that is necessarily a fatal weakness. While it is always valuable to test your ideas with people who think very differently, it's also useful to refine them by speaking with people who share the same core ideas, 'values', or whatever weird umbrella it is that shields this place from the more extreme elements of online discussion.
For the record, my observation was that both the 'offence' under discussion and the response were pretty mild.
It would be a real shame to lose your voice.
-
Isaac Freeman, in reply to
Theyworkforyou did some analysis that suggests the binary distinction breaks down pretty clearly when looking at a series.
It does support the idea that there are three clusters rather than two when it comes to voting blocs. But I think it'd be fair to say that it stills hides a lot of diversity when it comes to wider political views.
Incidentally, I'd be interested in having a chat with anybody who's interested in getting something like theyworkforyou going again. Not that I can currently contribute much in the way of capital or time. But I have ideas, which is obviously the main thing.
-
Damian Christie, in reply to
Part of the reason I often find the Green’s message attractive ...is precisely because their solutions don’t always fit on that left-right spectrum
Neither does NZF, but you openly despise them.
Yeah. That's why I said part of the reason. You gotta like what they're selling too, and you handily (and quite wittily) summed up any number of reasons why I don't when it comes to NZF.
And yes, Green's, Greens', Greens's. I wondered about it myself, and should have exerted the extra effort to say The Green Party's.
-
Damian Christie, in reply to
But for the worst part of it is that we don’t need the shorthand, particularly here.
Yeah, but at the same time I think some people like to act deliberately obtuse rather than accept what is meant. When I get to that bit in a PAS thread where I find myself having to qualify every sub-clause of every sentence so as to avoid what seems like wilful misinterpretation, well I just give up. And some might say that's no great loss.
-
Damian Christie, in reply to
My dispute with Left and Right only arises when we try to also use them to describe wider movements in society.
Exactly.
(I know it's a bit binary for many around these parts, but when it comes to comments like Isaac's, I'd appreciate just being able to click 'Like')
-
It's a mistake to think that the binary nature of classical logic is its greatest fault, and that things might work better if truth had more than two values. Propositions can only have two values, yes, but they can be arbitrarily long and complex, full of caveats. The entirety of every position could be parsed into one statement - a bill is such a statement. There is also no limit to the number of statements that can be made in succession, forming a very, very complex picture.
The real fault of logic, binary or otherwise, is that the basic meaning of atomic propositions, or predicates if we go past first-order logic, is only given meaning in context to the humans and their understanding of the meaning of the symbols the logic uses. The entire system can easily be subverted by refusing to use the symbols the same way, or pretending to at the start, and then later changing. Or leaving something deliberately vague, to be changed at whim. Which means all discussion retains a human element to it, it can't really be turned into a calculator, no matter how much effort is spent doing so. The inputs are human, and the outputs are interpreted by humans. We are the machine. We must always remember that. If we become servants to the machine, small wonder when we get chewed up and spat out like bad data, or replaced like a faulty part. There is no machine we can't smash to pieces, if need be. Yet.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
Ermm.... Lolcats?
Well, if you're going to get snitty about it...
note to self: make more work for Andrew
-
Danielle, in reply to
It would be a real shame to lose your voice.
His voice is still on Twitter and Bat Bean Beam, of course.
-
Damian Christie, in reply to
There is no machine we can’t smash to pieces, if need be.
And this close to Christmas, it's worth noting that there are very few machines than can't be smashed to pieces by a toddler before the turkey is out of the oven.
-
Isaac Freeman, in reply to
When I get to that bit in a PAS thread where I find myself having to qualify every sub-clause of every sentence so as to avoid what seems like wilful misinterpretation, well I just give up.
I object in the strongest possible terms. My mother has never been a member of the Nazi party, and I resent the implication.
-
Sacha, in reply to
atomic propositions
shady deals
-
nzlemming, in reply to
I object in the strongest possible terms. My mother has never been a member of the Nazi party, and I resent the implication
So what's her explanation for the tattoos, then? Eh?
-
Isaac Freeman, in reply to
So what’s her explanation for the tattoos, then? Eh?
National Association of Zoological Inspectors. Completely different organisation.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Completely different organisation.
Still a bunch of fascists, though. Why can't I pet the Kiwis, huh?
-
BenWilson, in reply to
>atomic propositions
shady deals
I can smell the uranium in your privatization bill.
-
Isaac Freeman, in reply to
Why can’t I pet the Kiwis, huh?
That's what people always say. Until they've been beaked.
-
Damian Christie, in reply to
Why can’t I pet the Kiwis, huh?
Because everyone knows it's never just petting with you Ben, no matter what you promise. And no-one is buying the "I just want to cuddle" line either.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Yeah, but at the same time I think some people like to act deliberately obtuse rather than accept what is meant. When I get to that bit in a PAS thread where I find myself having to qualify every sub-clause of every sentence so as to avoid what seems like wilful misinterpretation, well I just give up. And some might say that’s no great loss.
Agreed. That doesn't happen that often, but tends to squeeze the usefulness out of the discussion and make everyone feel pissed off, or disinclined to contribute.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Because everyone knows it’s never just petting with you Ben, no matter what you promise. And no-one is buying the “I just want to cuddle” line either.
Known Kiwi groomer. Sayin'.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Because everyone knows it's never just petting with you Ben, no matter what you promise. And no-one is buying the "I just want to cuddle" line either.
Look I can't help it if I petted the Kiwi too hard because you made me wear a rubber glove and I couldn't even feel the feathers through it.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Known Kiwi groomer. Sayin'.
I took those Kiwis from a hard life grubbing in the bush to easy street in my organic petting and "biggest eggs in town" business. What have your puritanical mores ever done for destitute Kiwis, huh?
-
BenWilson, in reply to
And anyways, you're just bitter that kiwicentrefolds.com featuring all my most beautiful chicks made more money than Public Address just from misdirected AdSense clicks. Someone was going to reap it, why not me?
-
Gives 'kiwi dip' a whole new meaning.
Got any chips, bro?
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Nah, bro. "Chip's Shop". Note the apostrophe. We're actually a radio station. #threadmerge
Post your response…
This topic is closed.