Posts by kmont
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
... and if I must define myself with a neat, tidy cryptotheological/epistemological/ideological label, perhaps it's as an Epicurean who half-heartedly thinks that he should be a Nihilist if he were honest, but also honestly can't be fagged with it and will settle for Absurdism as a stop-gap (see Camus for that one). Hic!
Ditto
maybe less with the Nihilism
and more with the cooking, compost, bicyles and Absurdism
(well the cooking, compost and bicycles are more aspirational than anything at the moment) -
Hi Michael,
I guess it is important to remember that more people read than comment but anyone can come and paddle in the pool, even Craig doesn't bite that much......Of course it is a bit of a closed circle (most things ossify a bit over time) but there are always pseudonyms available for those who need that extra bit of protection.
Besides there are two new regular contributors and it has got to be better than the bladdy telly.
-
Yay. Up (down?) there with the ever nauseating Michael Laws describing the squalid sex-capades of Richards, Schollum and Co. as "mere sensual excesses". A term I'd reserve for eating a whole batch of Dave's Double Chocolate Raspberry Brownies solo, and in one sitting.
Thanks Craig, that really made me smile.
-
Yeah respect to those who genuinely turn their lives around.
-
There but for the grace of God? There but for more people than I can name who do bless me with unconditional love than includes undiluted reality and zero tolerance for self-delusion and self-justification.
That really hits the nail on the head eh.
It is not about having no mercy but about saying "It's Not OK" in the most loving way early on in the piece to people in our community BEFORE it degenerates into serious violence.
-
Hey Sasha,
Thank you so much for posting the link to the Radio NZ stuff. That is a real man doing some serious fronting up. Even by just posting that link you are doing a good thing.
-
I don't know about 'sharing blame' with script writers robbery. He makes his own choices, including what comes out of his mouth by way of explanation/apology. If what is reported is true he should have made his way down to the police station.
-
I had the same conversation over coffee at work yesterday. It's a pretty common thing.
Way too common. It really is unacceptable that the way the media has reported this conflates the two women in most people's minds. I would say that it is just lazy reporting but I think it is just deliberate sensationalism
or worse.
-
To invoke the 8 tribes analogy, pretty Grey Lynn, whereas talkback is generally Papatoetoe.
PA System - there's a bit of Raglan and Cuba Street in there too.
Talkback - much of it overlaps with the Balclutha tribe as well.
Maybe I should spend more time in Raglan ;-)
I'm perfectly happy to walk by myself at night, it's something I enjoy. I guess I reclaimed the night by never giving it up, rather than spending one night marching in a large loud whistle-equipped group.
No one tell my mum please, but I pretty much subscribe to this school of thought. However I do assess the situation; time of night/shoes I am wearing/locale/level of intoxication/visability/number of people abroad all come into it and ultimately it is risky behaviour compared to walking around in Tokyo at 4am.
-
this overuse of 'patriarchy' as opposed 'misogyny' confuses me quite alot.
I think I am the only one who has used that word so far (?) but anyway........I am reasonably happy to replace it with misogyny. My choice of the word was partly because it is so old school and shocking ;-) but also partly because it gives that sense of something structural, I am thinking here of women being their husband's chattels in the eyes of the law etc.
Shep
With regard to this:
Deborah - "I’m going to do the latter, and embrace the conclusion that my argument for the moral permissibility of abortion does also admit the moral permissibility of infanticide."
Sorry, I don't accept this line of thought & didn't you said you've rejected infantacide.
I think that Deborah is just arguing honestly and not ignoring possible logical consequences of her argument. It is a philosophy thing. The objection raised in the comment section of Deborah's blog does have some merit and I am sure like all classic philosophical questions (i.e. the ones that are not going anywhere anytime soon) it should and will be debated by future generations long after we are gone.
I don't think that inserting 'baby' and 'murder' into as many sentences as possible really moves the discussion along. I think that taking a long hard look at infanticide and implications for people with disabilities is important though. I know that I was left with plenty to think about after reading Peter Singer on the subject. Seriously, read a smart trained person on some ethical subject and they help you clarify you thinking (even if it is just to know exactly the areas that you don't have a decided point of view).