Posts by Steve Parks
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I'd be hard pressed to choose between Wasp Factory and Crow Road. I feel Walking on Glass was under rated. (By 'under rated' I mostly mean my friends didn't like it, even if they like other Bank's books, while I quite liked it.)
The Wasp Factory would make a great movie, if done right. I recall Iain Banks said he thought it may be too dated now, as a film version has been held up by rights issues or somesuch, but I don't know... given its setting and themes (isolation etc) I don't see being past it use by date for cinema.
-
Cher: Until mankind is peaceful enough not to have violence on the news, there's no point in taking it out of shows that need it for entertainment value.
That's a pretty awesome line, I must say.
-
I also got an A+ for my 20th Century French Philosophy essay that extensively referenced Alan Moore's "Watchmen". Now "Watchmen" - there's literature.
And soon it will be a movie. So all those who can’t be bothered reading all those pesky words in the comic book can just watch it instead.
-
Grant McDougall from Wgtn Journo school 1994 or 95-ish? (Al Wilkinson's (TV3) year?)
Anyway, Matthew wrote:
...remember that it's the taxpayer's duty to prove that they didn't buy with the intention or purpose of resale,
I could be wrong - I can't think where I heard this - but don't a lot of advocates for a capital gains tax often suggest the first property be exempt? Start buying and selling multiple properties and yeah, the onus goes on you to show why you shouldn't be subject to the tax.
-
"...there's hardly any publicity about the true numbers."
That's true, and I found your stats above interesting - I didn't know the numbers myself. (And in hindsight "some" is better as it's clearer.)
-
"...and therefore should not get to vote is pretty specious." was what I meant.
-
Sacha, I understand your desire to make your point, but…
Steve, you're correctly reflecting the stereotype that disabled people couldn't possibly run their own lives.
…that’s just not what I said. I didn’t say all disabled people couldn’t possibly run their own lives, or even that most disabled people can’t run their own lives. In fact, I even put the phrase “run their own lives” in quotation marks and followed it with a caveat, as it was in the context of what some one else said earlier. In reference to under-18s, Lucy wrote (emphasis added):
If they're not old enough to run their own lives, they're sure as hell not old enough to decide who runs the country.
Hence me:
Many disabled people cannot “run their own lives” (at least, any more than some 17 year olds) but are allowed to vote - and so they should be.
Notice also the caveat “any more so than 17 year olds”. My point is simply that disabled people, quite rightly, can vote. Yet some of them (and some older people, for that matter) would be considered to be unable to run their own lives if the standard of such is set at what we expect of 16 & 17 year olds. And remember, that’s a pretty high standard: we expect them to be able to make decisions about whether they have sex, and we treat 17 year olds as adults when it comes to criminal prosecution. I’m saying the idea that 16 and (especially) 17 year olds are not capable of running their own lives and therefore should get to vote pretty specious.
Only about one in forty Kiwis need daily support - but even then they are perfectly capable in many areas of life (including voting).
Entirely agree.
-
I'm interested to see the voting age discussion has gone on. I'd still like to see it at 12 years by 2020.
Stop saying that, Hilary! One more utterance about allowing 12-year-olds to vote, and John Amiria will drop dead of sheer gobsmackitude
Honestly, though, there is zero chance of the voting age being dropped that far, certainly not by 2020.
Interesting point about “able-ism” and people with disabilities. Many disabled people cannot “run their own lives” (at least, any more than some 17 year olds) but are allowed to vote - and so they should be.
I don’t exactly have an objection to all prisoners voting. On the other hand, if those with longer sentences currently can’t, I could see how any attempt to extend the vote to them would be frustrating and upsetting for families of many of the victims of violent crimes. I don’t see any party taking on that platform any time soon.
(By the way, on page 7 I attributed a comment to Russell that was actually by Yamis. Apologies to both.) -
And I think 18 is the right age to have the responsibility to vote. By then most people have some perspective.
Some at 18, none at 17?
Also, again, I know of people who are over 18 and who take virtually no interest in the news, current affairs etc. They are of course entitled to vote. The right to vote isn’t primarily about whether one has enough “perspective”. From the no right turn article:“The moral basis of this system rests on two assumptions: firstly, that people have interests, and secondly, that no-one's interests count for more than anybody else's. The first is simply recognition of fact. The second is a statement of fundamental moral equality, and can be taken as axiomatic or justified on the basis of consistency (if I want my interests to count, then I must agree that everyone else's do as well). Note that there's nothing in here about rationality, or about age - if you have interests, you should count.”
I also noticed a point while reading the comments: Graeme points out the current age of adult criminal responsibility is 17. To borrow from another poster there: The idea that someone can have a family, a job, a house (unlikely, admittedly, but theoretically possible), be in the military and be treated as a responsible adult when it comes to criminal prosecution, and not get to vote is seems hard to justify.
-
Oops. My comment above was directed at John's last one, one page back now.