Posts by Craig Ranapia
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Haydn:
Fair question, and I take precisely no offence at it. One thing I must certainly am is a citizen and an elector in a representative democracy - and one which, by all indications, is going to see 'climate change' policy as a huge political issue in next year's general election.
At the risk of sounding like a sanctimonious pill, I'd actually like to cast my vote on a marginally more informed basis than skimming what media spin is put on carious campaign soundbites, or who can more adroitly manipulate my emotions in some doco. It's certainly not the only public policy area I think has been spectacularly ill-served by low quality (and often spectacularly ill-informed or flat out misleading) political discourse and media analysis.
A good place to start is to actually be sceptical about any 'arguments from authority' (which I was taught was a rather commonplace logical fallacy), but also to be quite clear about the limits of your own knowledge - and make use of the folks who actually know more than you do about any subject you can name.
-
Russell:
Well, I'm not drawing any equivalence without seeing both (I was one of those tiresome 'mature' students who took required reading at face value, rather than regarding it as a pomo signifier that shouldn't cut into your drinking time) - just making the point that fudge isn't really anything I need to be putting on my plate at the moment on this subject.
So, could anyone recommend some reading on the subject that is as free of political, academic/institutional or ideological axe-grinding as humanly possible? Serious question, and serious answers would be much appreciated.
-
Russell:
Ok, I'll cop to a wee bit of hyperbole - but while I think there's room for polemic and flat out nakedly biased advocacy in the documentary form, but it's equally important that the people who make it are honest with the viewer, and the viewer doesn't confuse a documentary with the tablets of the law fresh from the top of Mount Sinai.
I admit there's a whole air of wide-eyed evangelism that creeps into any discussion about climate change - from all directions - I don't think should be getting too close to science, which is all about 'wiggly lines' that aren't easily reduced to soundbites and pretty pictures. I was being quite serious about one thing - I have no pretensions to be any expert in any science, and wish (with the perfection of 20/20 hindsight I'd done a lot more science and math when I had the chance.
To be perfectly fair to Al Gore, he's fairly candid that An Inconvenient Truth is largely a work of political advocacy. I suspect, Martin Durkin is doing the same thing. I just don't find it particularly helpful in getting a handle on the complex, and debatable, science of climate change. And I think it actually matters if I'm going to the ballot box next year with green being the new black.
A few months back, I was re-reading Robert Hughes' The Shock of the New, in which (twenty-five years after filming the original documentary series that occasioned the book) he wondered aloud whether television was really that good a medium for discussing art - the context that has to be carved away to make the script run to time, the shots that can never convey scale or detail, or allow you the time to just sit and contemplate a work, the blizzard of stimuli that forbids reflection. Doesn't that become so much harder with science? Is it even possible?
-
BTW, does Channel Four (the UK one) do anything but shock-docs? I'm looking forward to seeing The Prince of Wales Is A Retarded C**t Not Competent to Run A Gang-Bang In A Whorehouse, or whatever the thing is that's gotten Charles so agitated over the last week or so.
-
Russell:
So I should treat The Great Global Warming Swindle with the same extreme scepticism as a certain Oscar-winning polemic on the same subject call An Inconvenient Truth? And at the same time, take a wee while to get my head around and reflect on a pretty complex and contentious area of hard science - rather than the political posturing and brain-death that passes for science reporting in most of the MSM?
Good advice, Russ.
-
J Wilkinson:
Who do you think is responsible for most serious crime against children? Mothers or Fathers?Well, J, if I looked at prison stats - and the makeup of the folks who get prosecuted and convicted of death penalty offences - in the United States I'd probably make some flawed assumptions about blacks, Hispanics and low-income Americans.
Anway, I think you're question is missing the point. Sadistically beating, neglecting, raping or mudering a child is totally beyond the pale, regardless of the gender of the perpetrator.
-
You'd need to push for parliament not to write laws then methinks.
Well, perhaps that's a good idea if you don't think Parliamentarians are anything more than poll-driven fruit cakes. I'm perfectly well aware that you can't draft a piece of legislation that will cover every eventuality in perpetuity - but I think we can do a damn sight better than shrugging your shoulders and leave it to the courts to intuit what was meant by poorly worded and ill-defined legislation. In the end, isn't that why we're here - because Sue Bradford was less than happy about the (in her view) over permissive interpretation of reasonable force by some juries. (And I think advocates of the Bradford Bill have gone a wee bit over the top in painting S.59 as a reliable get of jail free card for sadistic monsters. If anything, that kind of defence seems rather risky and far from certain.)
-
Kyle Matthews wrote:
As is always the case, the police, judiciary, various community and government organisations, and if necessary, parliament, will get involved to make the abstract law have practical implications.Um, yes and no. I know it's a school of political/jurisprudential thought that's falling out of favour, but I prefer an elected legislature to, well... do it's damn job and legislate - and take it seriously enough to go through a careful process of consideration and debate of carefully drafted legislation that is more about passing workable law than how it's going to play out in the next polling cycle.
While I don't entirely side with the judiciary on all matters, I've got a suggestion for the next politicians (of any stripe) who wants to attack someone on the bench as a 'judicial activists'. Garbage in, garbage out.
-
So, if you have any reservations about the Bradford Bill you're the kind of person who thinks any victim of domestic violence must have been asking for it, or would repeal Homosexual Law Reform in a heartbeat?
I think this is where I came in, and it's where I'm getting off. Thanks for the thoughtful post, Damien, it's nice to see there's still a voice out there who isn't falling for the smug, self-righteous crap of either extreme.
-
Or perhaps it's a useful way of taking the heat out of a situation and allowing those involved to have a think about things. Honestly ...
I don't know about you, Russell, but when I'm in a combustible situation with grown ups I walk out of the room, go make a cup of tea, do anything that gives me a chance to chill out instead of getting in a nuclear slanging match. (Well, that's the theory.) I don't drag the other party to the 'naughty step' and tell 'em to sit there and think about what they've done. You know something, 'Time outs' work - all I'm suggesting is a little honesty about why.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 … 1235 Older→ First