Posts by 3410
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Sooner we get through this 1980's retro shite and on to the 90's, the better.
Oh, great. Whatever the policy equivalent of red jeans is, I don't want it.
...being used as a metonym for the NZ government.
A metronym, surely.
-
Was I mistaken when I heard someone from the government on Morning Report this morning describe mining as "sustainable"? If so, it's a pretty radical redefinition.
You're not wrong. He was saying not that the environment around mining was sustainable, but that the mining itself was! A big wtf here too.
-
Jeebus -- is John Banks worried about Len Brown's polling or what?
Heh. Yes. Yes he is. I wonder if he realises just how obvious that was.
-
The Japanese government, 3410
Big daddy United States, of course
Right. Anyone amongst those who are actually (ostensibly) represented by the NZ govt., though?
-
Not to mention legalising whaling, Sofe. I mean, who even wants that?
-
But, so long as the rules were set, and followed, and the process agreed by which to establish a winner, then yes, a winner can be found.
If you can't agree on any of these things, then you have an analogy with our discussion on the merit of Avatar and a Wellywood sign. Also just about every interesting discussion. If the answer is clear it doesn't really need discussion, except for purposes of schooling those who might not know the answer yet.
Ben,
I never really set out to prove that some things are objectively true - that much seems bleeding obvious, as you seem to be suggesting - rather that examining those thing that are, and the relationship between them and the things that are not, might tell us more about the latter, and therefore about the nature of quality in art.Unfortunately, that argument never really got much past the first premise. That's fine; this conversation has been something of a failure; pehaps the next one won't be.
-
But once you get it out of the lab and actually start to use it for a specific purpose, you can't just ignore the fact that it's being used by a specific human being, on a specific day and time - which is a variable that the discussion so far didn't mention.
Sure. There would, of course, be myriad variables: fuel, tyres, track, conditions, and so on.
The question, IIRC, was about which was the best of two cars (for a defined purpose). Surely, if you eliminate (or match) all the identifiable variables, then you can say, with a fair degree of accuracy, which one is the best for the job.
-
Is it, though? It's not like the cars are piloting themselves. You're conveniently eliding the subjective element: that each car is being driven by someone. Without a driver, the car is just an inert lump. Presumably the driver's skills make a difference in how fast the car can go, even in a straight-up quarter mile drag race.
Except that we don't, in good conscience, compare two things by deliberately skewing the variables; quite the reverse.
-
Black-or-whiters being absolutist about relativism is mighty tedious many decades after the death of unchallenged modernism.
Well, sure, but can people realise that just because one challenges a position, that doesn't necessarily mean that one is advocating for its opposite?
-
I haven't; I'll keep an eye out for it.