Posts by A S
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Schools do useful things, the covers on the dishes are actually just cosmetic.
So just because someone deems that something isn't useful, its fine to destroy it? That really is screwy.
Funnily enough, it just goes to reinforce my original argument there is no acceptable reason to destroy something in this country merely because a minority dislike it.
If the majority consider that something should be done, we live in a democratic society, so there is an opportunity every three years to work towards this.
I was also somewhat horrified to read an earlier post (not by you though Kyle) that implied that destroying schools was bad because children might be there, but it was ok to attack a base because those who were there knew what they were doing....
WTF?! So someone, who was recruited by the govt of this country, who probably quite rightly consider that they are working for the best interests of our country, perhaps out a sense of duty or need to serve the public, and yet it is ok to target them? I just don't buy that argument at all.
The other extreme of that argument is that it is ok to crush dissenting voices by violent means because they knew what they were doing. Does anyone really want to go down that path?
-
Shep,
It isn't such a leap really. Media reports were that the dish was out of action as a result of the attack.
In terms of the security at Waihopai, are you suggesting they should have had armed guards with shoot on sight instructions?
$1m damage, nothing to worry about? I suspect most people would disagree with you on that one.
-
When I hear The Rt Hon CLarker saying it was senseless because of the cost to the taxpayer, all that comes to mind is $26M and a broken sailboat. It's nothing like burning down a school. It's like cutting through a school trampoline.
So destroying resources on the basis of personal belief that the rest of the country will have to pay to fix is fine? That is what it boils down to.
$1m buys a sh!tlo@d of trampolines, and hip operations, and cataract ops, and special education services, and refugee resettlement work, or disability allowance. Doesn't it?
-
I understand your perspective samuel, I guess that I just can't get my head around the motivation to damage things we don't like in order to get attention.
On the huge leap thing, I would have said that in looking at it dispassionately, there isn't really much difference between events at Waihopai and the burning school/hopital e.g's.
In all cases:
1. Someone decides that they have an issue with a state institution,
2. They unilaterally decide to attack/damage that institution because of the issue they have, and carry out their intent.The motivation, action and result in all three examples is the same. The end result is damaged things that the public has to pay to fix. Generally that cost has to be met by reducing spending somewhere else.
-
Shep, I think the Bastille comparison is drawing a fairly, massively long bow.
At the end of the day, we don't know a huge amount of what Waihopai represents, aside from what a few people, who don't know for certain either, wrote at some point. The people who do know what it actually does, aren't telling as far as I can see.
I'm struggle to see how Waihopai represents an abuse of power anymore than AirNZ owing and flying planes made by boeing (boeing makes all those funky guided bomb kits for the USAF after all, and they have a much more tangible and terminal impact than a big dish in a paddock somewhere).
-
any one that says the ploughshares could have got their point across as effectively in other ways is wrong.
This logic is a bit screwy, isn't it?
If I thought the education system was bad, would I be justified in burning down a school? Or if I had concerns about the health system, would I be justified setting a couple of wards ablaze?
-
...a growing offensive gun culture...
Are we living in the same country? Are we developing a culture where we own 'offensive' guns, or one where some find guns 'offensive'?
If you are suggesting that we have a culture where people want to own guns purely to use to shoot people with, the perhaps you should visit the police website and read up on the arms code. Just in case there is any doubt, seeking to own a firearm for the purposes of self-defence, or offence is illegal.
On the whole Waihopai thing, how many hip operations, or cataract operations does $1million buy? Seems to be a fairly selfish way for this group to make their point, esp as the dome will be repaired, and at our cost as taxpayers. I for one, would have preferred that money to go to something worthwhile.
-
According to the Herald, the three may be charged with sabotage, which carries a max of ten years imprisonment.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10507033
-
And there I was finding the different perspectives in this thread quite interesting. The broadest spectrum of opinion/perspective certainly seems to have been canvassed on this one.
I've really enjoyed the debate, sorry to hear it has made some grumpy.
-
Anyway, I believe that the latte-sippers in the top tax bracket (I'm a card-carrying member myself) should STFU about their dumb entitlements, frankly. Learn how to cook various nutritious and cheap meals with canned beans, and zip it.
The thing is, they don't appear to be inclined to STFU anymore, and it looks like an increasing number are looking the Nats up and down as a better proposition for them.
Being generous is feasible only when you consider you have resource to spare. An increasing number look to be of the view that charity begins at home...