Posts by WH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Stop listening to idiot trolls like me
One of the challenges I deal with when wearing my professional hat (I do love a good hat) is that some people will say pretty much anything that'll pass in risible efforts to "win the conversation". Whether or not these people succeed depends on who's there and how closely they're listening. Sometimes people just can't be bothered with the conflict.
The term "conventional wisdom" was coined by JK Galbraith to describe various kinds of unthinking orthodoxy, and I think that's a fair description of many right wing economic nostrums. I don't want to pretend that appeals to the middle ground don't have problems.
Notwithstanding all that, I hope that Labour can develop a group of leaders (rather than just a single party leader) that ordinary voters feel they can trust to exercise good judgment on their behalf. Unfortunately, this sort of thing takes time to build up, and is not really amenable to the kind of media coverage politicians typically receive.
If the broader left can contribute to that goal (eg, as I think Laila Harre and Jeanette Fitzsimons do) then great.
-
perhaps Labour needs to relinquish its claim to the whole of the left rather than whatever parts it actually deserves to keep?
On a night National claimed 48% support, I have to believe Labour can improve on 25%.
Key's leadership is aggregating the right's support, but total progressive support is currently below 40%. The space from the centre (NZ First) to the right has 60%.
I know we all very broadly want the same things.
-
While disappointing, the result was in the polling and I suppose it has been for many years.
It won't be easy for Labour to reclaim the support National has accumulated. My own view is that the parties to the left of Labour are complicating its effort to present the image it needs to attract broad-based, non-partisan support. Maybe it's a function of the rainbow coalition that makes up the modern progressive movement. I hope Labour can find the personnel and the vision to turn it all around. Its job won't be made easier by the dominant narratives that exist about the left.
I think it has to be conceded that Key is a remarkable figure in New Zealand's political history. Even his interview with John Campbell was really likeable, and I was supporting the other guy.
So, sad face. Back to the drawing board.
-
I don’t actually know whether Assange is paranoid
Now there is something I do believe.
Although I have no interest in this particular discussion, I feel obliged to point out, contra Craig, that the Ecuadorian government's statement of reasons for its decision to give Assange political asylum is here.
-
While I recognise that these issues have been raised in the run-up to the election for a reason, the list of questions about the conduct of Key's government is starting to look pretty troubling. How do you lose your Minister of Justice to a major ethics scandal and have your honesty and integrity directly challenged by international experts on a matter that would require your resignation if proven within four weeks?
I think I have more confidence in the perspicacity of Snowden and Greenwald (who were each very impressive) than I do in the New Zealand media establishment (particularly the abomination that is the New Zealand Herald's political reporting). New Zealanders' favourable views of John Key may save National yet.
But how is it that a US journalist can speak more intelligently about our political landscape than our own media personalities? At the end of the day, Patrick Gower is still on TV and it does not appear to be satire.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10504916/NZ-spied-on-Pacific-neighbours-Greenwald
-
The question of why we exist is the hamster wheel of philosophy. It's interesting if you can put up with the fact that trying to answer it will leave you where you started.
I guess I prefer to cast this discussion in terms of what we don't know. The fact that that our efforts to explain existence are generally pretty rudimentary does not of itself dispense with the possibility that the universe has a transcendent cause.
There were thousands of stories invented about gods, and just a handful of them survived into the modern world in a persistent enough meme to overcome the starkly obvious lack of any gods, backed by the evidence of every single thing ever turning out to not have your god in it, or anyone else's god in it.
While science is the single most important driver of human progress, I don't agree that our current state of knowledge can be safely used to assign concrete probabilities to cosmic alternatives in the way some suggest. Maybe that will change as our understanding progresses.
I don't think that the effort to break down the broad possibility of transcendence by identifying the absurdity of the many instances of belief is logically valid (although I am big fan of the FSM and have often basked in the warm embrace of his noodly appendage).
In the meantime, I'm open to arguments from spooky experience. I came across this in the New Republic the other day. I'm no Einstein, and can't say that I've personally witnessed anything that hints at the divine, but I've seen some small things I can't explain and I know others have too. On the other hand, I know such claims will quite rightly be subject to scepticism.
In other words, the whole thing is a big maybe.
-
It's not just about origins. Blackstone describes how the common law survived the Norman conquest, and the religious role of the head of state of NZ should not be ignored either.
I think we will have to agree to disagree. I've already said more than I originally intended, and I'm mindful that Emma Hart will probably not thank me for my involvement to date.
While Christianity played an important part in the history of the Commonwealth, and while religion is an important part of New Zealand's social fabric, the modern legal system eschews explicit religious influence in the same way that parliamentary processes carry on without the direct involvement of the Queen.
Section 21 of the Human Rights Act 1993 and s.15 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 provide a more reliable guide to the modern approach than Blackstone's Commentaries (which are necessarily a product of their time).
I will leave it there.
-
Although no-one is actually stopping UT from freely expressing themselves
Being free to express an opinion doesn't necessarily mean I have to listen to it, respectfully or otherwise. Or respond/not respond, respectfully or otherwise.
True.
-
Understanding the connection between theism and English democracy involves going back the the advent of kings in the Judaic tradition
I think that your emphasis on the link between religious belief and the legal system is a kind of genetic fallacy, to put it mildly. Having gone all Voltaire on your behalf, I feel I have to say that I don't think your argument is right.
As an agnostic, I agree with your sentiments about the strong/hard/positive variants of atheism, but it's a problem that arises for all kinds of belief. Failing to recognise this is just going to annoy people.
I think a version of secular virtue ethics should be taught in schools on a mandatory basis. I figure it could just be worked into the existing curriculum without the need for special classes if needed.
Overall, though, I think you were clearly told not to do this.
-
Maybe then it's clearer what we're arguing about. IMHO 'objective value' makes little sense. Because values are something consciousnesses have, that is, essentially subjective. Which is another way of saying: we put values on things; the universe doesn't come with price-tags.
I agree that consciousness creates subjective value and suppose the question is whether that's the whole story. I'm not trying to give an answer either way, but there are implications of each view.
I'm more of a fan of robust debate, in which the opponents actually set on with as much intent as they can muster, within the basic rules.
Fair enough. It's often what people think they know that gets them into trouble, and environments in which people are willing to challenge their own thinking because the costs of doing so are low are preferable to those in which people dig rhetorical trenches and feel unable to admit mistakes.