Posts by Yamis
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Also, I read in the DomPost today that banks won't lend to single people without a big deposit. Is this legal - marital status is a prohibited ground of discrimination, isn't it?
You mean like how insurance companies make males under 25 pay more for car insurance even if they've never caused an accident?
Now how those fuckers get away with that is beyond me. My one and only accident behind the wheel was caused by a female who lost control on a corner in the wet and slammed me off the road. Lucky for her because I was probably subsidising her insurance.
I can understand why it costs more to get health insurance if you were a smoker or had had heart by-pass surgery 3 times in the last couple of days and were about to run the New York marathon to raise money for your upcoming brain surgery. But how can you be discriminated against based on nothing you've ever done (and I don't want to get into discussions about the drinking age, driving age etc).
It should be a level playing field at the start and then we can start the earthworks AFTER the ref has blown his whistle and sent a few to the sinbin.
rant out.
-
hmmmmm, that makes me feel a bit uncomfortable fer sure.
The Defense Secretary should be told "look mate, we know you want him but there's 300 million other people in the US, some of whom can probably do a fuck off job themselves. Pick one of them instead".
I was watching something on one of the freeview channels a day or two ago on one of those shows where they have a whole lot of US talking heads and they were discussing where the Republicans go from here. One school of thought was that they say bugger this and head off way the hell to the right to establish a clear line of difference (which would be a total and utter disaster IMO because of how the Democrats will adjust the masses thought processes in the next 4 years) OR do they shift themselves to a more progressive, more centrist position and learn to compete with the Democrats for some of that middle ground.
I don't know what the conclusion to the discussion was, I think my 2 year old requested I go outside and water the plants. Her latest hobby.
-
A random thought. As I was reading through the 8 pages of discussion about what happened, what should have happened, what might happen from here, who's to blame, how it should be treated etc etc I wondered, are the Israelis sitting around right now having the same level of discussion on the hundreds of incidents involving their troops recent actions? Made me think how sheltered we are in NZ and thank flamin whoever for that.
-
Didn't Timothy Giles move to the graveyard shift on ZB? Or at least fill in on it?
I liked listening to him as well on Bfm.
-
Just a casual observation here but does it appear looking at the labelled herald photo of the 'final scene' that the van and stationwagon were most likely stationary at the time of the incident?
-
I thought Cameron had some major surgery to try to correct the cutting issue after that fight. But I suppose once a bleeder always a bleeder. It's hard to know what tactics Cameron will use to keep Tua at bay. As they say in boxing, a punchers power is the last thing to go so it's not like Tua won't be able to send Cameron down if he nails him. But then he couldn't nail Lewis in 12 rounds (although Lewis and Cameron aren't on the same planet size and ability wise).
-
I don't think Tua has much choice but to get it on v Cameron. He's 36 and as he said in the Rattue interview, it's a launching pad to try to ressurect his career for one last comeback. He was also fairly open about whats gone and going on with his money.
I like both fighters so don't know who I want to win. It would be best I suppose if it was a massive fight and went the distance or near with neither fighter coming out of it looking bad. But if one of them scores an early knockdown you can put the lights on the losers career. Even though Cameron is several years younger he just won't be taken seriously overseas as he's struggling to get any interest over there now.
And I'll get in an early tip for the Cardinals (I always think I'm getting them confused with a baseball team -- St Louis) for the Superbowl.
-
Interesting observations mark but I'd say it's way, way more complicated than that (and what you put forward is well thought and isn't exactly simple). There's a fair degree of domestic violence in NZ that can't be put down to white people arriving on white boats and having a hard time of it. Namely Maori, Pacific Island, and Asian DV. Then there's all those Europeans who came a fair way after the NZ Company did their thing. And still now we have Europeans coming to live here. Everybody brought their own swearwords and things to biff at each other.
In Korea DV is a big, big problem but is swept under the carpet much more and this is a society which goes back many thousands of years locked to pretty much the same spot.
It happened in ancient society, it happens in modern times. Maybe in the past it occured due to more of an influence by religion, or other beliefs or by the perpetrators committing it believing it was their 'right'. In fact in many societies it was a right.
In modern times it may be more connected to keeping up with the Joneses and the pressures that come with it. I suspect a bit more of a mixture of the two depending on what house your living in. My family came late last century on my fathers side and as he often points out, his rellies are either tee-totallers or wild boozers, and not unknown to spend a bit of time behind bars.
Incidentally yesterday my neighbours had a screaming match, somebody (not them) called the police and they came and took the bloke away though as far as I know (and I can form a very well educated guess in this case) there was no physical violence whatsoever. I wonder how that gets recorded statistically? "Domestic incident"?
I guess it will always be a bit of a mystery, some genetics, some circumstance, some societal issues at large.....
Peace Out.
The End.
-
And briefly...
what does "initiate" mean?
To me in this instance it would mean struck the first real blow, or threw the first toaster that connected with the face. NOT said the first swearword.
I don't think I'd rate myself longterm if my wife shoved me and I then beat seven shades of shit out of her because she started it.
-
I try to avoid doing this sort of thing where possible but...
Chuck, are you referring to say, something like this from RB?
No one is denying that women commit violence in relationships or families. It happens. I've seen it. But the fact sheet notes that that six times as many men in New Zealand are apprehended for family violence offences as women and that 92% of protection orders are sought by women. And that a string of findings from the 2001 New Zealand National Survey of Crime Victims bore out the perception that women face a greater risk of partner violence from men, that women were more likely than men to suffer repeat violence in relationships, were injured more severely, and were more likely to fear their partners.
While I can't claim to know exactly what was going on in his head when he typed his post I took it as being quite a different argument altogether.
But I fail to see how defending a worthy advertising campaign from some 'casually thought out criticism' bares much resemblance to what you claim he was trying to do.
My 37 cents.