Posts by Steve Parks
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I wrote about that here.
Rereading that reminded me of why I usually don't disagree when people criticise the media. 'Then the first, thrilling sentence: "Sex between children as young as 12 will be allowed under a shock law change, horrifying teen pregnancy experts, educators and counsellors".'
Shock law change?!! It was a "shock" because the SST declared it to be one. But I know I've ranted before about the media's begging-the-question style of making up the news.Anyway, it looks like the Mark situation wouldn't have been covered by that change anyway. It was only going to apply to those under 16 (and over 12). Still, it should have.
As you were.
-
And now Tony Ryall's in government ...
That's fucking depressing...
And just for the record, I have no idea what Mark's views or comments were on that matter, I was just running with the example brought up, as a hypothetical case.
-
Oh, Steve, it was all about the hypocrisy of a closeted lezzer in a sham marriage of convenience with a gay bear pushing her covert far-left homosexual agenda down kiddie's throats. At least, I think that's what Ian Wishart said before my ears started bleeding and I lapsed into a welcome coma.
Okay, but those accusations were silly and speculative, and anyway that’s not hypocrisy in relation to her stance on the issues. It’s not like Clark is generally seen or portrayed as holding conservative moral views, that were then shown to be in severe contrast to her actual behavior.
but there's a legitimate aspect to it: revealing private actions when they are hypocritical in light of your public stance on issues in which you may have some influence.
So, it really would have been useful to remind everyone that Ron Mark was convicted at 17 of having (consensual) sex with a 15 year old, got off with a fine (presumably from some wet, PC wally) and went on to take a rather harder line where others were concerned?Wasn’t there an attempt a few years back to change the law around such situations, to prevent a 17 year old who has consensual sex with a 15 year old from being treated as a sexual predator? If that debate was going on now, and Mark was leading the calls against the change, I think that would be relevant. There would certainly be nothing wrong with the media pointing that out in such a situation.
-
But hey, since folks keep mentioning Helen Clark -- perhaps she should have retired from public life so the salacious and vile tittle-tattle about her marriage and sexual orientation didn't "become the issue"? Bullshit.
But those propagating that line of "vile tittle-tattle" were not particularly trying to reveal hypocrisy on Clark's part, were they? It was salacious for the sake it, as I recall.
So it still seems like a pretty specious comparison to the current Rankin coverage. I'm not condoning all the media tactics and approach overall (and don't think anyone else here particularly is, either) but there's a legitimate aspect to it: revealing private actions when they are hypocritical in light of your public stance on issues in which you may have some influence.
-
-
... or were you thinking of someone else?
-
Well, she's a US citizen, but according to Wikipedia she has Filipino parents. Of Asian decent, then?
-
Or a long list of people he'd like to watch having sex with Chris Pine.
-
i did not "take" anything. I was MERELY trying to think for a moment outside of the box
Well it took you five 'Post reply's in a row to merely try to think for a moment. If you didn't take something, perhaps you should.
-
Page 95, and you're expecting Rob to drop the petty bullshit and stick to the point now?