Posts by Steve Parks
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Perhaps some of us Wellington-based PA regulars could organise a less formal get-together?
Cool idea...
What of a FaceBook group to help coordinate things?
Dunno, I appear to be the last adult human not on that thing.
I'm going to use that line from now on to instantly win all internet arguments.
Wonder if it'd work on Chuck Bird?
-
Reason to be cheerful:
Watchmen legal battle over, film to be released on time.
-
But the social engineering label is just lazy. All ads are a form of social engineering, for heaven's sake. That we should use some of that time to promote useful messages doesn't seem such a bad idea.
Absolutely agree. It grates about as much as "PC gone mad!"
-
oops, last post aimed at 3410.
-
And you succeeded admirably.
-
The Herald's John Drinnan weighs in on the debate (scroll down to the "Hustle for Russell" subheading):
"I'm with Ralston on those social engineering ads. I know the messages are valid - but the Nanny State connections are so pervasive..."
To be fair to Drinnan, his point ends up being more aimed at all the so called "social engineering" type ads in general, and he has a point:
I know the messages are valid - but the Nanny State connections are so pervasive: Driving Is In His Blood, The Grim Reaper intersections, the slob who throws his kid around the room, the female at after-work drinks being sexually accosted.
We are warned not to fry up after a night on the booze. All failings that are not a problem for the vast majority of viewers and could be mentioned once in a while.
But viewers are whacked with them every night. Ad campaigns keep a lot of advertising people in jobs and bolster television revenue. But sometimes they make free-to-air TV impossible to watch.
I don't agree with Ralston's or Chuck's criticisms of the Not Okay ads specifically, but I agree with some of what Drinnan's said above. The plethora of public service ads may dilute the effect of the more worthwhile ones (like the Not Okay ads).
-
The not OK campaign that says it is never okay to hit a woman clearly implies it is sometimes okay for a woman to hit a man.
... ! ? !
I cannot be bother looking up a source of which they are many as it would be out of date, done overseas or not peer reviewed or some such nonsense.
Yeah, expecting the a study to be relevant and peer reviewed, these are the silly standards of the left. tsk tsk.
(Btw, nice summary of Chuck's idiocy, Rich.)
-
Chuck,
[from the comments by Cathy]: But I'm beginning to doubt that the discrepancy is that great. I think the 7-to-1 or 6-to-1 figure is partly due to the fact that more women than men may seek medical care for minor injuries ...
"I'm begining to doubt..." "I think..." - this is speculation on her part. Which is alowed, but must be noted as such.
[Cathy]: A minority, yes; but hardly an insignificant number. And it certainly doesn't justify 100% of public attention to domestic violence going to female victims.
And 100% of attention doesn't go to females victims - as has been pointed out many times here in this thread. So what's your point?
-
I'm hopin rectitude isn't some kind of euphemism..
I always thought it was an abreviation: Rectitude = Rectal Attitude.
-
...why do you not look at the facts rather than criisise someone competent as Bill Ralston.
He was criticising Ralston based on argument over the facts. You and David seem to want to portray this as some sort of ad hominem. It isn't.
And as has been pretty clearly demonstrated, Ralston's initial premise (that the ad campaign is exclusively about men hitting women; that Labour's strategy was to place the burden of responsibility for domestic violence entirely on men) isn't even accurate.