Reinstated for 2012 by popular request.
If you have any interesting links or comments, plese share them here.
Happy New Year to all readers, and best wishes for 2012
By Redbaiter- in the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low.
By Redbaiter- in the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low.
Reinstated for 2012 by popular request.
If you have any interesting links or comments, plese share them here.
Happy New Year to all readers, and best wishes for 2012
TrueblueNZ 
13 responses to “General Debate”
Happy new year to you R. Here’s something to prod general debate. Thing is, so many are afraid to take it on. I hope that changes.
Well, exactly ten years ago today, a comment appeared at Free Republic in a thread based on the publication “Human Sacrifice Rationalization in 7th Grade Curriculum ”
Here is the summary of the comment:
Institutional rot concomitant to advancing authoritarianism have only gotten worse since then.
I’ve been flogging how the Precautionary Principle is at the core to morphing Western culture into accepting authoritarian rule ever since Christmas day. And that authoritarian rule is deliberately regressive in nature because true progress causes humanity to thrive — as happened when the ideas from the Age of Reason led to the toppling of authoritarian rule in British America.
The Precautionary Principle the prime reason for the new morality that views population reduction as a moral necessity. The useful idiots who actually believe that “we must assume Malthus was right so we can prevent massive uncontrolled deaths” are delivering the West (the progenitor and protector of individual liberty) into the hands of power mad monsters. History is quite clear: power mad monsters always rain death.
LikeLike
Great comment, Pascal. Made even more so when one considers the West is in suicidal decline through failure to replenish. Most western peoples are failing to replace themselves and it is the Muslim world, where women tend to have 5 or more children growing at an alarming rate, whether it is the Muslim world in its natural home, or transplanted into the west.
LikeLike
The “Precautionary Principle” is the triumph of superstition and ideology over science and technology.
Almost always counterproductive, if we applied the precautionary principle to itself, ie asked ourselves what are the possible dangers of using this principle, we would be forced to abandon it very quickly.
LikeLike
The Precautionary Principle seems to have morphed out of Prudent Avoidance, which simply put says “if in doubt, avoid it”. It came about in relation to EMFs, a field I work in [no pun intended] where all the scientific evidence indicates there are no health issues, however if an individual chooses to go without electricity or a cell phone, then fine, as long as they don’t try to impose their beliefs, and more particularly costs, on others.
Another example is so-called second-hand smoke, of which there’s no evidence of health risks, although it is annoying to have someone blow smoke all over you! Of course the risk to oneself of smoking are well-established (the exact opposite of EMF health effects), but again, it’s a matter of choice. Penn & Teller’s “Bullshit” programme on second-hand smoke was a good one.
But the Precautionary Principle has got out of hand in terms of imposing controls on society, the worst current example of course being CAGW. On that topic, my holiday reading includes “The Chilling Stars” by Svensmark & Calder – a very good read indeed.
LikeLike
You kiwis are great. In the States I constantly have to explain the things like the Precautionary Principle and even Statism. I suggest it for discussion, and you just dive in. Fight to protect your educational system because it appears to have been better for longer than has ours. (Yes, yours is quickly descending, I’m sure given, the smug Nat SKUNCs you have running things so as to make you “equal” with 3rd worlders.)
LikeLike
Went and saw the Iron Lady tonight. The political parts were quite good. Showing the left using insults as a means of persuasion in debate, the cowardly members of her own party more concerned about their careers than the people and calling for compromise with the left, her hardline stance on everything she believed in, unrelenting and unwilling to give in to cowards.
Most of the audience was of an older generation as expected. I was probably the only one in their 20’s. It made me think of how the demographic would be different if it was a film about Che Guevara.
LikeLike
It great having General Debate so we can point out stuff that you may have missed or just not had time to blog about.
Editorial: ‘Tea-tape’ costs bid is disturbing
5:30 AM Sunday Jan 1, 2012
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10776171
The above would be worth commenting on directly to the Herald. I would be interested how much they censor the responses that oppose their view.
If anyone posts to the Herald on the Tea-tape and you do not get posted please let me know at
chuckbirdnz@gmail.com
LikeLike
Chuck, I registered as ZenTiger and left a comment, but it seems to have been rejected (I made the comment yesterday).
All I said was something along the lines that the Herald should do a story on how many NZ companies like to use contractors and free-lance operators, so that if they find something interesting the organisation might fund court cases and yet if the court case gets lost, they can cut the freelancer loose and let them suffer the financial fall-out, and then make some mileage on that story too.
Not sure why such a thought is considered so dangerous to them?
LikeLike
Thanks Zen, I suspect that the Herald censors the posts particularly on a subject like this. I will do one myself shortly and see how I go.
LikeLike
My response to addressing child abuse. It would be good if this Green Paper and their supposed call for public input was not just a waste of money. It will be interesting if I get a response.
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: The Green Paper for Vulnerable Children
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 15:27:52 +1300
From: Chuck Bird
Reply-To: chuckbirdnz@gmail.com
To: yourresponse@childrensactionplan.govt.nz
Dear Sir/Madam
Would you kindly tell me why I should take time to give a considered
response to the Green Paper when the Prime Minister treated the view of
about 87% of good parents with utter contempt?
I heard that the main reason for rejecting the view of the majority was
because of a conversation with Peter Sharples. Sharples thought that
Maori in particular were not bright enough to know the difference
between a smack and abuse. That might apply to Maori who vote for the
Maori or Mana Party but that is not the case for the majority of Maori
who do not support such racist parties.
I note the parameters on the Green Paper are very narrow and ignore the
real causes of child abuse.
Governments over the last 40 years have undermined the traditional
family, the primacy of parents in raising their children and sadly
fathers in their important role of helping raise children. Common sense
and research shows this have been a primary contributor to child abuse.
One just has to look at the number of children murdered by mother’s
boyfriends.
Prime Minister Key promised to change the law if good parents were
prosecuted for lightly smacking their children. They have been
prosecuted as the video in this link will clearly demonstrate.
http://www.protectgoodparents.org.nz/
Will you kindly ask the Prime Minister when he is going to honour his
promise and let me know?
Have you considered that the altering of Section 59 may actually be
increasing child abuse even if that may be counterintuitive?
When you are serious about finding parents and grandparents views on
child abuse and do not set narrow terms of reference to give the answers
you want please let me know.
Kind regards
Chuck Bird
LikeLike
Very well said, Chuck – and absolutely spot on.
I will also be very interested in knowing whether you receive a reply; and if you do whether it actually addresses all the issues you have raised. Keep us informed.
I especially agreed with your assertion that “the altering of Section 59 may actually be increasing child abuse even if that may be counterintuitive …”
As we all know, genuine child abuse has only increased since this law was altered, with the addition of good parents now being prosecuted for what was clearly never regarded as child abuse in the past [and nor is it now in any real sense of the phrase].
And the real losers? The children of this nation. John Key obviously hates children – we already know he despises the opinion of 87% of the voting population [who only want the very best for their children].
LikeLike
Mighty well said, Chuck! It’ll be a miracle if you receive a reply though, because your commentary doesn’t fit the meme.
LikeLike
I thought some may be interested in another good socially conservative blog.
http://daleoleary.wordpress.com/
LikeLike