On Liberty
At the risk of appearing to lecture, may I offer the following words from John Stuart Mill, from his essay on Liberty.
‘The object of this essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in th way of cumplusion or control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penaltie, or the moral coercion of publuic opinion. The priciple is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, becauase it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with an evil in case he do otherwise. The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is answerable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.’
Here Mill asserts we have the absolute sovereign right over our own body and mind. It follows, therefore, that in accepting that right we must also accept the responsibility to protect ourselves.
This does not confer a right on anyone to expect me to protect them against themselves. And so those who choose the freedom of indepence must also choose the responsibility of independence.
I cannot for the life of me, see how any beneficiary recipient can claim to choose self-support responsibility when they are demanding the ‘right’ to use a part of my hard-earned money to support their life-style.
Did any of these DPB recipients confer with me as to the wisdom of their original association with the now departed partner? No!
Did the beneficiary consult with me regarding the rectitude of producing offspring into that environment? No!
Did the beneficiary consult with me as to the rectitude of splitting the family? No!
Did the recipient have the common decency to call any or all of her (DPB) supporters and ask for their grace? No.
But, you see. Without consultation, I ended up with a debt for which I have responsibility.
I’ll bet Kent would clamour loud and long if I sent him my power-bill and told my supplier my bill was Kent’s problem, not mine. But is that any different from the IRD sending me a bill for taxes to pay for those who can’t manage their own lives? No!
Has anyone ever seen a public notice from a beneficiary, thanking all contributors, at Christmas time? No!
Oh no. They all of one accord demand the right to have all tax-payers fund their appallingly governed lives, yet they refuse to accept responsibility for their own actions.
I cannot count the number of talk-back callers who have almost caused me to scream, hearing them say, ‘The Government doesn’t make it attractive enough for me to get off DPB and get a job.’!!!! Gee, I could help make it attractive.
And so these layabouts walk away from a ‘marriage’, take the kids, feed the FC with vast amounts of crap as to why the father should not be allowed anywhere near to beggar’s trough, (ergo, equal parenting rights) and swan off into the sunset, defrauding the children of a father and the tax-payer of his/her hard-earned money.
And for the record, Muldoon screwed Super Annuitants.I do not class them as beggars. But recipients of DPB, unemployment, and sickness beneficiaries are, to me, beggars and should be treated as such.
Maybe, if they were, this society’s keel may yet start to show signs of pointing downwards.
NB: I quite like the idea of beneficiaries being issued with a cash-card which restricted them to the purchase of food and clothing. Power, phone and rent would be AP’d to the legitimate recipient. The EFTPOS system could easily manage it.
Poor old Kent and Sue Bradford, and their ilk, would suggest (more likely scream) that such would be an infringement of the beneficiairies rights to conduct their lives as they choose. Sorry Kent and Sue, while I work my arse off to help pay for these beggars, then I’d kind’a like to think I had some control on what they spend my money on.
I’m not even vaguely interested in the PC crap asserting that the meek need a hand up and therefore they have a right to that hand-up. If they’re so bereft of the ability and will to survive, or are truly in such a parlous state that they actually need a hand up, then they are free to call and I will assess each application on its merits.
Survival is life 101. Surviving requires a post-grad degree in self respect. And you get that from refusing to denounce your self-respect and becoming a beggar.
But I’ll be damned if I will accept tax-payer largesse, allowing any and all layabout to survive without effort, isn’t my concern. It is! These bludgers are using my money to fund their life-style, without my permission.
All such forced largesses does is provide a foundation for consuming without a reciprocal requirement to produce.
And where has this got us??? 300,000 kids in solo-parent environments. Boys being reared almost exclusively by women, and girls being taught that such is just fine. Remember, Tana hit that bloke with a woman’s handbag. What does that say?
And we’re surprised that youth violence is at an all-time high????
Oh yes, Kent and Sue, we are breeding a fine society on the backs of those who produce.
Woooo! That was full of passion, eh?:–))
David.
I fully concur with you David. Those are good beliefs to have and they are well represented in both the US and Australian politics at the moment. You are commended for being passionate about something and raving intelligently about it.
I am not sure that it is the right kind of sentiment to be expressing on a site that purports to represent males who are seeking to improve the negative view that society holds towards males.
The history behind the DPB sickness and unemployment benefits is a long one and you don’t appear to have the inclination to even begin to have any empathy for recipients. Such attitudes as yours are what encourage family court judges (invariably males) to give parental care to mothers and not fathers. I certainly wouldn’t allow you to look after my 12 year old daughter for ten minutes on the basis of your rant.
To quote you:
I’m not even vaguely interested in the PC crap asserting that the meek need a hand up and therefore they have a right to that hand-up. If they’re so bereft of the ability and will to survive, or are truly in such a parlous state that they actually need a hand up, then they are free to call and I will assess each application on its merits.”
This describes exactly the state of childhood. If you have no empathy for people in this state then you are not fit to be a father, let alone a health professional, or anyone who deals with people while they are temporarily or permanently dependent on others.
The same redneck attitudes you express here were voted out during last years’ election.
I am no admirer of Sue Bradford, but at least she has got out there and walked the talk, or tried to. The best you can offer the world is some armchair, spittle-ridden out of date John Stuart Mill.
Comment by New Zeal — Mon 3rd July 2006 @ 10:02 pm
David,
I think your post was written well and I can understand where you are coming from.
I particurlarly liked this part.
That’s the problem. Government know this and community groups know this.
I have been working out the ‘Working for families package’ which doesn’t sound too bad and child support is seperate. But alas, no community service card.
They made the DPB too high and appealing and a better option than working.
What else can I say. People at the end of the day will think of themselves and survival.
Comment by julie — Mon 3rd July 2006 @ 10:14 pm
Maybe you interpret this the wrong way Julie:
“The Government doesn’t make it attractive enough for me to get off DPB and get a job.’!”
The government, specifically Ms Clark offers a solution for sole parents whereby children go into childcare until 5pm while the parent works. Yes, that is not a great incentive.
A better idea would be for govt to support more 9 to 3 jobs in the work place so that parents of school age children at least will be able to fulfill both roles of parent and employee successfully.
The private sector is in a position to lead on this initiative but they don’t. I know many employers. They all make sure that the wife, who works for the company is able to leave at 3pm to pick up the kids and cook dinner. There is no question of putting them into after school care or letting them roam the streets.
If the government was to make work more attractive by providing easy to get 9 to 3 jobs with some prospect of the similar kind of advancements that 9 to 5 jobs give other earthlings, then some progress on the DPB might be possible. That could well be the sentiment that is being expressed here.
As I keep saying on other threads, I cannot believe the cave-man-like sentiments being expressed on this site which is supposed to represent men making progress and deserving acknowledgment in NZ society.
The reality is that we have a welfare system, that despite untold elections since 1971 we still have a welfare system, and it is not likely to disappear unless the general public like you are better disposed towards the welfare of others. Today you may be lucky enough to have a job and a spouse, but if the multi-national company that owns the business you work for decides to shut down and relocate to China, or your partner runs off with someone else and takes the kids, then you might just need the welfare you scorn.
Welfare is a like a compulsory form of insurance. Everyone pays for it and you don’t use it unless you need it. Just because some individuals have a cavalier attitude towards insurance, does that mean that it doesn’t serve its purpose successfully and justify its existence?
This is all social relations 101, and if people on this site cannot get to grips with it then its no wonder that judges (mostly male) the nation over are giving care of children to mothers rather than fathers.
Comment by New Zeal — Mon 3rd July 2006 @ 10:46 pm
New Zeal,
How brave to use a pseudonym.
Not one I’d be proud of these days. LOL!
I’m an X pat nzer currently living in a country where I pay 5% taxes – Korea.
At the same time as nz govt are trumpeting and congratulating themselves about having a record low unemployment level of about 4% (based on a very dubiously designed household labour survey mind you) here the government worries when they have such record HIGH unemployment as 4.2%!
Gross Domestic product and incomes are improving sluggishly here at the moment – only 4.7% per annum!
In 50 short years this place has gone from a war ravaged pile of rubble in 1953 to 11th largest economy in the world today, all with next to no natural resources of thier own after 40 years of colonial pillage by the Japanese (1905 – 1954).
Meanwhile Cullen crows about the economy of nz! What a sad joke!
What’s more here beggars are extremely rare.
Homelessness, drug addiction, domestic violence, child abuse, out of wedlock birth, abortion, street violence and crime are all but unheard of.
Comparing this place to nz is like trying to compare apples with……
….crocodiles.
I can go out at night anywhere fearfree. I could not say the same in nz.
I lost my wallet on the plane coming over here. It was returned by an honest airplane cleaner.
My last boss shouted everyone a full expenses paid weekend trip to Japan.
This country is deeply traditional with a distinct clarity of roles for men and women.
50% in the last census declared themselves religious.
After nz it’s been an enormous eye opener and something which leaves me deeply embarrassed about nz having viewed nz from the inside for a couple of decades during the 80s and 90s as a social worker, probation officer, group therapist, mental health trainer etc.
It’s not nirvana here.
There are some problems, but nothing like the frayed social mess of nz.
So the point of all this pertaining to Men’s issues?
There are very different social models to nz’s which men can explore which don’t involve supporting legions of women, who would be seen here as lazy, immoral tramps.
Nor supporting massive fatherlessness.
300,000 kids with no dad in thier home – a national disgrace.
They don’t involve being demonised as a potential rapist / batterer at every turn by feminazzi either.
Go West young man.
No. That’s a stupid joke these days.
Forget that crusty old line.
Go East I suggest and experience freedoms the West has forgotten though millions supposedly died for it.
Comment by Stephen — Tue 4th July 2006 @ 1:52 am
New Zeal writes:
On the contrary, it is very much relevant to what this site is about. The easy availability of the DPB is one of the primary drivers of family breakdown, as the historical statistics show clearly.
I first learned about this in the 70’s when one of my flats had a ‘ghost tennant’ – a guy who paid $5 a week to store and launder his clothes so the benificiary he was living with (in a brand-new, subsidised house) would not have her DPB cut off.
Since then I have seen dozens of relationships split because the weekly family income increases so dramatically if a couple accepts the incentives offered by the government to live apart.
If you work it out, any man earning less than the median wage is probably a financial liability to his family – you need to be well up the income scale before you can successfully compete with the nanny state.
I would not like to see the welfare system dismantled completely, however.
I am currently travelling in the east, however not every country is as wealthy as Korea. Here in Vietnam every meal at a roadside stall imediately attracts professional beggars who hang about trying to make me feel guilty for having the money to eat well, and it isn’t a situation I am comfortable with.
I don’t have a problem with my taxes providing a roof, clothes, food, medical care, education and other necessities of life for those who cannot look after themselves.
I do object to paying for items like recreational drugs, gambling, entertainment and motor-vehical expenses!
I think a restricted debit card is the obvious way to go. However people vote, the NZ welfare system in it’s present form is unsustainable in the long run, and it will collapse of it’s own accord.
The relevant question is how many families are we going to destroy in the meantime.
Comment by JohnP — Tue 4th July 2006 @ 2:42 am
What arrogance is displayed here – Without my benefit and medical support there would be no DAD for Javan – No activity of the HandsOnEqualParent TRUST and much of the **NZ-FATHERS-Coalition** would die
Onward – Jim
Comment by Jim Bailey — Tue 4th July 2006 @ 4:08 am
Here we all are again generalising enough to upset others because there is good in the country.
It is not the good we are pulling down like people who are on pensions (I think we have crossed them out) and not the sick on sickness benefits (real sick) nor those on Invalids because they are incapable of physically working.
Here’s a reality check.
In NZ drug addiction and alcohol addiction as well as stress are reasons to be on sickness benefits and Invalid’s benefits. We probably have at least 20% on this. (These are not stats but my life’s experiences)There are no checks (no counselling) no real expectation to change situations yet they can’t get extra money because they spent it on booze.
Then we have the Unemployment benefit which has got tougher forcing people to work so many moved over to the sickness and Invalids. (thus low unemployment stats)
For the DPB, well we have heaps of single parents in de facto relationships claiming benefits and having a worker earning wages or not interested in partners that don’t earn high incomes. Because you can, you will is the attitude. It is a much better life style. Easy come money becomes easy go money.
Personally, I am not interested in dumping the benefits but I am interested in helping people of the DPB because they are showing their offspring to use the welfare system, they have so much time on thier hands, some get into major trouble with drugs and alcohol (jobs keep you busy, focused, up each day at the same time, you don’t drink the night before, etc, etc, etc)
And on top of that we have young women happy to have babies because they will have a luxury type life on the benefit which they will stay on till their last child turns 17-18.
Please New Zeal, don’t insult so easily, listen to both sides and make your judgments.
I am listening to both sides and from my experience both have valid points yet both have attitudes.
These are the people that I care about. These are the people you are doing no favours for by giving pity. Society is destroying these people with the welfare system. And their offspring and the fathers and the husbands.
You cannot keep fighting fire with water if the fire won’t go out. You have to fight fire with fire.
Comment by julie — Tue 4th July 2006 @ 8:25 am
When reading these responses all I hear are people playing victim or at least the blame game and not taking personal responsibility.
Do you really think that the DPB is an incentive for separation for more than just a handful of parents? If a relationship is good enough then there is no question of separating. When separated, each individual may get more income, but running two households soon takes care of any financial benefit.
You people sound like you want to blame something outside of yourselves for ills that you feel society has.
The Koreans may have the economic thing working well right now, but what about the social? We know that there are sweat shops in China. Any reason not to believe that the paradise you describe, Stephen is held together by sweat labour, of the sort that would make even you hardened right wingers cringe? In the 70’s Japan looked like the shining star of the future, but look at it now and they didn’t have sweat shops.
I think that the energy you put into DPB bashing is maligned and you are focusing on the rip off artists. There are rip off’s everywhere: Zowie and his legal expenses to not be allowed in NZ, the 3 mill that Theresa Gattung gives herself every year for keeping Telecom a high fenced monopoly, the 70 mill that the daughter of Coro Wetere ‘earnt’ for her educational programmes through Te Wananga. The list goes on.
Add to that I wager that you are bitter for the way that it makes it easy for an ex spouse to rip herself away from material dependence under an over-controlling spouse so that she can be free to think for herself.
Once the work place is more mother and parent friendly then we might see an improvement in the DPB situation, but not until. There is a huge opportunity for employers out there now to find employees they want if only they think out of the square and support the role of parent as well as that of employee.
I will reiterate again, that I am dumfounded of the general attitude of people on this site and associations with hard right interests such as the Institute of Liberal Values, which reminds me of LibertariaNZ, a party that got less than 1000 votes in the last election. Politically you probably represent a smaller minority than the ACT party at its worst. Certainly none of your thinking is entertained at any serious level in parliament.
As I keep saying I can see a correlation between this attitude and the obvious failure of some of you to get any traction with Family Court judges, most of whom are male. Change your attitudes to women and the DPB and you might get to see your sons more often. Even before the DPB, women were dependents, dependent on their husbands. In general the DPB has given women the power not to be forever under the control of men. That I believe is your lament and the sentiment that fuels your passion.
Comment by New Zeal — Tue 4th July 2006 @ 9:02 am
I too have lived and worked and South Korea. I absolutely loved it and can’t wait to go back and visit with my partner one day. However, I never saw Korea as being better than New Zealand – just different, doing somethings better, somethings worse.
Yes, I felt very safe on the streets and there was a lower crime rate than New Zealand. But informal discussions with Korean colleagues made me aware of the line between what is spoken about and what is not. Keeping face is very important so issues such as abortions, domestic violence, homosexuality were not spoken about (Some Koreans told me they didn’t exist) but they definitely existed. I used to hear my neighbours (two different sets) having domestics and be able to hear their children screaming. Divorce wasn’t socially acceptable yet people just turned a blind eye to people having affairs (such as both of my bosses – and their children knew about it). Similarly, I saw a number of beggars on the subway. The Korean economy is dependent on Russian immigrants who work for a pittance in the fields (generally men) or in strip clubs (women). These immigrants are not accepted into the community because white-foreign is good and coloured/non-Western-foreign is bad. Similarly, a new colleague got fired because she had a limp – disabled people are hidden in Korea out of shame.
Human behaviour is pretty much the same whereever you go. It may not be as apparent as in your country of birth but they longer you stay in a new country, the more you realise that the same issues exist. And so I think the argument is more complex that just who controls benefits or whether we should even have benefits.
Comment by toni — Tue 4th July 2006 @ 9:29 am
You condesending tosser (as in wanker aka time waster).
You espouse personal responsibility for men and tell them to stop being victims but are happy for women to be victims who need rescuing from under the control of men via the DPB.
You proclaim imaginary corealations between Judges decisions and mens comments on this site. Its a logical as comparing an apple to an orange. Quantify your claims or be shown up as the wanker you are.
Fess up and tell us how much you make from the industry of misery that is Family Law in this country.
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 4th July 2006 @ 11:18 am
Dear scrap,
I can see why you are not able to get what you want from life if that is the way you go about it.
Try and be a little more positive. The judge can see your attitude towards His court simply by looking at your face. Do you think he is going to be lenient on you as a result?
I do not think that women on the DPB are victims. This is a men’s site and I would presume a place where men can face up to themselves and the issues that block progress for them in society. Women’s issues belong elsewhere.
The radical notion of personal responsibility that I am suggesting is that men become responsible for their own feelings including the anger that many feel towards the DPB, FC and other institutions. That anger is your anger. The men who deal with that anger get to have good relationships and have considerable quality time with their children rather than being banished from them, either through the FC or their own actions.
Your actions speak of someone who would rather kick me in the face than deal with the issues. That’s fine. It’s your life, and your parental opportunities that you are missing, not because of the FC or DPB, but because of things you have done and are still doing right here in this blog.
Comment by New Zeal — Tue 4th July 2006 @ 11:55 am
Zeal,
You have just confirmed you are a condescending tosser.
You fail to quantify any of your claimed corealations or answer the questions put to you. hence you are a wanker.
And it would help if you stopped being so arrogant as to assume that you know anything about how I parent my children and projecting your issues onto me. Hence you are a condescending tosser.
You make the argument regarding corealtions but fail to provide a sherd of quantifiable data to support it.
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 4th July 2006 @ 12:08 pm
If you had dealt with your stuff you wouldn’t be responding the way you are. You are providing your own data.
Comment by New Zeal — Tue 4th July 2006 @ 12:14 pm
Zeal,
I ask again – where is your data quantifying your claims?
How much money do you make from the industry of misery?
Stop making assumptions and be honest.
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 4th July 2006 @ 12:30 pm
Scrap,
Who’s making assumptions here? I don’t make a cent, but when I was going through family court stuff, I made sure I made friends with all the family court staff and acted like a human being. I did not rant and rave and lament about how unfair and how much an industry of misery it is and do the ‘woe is me’ act like you are.
I’m not sure if this discussion is leading anywhere useful.
Comment by New Zeal — Tue 4th July 2006 @ 12:51 pm
and so zeal would rather stoop to anything even lower his own integrity and morality and let what is wrong progate…just because someone throws a tantrum.. very interesting. pretty much a let sleeping dogs lie attitude. Are you a parent?…
Comment by starr — Tue 4th July 2006 @ 1:17 pm
Zeal,
I ask questions – a question is not an assumption.
If challenged I produce hard data to support my position – something you have failed to do.
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Tue 4th July 2006 @ 1:55 pm
Dear David,
Great work bringing up Mill. If we continue to bring up such honorable men and bright ideas the other side will be forced to do as New Zeal here, which is play both sides of the effeminate game in a deconstructionist attempt to save his temple of fox-run govenrment.
Dear Toni,
You are also playing deconstructionist and are not telling us much of where we should go. In my book I label people who say,” Everything as more complicated than that” as the poor man’s deconstructionist. You are living proof of that point in full.
Dear Scrap,
You allowed to be angry, and if you could find the right words you would help give these toosers fits.
Dear Jim,
Yes, you and your organization would fall if not for the support your get. Does that not show how they have you by the balls in New Zeal! If you were independent financially would you not be a bigger problem for them. In the past, and maybe even today, the Chinese and Japanese governments used to make laws so difficult to follow that none really did everything properly by design. This allowed the government to come down on anyone who got too troublesome, for as already covered everyone was in violation. With only lawyers and tax men being the only ones to truly have any idea of the ins & outs of the system (but even more dependent on it than you or I)do they not have you in a box if you are supported by them, less so if private sector, and finally even more so if in another country! In the feminist world of indirect conflict they will find some violation of your finacnial support if you dare to cause any real grief and are unknown to the public.
This is fox world, evil by indrectness. This bring on violent lion men for they see indirect evil as no different that direct evil.
Dear John P.,
Please tell us more of the socaiist paradice where workers are equal and no one starves. I’ve never been to Vietnam and am interested in hearing your truthful journalism about the place. Please tell us more! Maybe Helen will back away from some of her agenda.
Comment by Intrepid — Tue 4th July 2006 @ 2:14 pm
Toni,
I agree with much of what you’re saying in post 9. Like I said it’s not perfect here. However I wouldn’t go so far as to say that a few strippers and casual field hands prop up the economy here!
I’ve lived here several years now and seen lots of aspects. I’ve still to encounter the level of social distress I witnessed in nz.
New Zeal,
blaming the victims of that sectret star chamber the femily caught for thier alienation from thier kids is plain ignorant.
Overlooking the fact that it’s mostly men’s sweat and toil funding DPB is equally disingenious.
Then to gloat about alienated kids and dads is a disgusting attitude to take.
The kind of spineless thing someone operating behind a pseudonym can do to get thier jollies.
Intrepid,
You make a great deal of sense to me.
Comment by Stephen — Tue 4th July 2006 @ 3:03 pm
Stephen,
I think you are overlooking the fact that looking after pre-school kids is a full time job. If the parent is not doing it then professional care-givers do it (These are people who are paid $$ to look after children). More people are paid $$ to teach children at school and further education at universities. Other people are paid lots of $$ to provide health services for children and adults alike. Caring and looking after people is a legitimate form of employment and the DPB is similar in that it pays people to look after other people. In that respect, like nursing, teaching, nannying etc the DPB is part of the human service sector.
Looking after school children is very much a part time job, but as I keep saying, the business community is only slowly waking up to the potential of supplying jobs that cater for the role of parent and employee equally (9 to 3 jobs). That will happen slowly and the DPB will diminish as a stand out problem. The key factor is, as will be tested by my children, in women being able to make the choice of having a decent career AND have children. At the moment there is still the tendency to sacrifice one for the other. Some, like Katherine Rich are succeeding, others like some on the DPB, are not.
When did you last look after children, cook meals (hospitality industry), do laundry (tailoring industry), do behaviour management, or any of the many tasks required to successfully rear children, all of which have their counterpart in the other ‘sweat and toil’ world that you seem to know so much about.
Comment by New Zeal — Tue 4th July 2006 @ 4:31 pm
Dear New Zeal,
With every word you show your cliche riddle ignorance. Stephen works with children blockhead, so he needs not your self-rightious defence of children and the homemaker life. John P is the same, we live what you dabble in. I really am sick of people who wrap themselves in children(like scoundels of the past did so with the flag). I too take care of my son more than my wife, and I’m willing to bet you work less with a child or children than either stephen or I.
It is feminism, that pulls your strings, that degrades working in the home, not the men’s movement. Many of the men in the movement worldwide are the homemakers and have effectively said, ” Really you don’t want to be in your kids life more modern woman?, well step aside for I’d love to do what you think is lesser”.
Comment by Intrepid — Tue 4th July 2006 @ 4:55 pm
For once you are making sense Intrepid. You’ll agree there is some justification in paying people to bring up children?
I see these forum/blog things as good places to challenge ourselves, not places to pat each other on the back. I subscribe to a different kind of ‘men’s movement’ than you do. By setting yourself up as a ‘masculinist’ you are taking on the opposite pole to the feminist and acting from an equally extreme and vehement viewpoint.
I am a sole parent with two girls in my care and they have been for 3 and 6 years each. A past working in teaching and hospitality helped me considerably. The mother of the children is/was a feminist. I am not likely to follow suit.
For suggesting that you guys here are blaming the DPB and FC for you ails and therefore victimizing yourselves I get called all sorts of names. Seems to be a sore point. Go figure.
Comment by New Zeal — Tue 4th July 2006 @ 5:26 pm
Dear New Zeal,
That’s great that you take care of your girls. Good stuff. Now, how is it that a person(like yourself that is so enlightened) and I (whom you implied was a I younge conservative automaton(being unable to ever reach the highest of your enlightened position because I think government is the problem and not part of the solution)ever allow myself to fullfill the homemaker role? As a masculinist, how do I sway that? Am I in some pyschologist denial, that only your government shrink can get me out of?
I see you as a status quo person because it is a safe postion to take in any debate, and all one need do is state the obvious cliche and sound smart.
You also have deconstructionist skills, which allows you to dilute anyone one else’s point to indecisiveness and pointlessness. Are you a lawyer by trade? I also see you being maybe bitten by the femininst she-wolf, by still holding on to their agenda in all but name. That is why you use tactics like calling anyone opposed to you young conservative and masculinist, as your fellow moonbats use “Nazis” so as to not give a good arguement.
Now your track is doing the female crying game, for we are now supposed to feel like we shouldn’t push these facts for you are saying:
You sir/mame started the labeling first, and have kept it up and now have the nerve to cry as the victim, just as you say we shouldn’t play victim. Anyone on this site who has read my strong opinions would know I don’t support the victimization PC game either.
Yet, I’m simply amazed when I find someone such as you. You seem to wish to win an argument like a sophist, not move people to think or to real action. This is why some here think you are lying a lot, for all your cover you simply back the government. You have a lot to answer for, but I don’t expect to get a single answer from you(that isn’t rhetoric or cliche). This is a site to think, not to play mental gymnastics to win in your own mind that the staus quo is king. Labels are only useful when they match something. Mine seem to have stuck better to you, but yours keep proving to be mistakes made by your beloved passion (other name). I await a serious argument as to why the DPB and FC is good in the total picture, and not in keeping sophist bureaucrats employeed forever(to practice fox-like games)or support checks(dole)a comin’.
Comment by Intrepid — Tue 4th July 2006 @ 6:20 pm
Intrepid,
I apologise if I offended you or called you something that you are not. I was heavily swayed by the Jim Peron authored thread from the Institute for Liberal studies which is a vehemently right wing organization and references to LiberteriaNZ. Whether or not you referred to them personally I do not have the photographic memory to recall. So I apologise for any misreference.
The reason I am here is because I am interested in politics and I am interested in rebranding masculinity. The feminist movement was about rebranding femininity and it has been hugely successful. Men have not followed suit and have become limited as a result.
If you want to read more about my opinion of the FC go to the other thread in this blog where I wax lyrical about it.
I don’t slavishly support the status quo. I only voted for this govt because Don Brash made it so hard for me to vote for him. If Bill English had been still in charge I would have distributed pamphlets in support of him. Even if Don Brash was PM the DPB and FC would remain or change at the same pace as under this govt. They are part of our social fabric. They are not an election issue. You need to ask yourself why.
Comment by New Zeal — Tue 4th July 2006 @ 6:37 pm
OK New Zeal,
Let’s start a new. If you can be direct & thick skinned with me I’ll try my best to do so in return. I checked out the private sector farmers groups you said, and it seems that politics trumps men’s rights for you, am I wrong? I’m not deterred from this issue if you are. I know men on the right and left, and believe in finding common ground. Many ignore the political angle for it leads to raw nerves, this is very short sighted. There are over 40% of men in the Anzac that would consider themselves closer to whig liberals, and in Canada & the US there is well over 60% of men who proudly call themselves conservatives. These are the facts. To not find the common ground is to throw away huge tracts of men purely based on one’s politics trumps all. The need to find common ground starts with one-on-one relationships where one’s opinions are taken at face value. What do you believe needs to be done for effect change? My life is in good order(outside of not seeing my other son), but I see the other men’s unfair treatment and think radical action is called for. I see you as a moderate, so show me the moderate road to success.
Comment by Intrepid — Tue 4th July 2006 @ 7:00 pm
Politics is more appealing to me now because I think I have dealt with the masculinity issues. I have gone past any notion of ‘unfairness’ in society’s treatment of men.
I think that we are in the throes of gender role changes. My parents lived in a generation in which the male was the breadwinner and the female the housekeeper with no career of her own save what she can muster in the husband’s business as a secretary or whatever.
My children are moving into a world where women have a career as a number 1 priority (those that see DPB as a career are an insignifican minority as far as I am concerend). In addition they should be able to have at least two children during their child bearing years (optimally in their late 20s early 30s), and have 6-12 months off for each without unduly affecting their careers. The care of the children above age 5 should be equally available to both males and females as primary caregiver. Under 5, I think women will always retain predominance, but who knows?
Ultimately men and women will have careers on an equal basis, however women will be slightly handicapped by the 6 months or so they take off for each child.
As for marriage. We have already said good-bye to that as a permanent institution. Instead I think we will see a lot more focus on parenthood. Regardless of the parental situation a child’s outcome is most dependent on the environment of their upbringing and their relationship with parent(s). In that respect your other son may be missing out and maybe you can blame your ex for that. Maybe he will do it for you. However if there are other good relationships around then there is no reason why he cannot grow up to be a strong person.
The stable family of the present/future is an extended one consisting of former spouses, step parents and so on and so forth. This is similar in many ways to the Samoan family system in which, to a certain extent children get to choose which ‘parents’ they live with the most. Integral to that will be the parent-child relationships which will extend right through the lifespan. In that respect I concur with the gripe against the FC reflected in this site and I think it is changing now to accepting joint care as the best option. Too late for you and your other son.
The other part of the formula though is that men have to undergo change as well. Blaming the system shouldn’t be all that is done and from a casual glance that appears to be what people here are interested in the most. Prove me wrong.
Comment by New Zeal — Tue 4th July 2006 @ 7:26 pm
Zeal, here’s a challenge. You toddle off and get yourself a copy of Ayn Rand’s The Virtue Of Selfishness. You read that then come back and let’s have a proper debate.
It is now quite clear to me that you have no founding philosophy. You are simply adrift and drunk on hope.
And to paraphrase Ishmael, from Melville’s Moby Dick, “I would rather be abbed with a savage, than a man who was drunk on hope.”
I’ve read your words. Redolent in them is your fear of accepting absolute responisbility for your own actions.
A founding philosophy begins with a simple indredient. A is A. The ignorant and the fearful, such as yourself,want A to be B, C, or F, but never A, unless in choosing A it is convenient. Convenience! The currency of the pragmatist.
You see, to accept ‘A’ is always ‘A’ takes courage. To choose ‘A’ and never step aside from the direct forthright requires a courage you will never be able to transmit to your children because you don’t have the substance, the courage to accept that A is A.
And so your children will grow to believe in the lie of the pragmatist,(you) where no black and white exists, where only grey, unknowables control the ebb and flow of their lives.
You won’t, because you cannot, transmit to your children, a reliable philosophy. You will simply doom them, as so many before you have doomed their children, to a world the world of the pragmatist. A world which asserts, ‘When needs must, the Devil does.’
But have a crack at the book. And if you’re too poor to buy it, then you let me know and I’ll supply a copy.
And if you can argue any part of it, then believe me, I will be the first to be enlightened.
In this challenge, Zeal, I don’t seek to hit you, I seek to turn you.
A is always A.
Cheers
David.
Comment by dpex — Tue 4th July 2006 @ 7:57 pm
Thanks David,
I was wondering why I felt so good!!
Comment by New Zeal — Tue 4th July 2006 @ 9:15 pm
Intrepid, are you suggesting I am the poor man’s deconstructionist (seems a bit of an elitist judegement here!) because I didn’t provide the answer to the age-old problem of human behaviour in a nutshell? Saying that things are more complex is, of course, only the beginning of resolving such issues but it enables us to extend the discussion (although I gather from your sneering tone that what you really wanted to do was dismiss me) and look at other things that influence human behaviour. Banging on about how getting rid of the dpb (which David does in the post following this one) or how beneficiaries should lose their personal freedoms when supported by the state is entirely reductionist. The problem is not just the benefits. Human behaviour is not so simple as ‘i can get money – I wont’ work, I’ll leave the partner etc etc’. We are talking about dysfunction. And I believe that dysfunction comes from growing up in families with one or both of the following problems (some aggravated by benefits, some not):
poor work ethic
dysfunctional relationships (between parents, and between parents and children)
poor life skills (financial management etc)
health problems (incl. psychological)
and I’m sure many many more.
Those dysfunctions will exist whether we cut benefits or not, and families will break up whether we cut benefits or not (and if dysfunctional couples are forced to stay together, I believe they will raise dysfunctional children as children model their relationships on their parents).
My opinions overlap with David’s post in only the tiniest way. I think we should monitor/intervene in families with multiple generations on benefis and/or beneficiaries with drug/alcohol problems to control how benefits are spent. Cutting the benefits or establishing some kind of big brother control over all beneficiaries won’t get rid of the social problems. You might call them ‘beggars’ now but they’ll really be beggars if you cut benefits and they’ll be on the streets and in your face asking for change.
The idea of regulating them with an iron fist (in the hope that people will find it too much effort to stay on them??) seems to me to be a wish for ‘out of sight, out of mind’. As a society we already socially ignore the disenfranchised; if we cut benefits we’d be able to do that more completely. And I think we’d have even more of an underclass – like they do in countries where there are no benefits, like Korea. And since the social isolation promotes isolation from education, health, and eventually in the end, even paid employment, those people have little to no hope of ever getting out of that underclass.
So tinkering with the benefits system to avoid people exploiting the system is just one prong of a multi-pronged attack. I am not an expert in social policy so I can’t offer a full solution. But at the very least, i think part of the solution is fixing the dysfunctions with lifeskills education at schools and greater community health funding.
Stephen,
I didn’t phrase that very well – the stripper aren’t sustaining the economy but I think the factory and field workers are/were. I have read that Koran reliance on immigrants to work in their factories and fields is sustaining the economy to some degree because such jobs aren’t desirable for Koreans because of the low wages. The economy is to some degree based on exploiting people from poorer countries. However, this was about four or five years ago so things may have changed since then.
Comment by toni — Wed 5th July 2006 @ 10:50 am
Toni,
I do think that benefits are about more than just dysfunction. The average person on the DPB is a female in their thirties who is on it for a few months at a time. Half the female MPs in Parliament were on the DPB at one time or other. if they voted against it they would be hypocrites.
The unemployment benefit serves the following useful functions:
1. provides a safety net that enables businesses to restructure and lay off staff. Without this unions would force them to stay in business doing redundant tasks.
2. provides a ready pool of employees available to employers that ensures that wages remain competitive. The ideal unemployment rate for industry is 6%. If Korea is on 4.2% then that explains the need for foreign workers. NZ has been in that basket recently and is coming out of it. Surprisingly, full employment is not a healthy thing for an economy, wages go up, work doesn’t get done because there is no one to do it etc. Ultimately it always balances out to about 6%.
As for the sickness benefit, previously this was a health, not a welfare issue. Stephen will know that, since the 1960’s psychiatric institutions have been slowly shut down and the ‘clients’ put into the community. That is why sickness benefit numbers have increased. There will always be those who cannot perform economically in society. It is cheaper to have them in the community and they have a greater chance of serving useful lives and being rehabilitated.
There are those who rip the system off, but similar people rip off insurance companies, steal from shops, embezzle, commit fraud etc. etc.
I haven’t got any figures, but I think you will find that the vast majority of beneficiaries are using the system as it is meant. I will reiterate that I think the DPB numbers are way too high and can be slashed considerably by making business more family friendly, something which is happening now.
How to deal with dysfunctional families like the Kahuis I have no idea. What is good for Pakeha is not necessarily good for Maori. The welfare system was created by white Europeans for white European society. The Maori had their own ‘welfare system’ which has long since been dismantled by Pakeha. The Puritan work ethic is not part of Maori culture and there are lots of Maori issues yet to be resolved. I think the Maori party will do a lot of good. Sharples seems to be a great leader. In light of the Maori desire for some self-government, I think this is a Maori issue that Maori have to deal with. They have certainly felt the embarrassment.
Comment by New Zeal — Wed 5th July 2006 @ 12:07 pm
Only under a neo-liberal model.
The purpose of structural unemployment ( is to drive down wages and conditions and increase profit. Ultimately a self defeating cycle that gives the likes of New Zealand’s current economic mess.
Very similar to the type of thought that produces a sole custody one parent controls the children model. The social consequences long term are disastrous.
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Wed 5th July 2006 @ 12:21 pm
Kent AKA New Zeal said –
“What is good for Pakeha is not necessarily good for Maori. The welfare system was created by white Europeans for white European society. The Maori had their own ‘welfare system’ which has long since been dismantled by Pakeha. The Puritan work ethic is not part of Maori culture and there are lots of Maori issues yet to be resolved. I think the Maori party will do a lot of good. Sharples seems to be a great leader. In light of the Maori desire for some self-government, I think this is a Maori issue that Maori have to deal with. They have certainly felt the embarrassment”
My response –
So when is a Maori, a Maori Kent?
20% blood, 10%, 5%, 2%……?
And what happened to one law for all?
Do you really want a country as small as nz (approx 4 million) to be federated?
And along such lines that there’s one set of laws for one block of folks – Maori, and another set of laws for another set of people – Non Maori divvied up according to obcure racial lines with an inbuilt risk of some form of apartheit ensuing?
That’s a shitload of extra bureaucracy for a piddly number of folks too.
I fear you apparently do.
(Notice Kent I’m ‘processing’ emotions here. LOL!)
Also it seems ludicrous to say that the Welfare state was created by Europeans for Europeans IMO.
Oh my God!
I doubt Sir Apirana Nata and Sir Michael Savage were unaware of Maori at the time of the Social Welfare system’s inception!
(Go read Peter Buck’s – ‘The Maori of New Zealand’ for more) Or better yet, go as I have and talk with elders from Ngati Kahunganu and Ngati Maniapoto.
I’m sure you’ll be given a very different view of things then.
Comment by Stephen — Wed 5th July 2006 @ 12:36 pm
You know, Stephen, these very sentiments were divisive issues at the last election and contributed to National losing its bid for government.
The Maori can have sovereignty in NZ through Maori seats, Maori Iwi Authorities and Maori Institutions (Te Wananga). Self-sovereignty doesn’t have to be a geographical thing like Scotland in the UK and Catalonia in Spain, both of which are making bids for self-rule.
Early governments in NZ acted as if we were all one culture, illegalized Maori language in schools, Maori healers etc in an attempt to eliminate the culture. If you find my words cause you to use exclamation marks then think yourself lucky you didn’t have to go through the culture cleansing that Maori did.
If John Tamihere thinks its a good idea for the Iwi to control benefit money, and they go ahead and do it and it works, then good on them. However that can only happen if the law enables Maori to treat Maori in a culturally acceptable way different from the rest of society, which I think it almost does now.
When I say Maori I am talking about culture and those who aspire to it. If you were to watch Close Up you would have seen that the Kahui family spoke to the press in Maori. I am sure there is no clear definition of what a Maori person is but anyone who can speak the language and adhere to some of the culture, must surely be Maori to the core. Blood is not necessarily relevant.
Yes, I think it was. It is an individualistic (everyone treated as individuals with equal rights), objectivist (above judgement, provided according to ‘objective’ measures of need) approach to welfare that could never have sprung spontaneously from Maori culture. Maori are essentially tribal and communistic. First up best dressed. Maori have great difficulty breaking the mould because they have to share with family, no questions asked. Not all Maori are like that, but that is the tendency. So, Maori welfare would consist of the whanau going round each day with food to the person in need. It is both social (people are treated in relation to the position in the whakapapa) and subjective (a person actually turns up and is part of the ‘welfare’).
There is not one law for all. Law is complex and treats people differently according to age (legal drinking, sex), gender (only men can commit rape and until recently paedophilia), status (income tax brackets, family entitlements, student, unemployed), and all the other demographic variables that you can think of. The best that law can do is be fair. The National Party tried to sell that simplistic notion but have yet to really succeed with it.
Comment by New Zeal — Wed 5th July 2006 @ 1:08 pm
Kent,
if you reckon Maori are communistic then we’re on different planets.
Several Maori elders have pointed out to me that they have individual property, and that a class system exists within Maori itself. Just take a look at the relative disparity of incomes, status and privelige between many Maori folks. Now ask yourself is that Communism?
The naive noble savage picture cuts no ice with me.
It’s also breathtaking how the largest piece of socialistic legisalation ever in nz – the formation of the Social Welfare system under Michael Joseph Savage for ALL nzers apparently gets reduced by you to some form of Eurocentric individualistic aberation.
Sophistry about age, income and gender doesn’t alter the issue of one law for all either unless you’re a proponent of moral relativism.
You are right to say National lost the last election pushing the one law for all boat – but they only just lost it, and look at how Labour has responded with it’s razor gang. You might say they lost the vote, but won the issue.
Get these things sorted and some very skilled guys like myself will return. Keep pissing us off and you can keep your socialist dream. I’m not keen to see my hard earned money scammed by bludgers and pissed up against the wall by wasters. So there’s no room for ambiguity here you should know I do think there’s a place for those in genuine need to have a social safety net. Unfortunately I’m afraid it’s become more than a net, but a hammock for too many.
Comment by Stephen — Wed 5th July 2006 @ 3:52 pm
Dear Toni,
Elitist yes, if I meant that being a poor man’s deconstructionist you were poor and therefore not worth of note. But what I meant was playing with ideas like the cafe revolutionaires of 1920s -today France. They have played with language to deconstruct the world of their fathers. This has turned into ideas like turning the study of hysterics( as a way to bed married women and get paid for it)into a worldwide subject taught at universities.
You can see this is New Zeal. We talk of the big picture; he retreats to his personal issues. We talk of personal issues; he retreats to psychology. We go from clear logic and clear science to areas where he can win(in his own mind). This has been done in France as the Germans took their country(peace, never fight).
The first step, probably started in the west seriously, was when boys argued with their dads in the 60s. By deconstructing one’s fathers ideas by saying, “Everthing is more complex than that”, a boy undermines the father’s world without standing for anything. He is out matched by his father and must retreat to deconstuctionism and playing with words to win by effeminiacy(which he undoubtedly learn from his mother while the father was absent).
As to you other point on
Please how do you notice a facial sneering tone from an email? I think it is my direct challenge to you that makes you wish I were elitist or I was sneering. Again emotion trumps thought. Do you know of a shorter word to represent deconstuctionism in the 60 loving generation? I like shorter words, like modal verse posh paradym BS.
What evidence to you have to make such a broad statement?
Did the Romans and 1000 years of Chinese leadership fall from too much easy money or too little. When these kingdoms fell, leading to terms called the Dark Ages, the underclass was always asking for more free support, as the Germans did the fighting for Romans and foreign horsemen did the fighting for the Chinese. They were all concerned with fashion and women came into positions of power for indirect assests. And now to we have our own sooth sayers and mystic types leading the population into in-love-with-with love ideas(the leading deconstructionists are shrinks).
An example of “love” being no answer, can be found in a monkey study on Tamarins. Or, when a northern armies came to the great wall to invade China, thus setting back China another 100 years. A general at the wall wouldn’t let them pass for a time. So the enemy produced the general’s girlfriend and said let them through or they would kill her. This man controlled 100,000 men, but was effeminatly brought up on vague ideas of love, caring and clothes and let the enemy in, thus letting millions die for his love of an airhead. He was not a soldier, and deconstructionists aren’t thinkers. They have the outside appearance of thinking, but can’t but retreat to the vague personal or the vague shrink cover.
All of these states fell from the populations getting fox-like in conflicts as they distain direct conflicts.
Your reaction to my directness proves it. I sneer and I’m elitist in your mind because I use the Un-PC phase poor man’s (blank). In the US you would stop the word niggerly being used. You are truly ruled by your desires, and I can’t change that, you must do it yourself. Give up New Zeal’s love goddess and join the ranks of men.
You desire to give, not to solve problems, just like Tamarin monkey give on instinct not thought.
Comment by Intrepid — Wed 5th July 2006 @ 4:00 pm
Sorry folks – i gave up reading half way through this post – too much anger etc.
New Zeal – i refer you to a newspaper article detailing why one woman was not prepared to get off DPB. Search through my old posts – you’ll find it. She weas simply too $$ comfortable, and not prepared to get off her backside. Buldgers, they used to be called.
To anyone raising their children – well done – i simply wish I have the opportunity, but apparently, without evidence (I quote the judge: “no evidence”) I apparently might rape them. So be it: I therefore have no sympathy for any woman who therefore bars her children their fathers.
Nor do i have time for DPB bludgers. I’ve seen enough people (mostly men) get off the DPB AND raise kids alone, to know it is fully possible.
I might have missed a few other points, but so be it.
Comment by Al D Rado — Wed 5th July 2006 @ 6:28 pm
Stephen,
We may not be on different planets but we are in different countries.
I said that not all Maori are like that and that it is a tendency within Maori to be more communistic than westerners. I may be wrong, but that is my experience.
Anyway, I feel that we are just going to bang heads and these threads just keep on getting longer and longer and that no one is going to agree on anything.
Males still control the means of production more so than females. My way to improve the situation for children in our society is to push for the creation of more 9 to 3 jobs and make a special provision for what I call POSAC positions. I had Lindsay Mitchell from the Institute for Liberty (or whatever) look at it and she thinks its a great idea. Her views are similar to yours. Whether or not our views are similar is irrelevant if the action is mutually agreeable. So, if you like, check it out at http://www.passingphase.co.nz/posacs/posacs.php. It’s not quite ready yet but will be soon.
I apologise for being contentious and prickly, and will endeavour to be more conciliatory in any more posts I do. That doesn’t mean I have changed my ideas, simply that I agree to disagree with you and if you can agree to that then we have found common ground and can share a beer.
Comment by New Zeal — Wed 5th July 2006 @ 9:15 pm
New Zeal,
So we’re in different countries. Whoopdeedoo!
Hell, I lived in nz for over 20 years and still keep in daily contact with the place. Why the need to infer you’re in touch with events there and I’m not?
It seems you continue to be play intellectualising provocative one-upmanship whilst offering an olive branch.
That seems 2 faced to me and I don’t trust that. I don’t see myself drinking with you in some bar anytime soon therefore.
You state that males control the means of production. By that I suppose you’re referring to stuff like machinery and factories. I agree, but end up with a somewhat different view on that too.
For I reckon that people are increasingly the means of production more so than ever before especially in our information age.
And so what bothers me is how much of a grip unhealthy male bashing feminism has on the young malleable minds of upcoming generations. (Along the lines of give me the child for the first 7 years and I’ll give you the man)
I really don’t want to live someplace where a generation or 2 or 3 has been inculcated into misandry and they control the social mores involved in production.
A classic example of this is the miniskirted, padded bra types who flaunt thier sexuality in perverse provocative posturing yet leap to sexual harassment accusations at the mearest hint of sexual interest from a man at work. Another example would be those women who want promotion not on the basis of performance, but on that of sex, race or other criteria that suit them rather than performance.
And like it or not I’m afraid that’s pretty much how nz seems to me right now as a thinking man. Unfair, unsafe, unjust, in fact sadly I’d go as far as to say pretty much unhinged.
Comment by Stephen — Wed 5th July 2006 @ 11:09 pm
Dear Kent/ New Zeal/ Passing Phase,
You said that you seem to have ruffled some feathers, and that is true. Men don’t mind ruffled feathers when done in a fair manner. It has been your non-stop unruffling of the state that is really unnerving for someone supposedly screwed by the state. In reading you site I discovered that you aren’t simply a deconstructionist trying to keep some cloud like possition, in it of itself. You do your deconstructing for the purpose of some New Age evanglical humanistic non-religion religion. Like the army you break down others principles, so as to make them more pliable to you rebuilding of them up.
You state that:
Most scienctists are in a debate on whether nature or nurture is stronger for they seem so close that it can’t be determined which is stronger- yet you in your sweeping way (that we have all become accustom to here) have decided over the objections of the best minds on the subject. “Genes play no affect on ones character at all”, says god Kent.
Did the humanist non-god god bless you with this insight that greater minds, who have spent a life time studying the subject, weren’t to be blessed with?
You go on to more cult like ideas:
You are stating the truth according to Kent, as you say there is no absolute truth! This is deconstructionist evil for reprogramming others at will and will lead you to a cult-like following or leadership role for yourself in some new age humanistic non-religion religion.
All the religions you throw together into your pot, would object to your mixing them and picking and choosing them like the Hindus have often done. Religion isn’t like shopping, but in fact you treat it as such.
The reason you have fail to convince men here, is simply you remind us of our ex-wives. Mysticism run amuck, logic in sophistry only, accusations of emotionalism when you seem to start it and much more. You glorify emotionalism on your site, so that means you are shit disturbing grown men here on site. PC wording for being a traditional man and defence of all weasel actions must allow to carry on thinking you are superiour to us some way, you latch on to government for protection of your ideas, like a women who sells her soul to stay alive. I don’t belive you can change for like Chapman say s below:
You have swallowed the feminist socialist new age 60s crap hole, even after probably having a feminist 60 ex-wife you have simply regrouped and continue your faith. Go find some new age women, they will go for all of the above, or go to New England and the West coast of the US for you will find lots to follow you or others to follow.
Comment by Intrepid — Thu 6th July 2006 @ 1:04 am
I was going to pass on making any more comments, but what you say, Intrepid, is stimulating.
If truth is relative to a group of people, then I put that particular definition of truth there for he sake of anyone who holds similar beliefs. People who, by their own free will, share the same view, then share something in common, like Muslims believe that the truth is in the Qu’ran. Muslims may not agree with what I say there, but that statement still remains true with respect to their view of the truth ie the Qu’ran is the truth for people who are Muslim. This is a free world and you are free to believe what you want.
Yes, I agree that the nature nurture argument will always be unresolved, it is a natural dynamic of life. The general concensus is that genes create the propensity and the environment shapes which way that tendency will go. We come from a recent history of over emphasis of the importance of genes. he recent completion of the human genome was an anti-climax because questions that people expected to answer were not answered. There are too few genes to provide for the many characteristics that are considered to be genetic. I admit to being slightly biased towards nature as a natural reaction to recent over emphasis on genes.
Physical characteristics like colour of eyes and skin are directly related to genes, but behavioural ones have only the slimmest connection. Too much emphasis on genetic cause makes people think that the characteristic cannot be changed. The borror would be if someone postulated that there was a DPB gene, and if anyone had it, then they would have cause to be on the DPB for their entire breeding life. That is the kind of tendency I see happening with things like obesity, homosexuality, and the like. If you believe the connection between genes and you as a person are slim then you have a greater chance of changing, if you see them as being strong then you are more likely to sit on your butt.
Einstein held onto the belief (probably false) of a unifying formula that would connect all the sciences. He never found it but that does not diminish the importance of his work. Probably 5-10% of what I have written on that site is utter BS, but that doesn’t diminish its relevance, to me at least.
I’m sorry if I come across arrogant and know-it-all. I believe I am just arguing the point. If there is anything I can learn from being here then that is to be able to communicate with people who hold starkly opposite views in a way that doesn’t cause strife. If my views represent the status quo and the govt etc, then how can you expect to make headway with your cause if you are rejecting me outright? There is an opportunity for you to use me as a tester for your street marches or whatever you people do to get your message across. If not, then I am happy to go.
Comment by Kent (New Zeal) — Thu 6th July 2006 @ 11:36 am
zeal… have you read the quran”?..
Comment by starr — Thu 6th July 2006 @ 1:51 pm
toni said – ” like they do in countries where there are no benefits, like Korea.”
Wrong! Korea has a welfare system which grants payments to those in genuine need. Indeed I live next to retirees and a wheelchair bound
guy in his 50s. They all get state supportand appear in robust health.
Please be mindful of this as I fear otherwise Korea’s well deserved reputation gets unfairly diminished.
Anyong he kaseyo – peace abide with you remaining.
Comment by Stephen — Sat 8th July 2006 @ 3:09 pm
Let me guess Toni, you are for multiculturalism too? Or is multiculturalism only a means to an end in the taking down of your own traditional culture, so as to slip in Kent’s kid of perfect world that has escaped us in the intervening 100 years of both feministic and socialistic social enginnering disasters in the name of what is good for us? In Canada we had this as the liberal-socialists deplored nationalism and sang the praises of multcurturalism for 50 years and now have flipped to being nationalistic and poo-pooing Koreans, Japanese and other Asian Dragons as having nothing to teach them in anything but ethic costumes and food. Multicuturalism is nothing about knowing the capital on other countries for the left or learning from their traditional ideas of family, it is simply a weapon for those on the extreme left to dangle in front of the New Age types to make them feel good and not to learning anything from any nation not infatuated with Swedish style feministic socialism.
Comment by Intrepid — Sun 9th July 2006 @ 8:14 pm
Wonderful Evening, correct data going around is false, specially from the major news corperations with the big slants to the left or right. Did you see last nights Late Late Show? haha, that was rediculous! Sorry, I am rambling on again. Have a Great day!
Comment by Dominica Wardsworth — Thu 11th February 2010 @ 6:35 pm