|
Hey guys, have you ever heard about how the Maori aren't actually native because the Nation of Waitaha was actually here first?  I will say, though, that he does accidentally have one point - generally speaking, in law, when there is a discrepancy between source language and translated versions of a contract, the source language text is given precedence. This is, however, reasonably waived in the case of something like the ceding of sovereignty, where one could quite justifiably argue it is at least equally as important to understand what the signatories to the translated version understood they were signing.
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 03:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 10:07 |
|
|
TetsuoTW posted:Hey guys, have you ever heard about how the Maori aren't actually native because the Nation of Waitaha was actually here first? Nah bro it was the Chinese, I read it in a book this one time and have not questioned the veracity of this statement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 03:44
|
|
|
Ark Silva posted:Really Sir? I suppose your of the opinion that the Maori people were first to New Zealand and that somehow magically gives them more rights? For the record. Maori are not native to New Zealand and in fact ate (Yes Ate) the people here before them. They are a cannibalistic race that is still emerging into the 21st century, Tho they have somehow found the use of the lawyer very much to there liking( who is the only person who wins from this situation). Holy poo poo this post!    I thought everyone knew about the Maoriori myth? (Actually my Dad tried to use this recently, shut him right down.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 04:19
|
|
|
Red_Fred posted:Holy poo poo this post! I didn't but I'm largely ignorant and don't fly off the handle when I'm full of poo poo. While I was looking up the chinese thing to confirm it I found some stuff about a celtic presence in NZ that pre-dates the Maori but it's all so  and Ark Silva-y I felt bad about reading it. Why does no one just sensibly set poo poo like this out so it is accessible and not instantly written off as crazy?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 04:26
|
|
|
The China thing is Gavin Menzies' ridiculous books. Here's an idea how loving ridiculous his claims are - even the Chinese, who will quite happily gobble up any little bit of worship and praise thrown their way, won't even acknowledge them. Even the Chinese think he's an idiot, and his ideas would actually make them look better if true. e: Holy poo poo reading that page I see his latest book is "evidence" that Atlantis existed.  e2: Red_Fred posted:I thought everyone knew about the Maoriori myth? (Actually my Dad tried to use this recently, shut him right down.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 04:47
|
|
|
Dead Alice posted:I didn't but I'm largely ignorant and don't fly off the handle when I'm full of poo poo. The New Zealand Celts thing is, if I remember correctly, the belief that New Zealand was populated by a race of Celtic giants and Celtic dwarfs, who built the prototypes of Maori structures, which they then copied because OBVIOUSLY Maori are incapable of building things or doing practical stuff like making the entry to where food was stored small, so that a thief would be dissuaded from stealing large amounts. It's largely popular among shitheads like the white power groups and that fuckass Kyle Chapman, who want to deny Maori their rightful place as the original inhabitants of New Zealand - kind of like how people who bring up the Moriori tend to be the "I'm not racist but gently caress the Maori, those subhuman scum" type of racist idiots.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 04:51
|
|
|
Ark Silva posted:I am not a racist
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 04:54
|
|
|
TetsuoTW posted:Yo, by the way, if you ever find yourself having to type or say these words, you might want to sit down and re-evaluate your life. HAHA! This is great (and true!) advice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 04:57
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:The New Zealand Celts thing is, if I remember correctly, the belief that New Zealand was populated by a race of Celtic giants and Celtic dwarfs, who built the prototypes of Maori structures, which they then copied because OBVIOUSLY Maori are incapable of building things or doing practical stuff like making the entry to where food was stored small, so that a thief would be dissuaded from stealing large amounts. It's largely popular among shitheads like the white power groups and that fuckass Kyle Chapman, who want to deny Maori their rightful place as the original inhabitants of New Zealand - kind of like how people who bring up the Moriori tend to be the "I'm not racist but gently caress the Maori, those subhuman scum" type of racist idiots. Yeah that is largely what I had found, but there was also a bunch of archaeological stuff that was entered into the National Archives and sealed, and a head that the British Museum had that they not wanted to return with a bunch of maori heads because it was visibly not maori. It'd just be nice to read about that without all the bugfuck crazy all over the place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 04:58
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:dipshit You sir have no valid points and are just inflammatory. rac·ist 1. a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that a certain human race is superior to any or all others. racism or racialism 1. the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others 2. abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief Do I believe this? Certainly not. I believe we are all equal. Therefore not a closet racist. Wrong definition. I believe this definition would suit some of the radical Maori sect (Tame iti, Mana Party to name a couple) who even publicly admit they are racist towards Pakeha "White people" and believe they are better. or even Vagabundo if he was Maori(I don't know if he is or not, but is very abusive) Pidgeon made some good points, one I would like to reply. "Yes the government can do something but it would hurt them" Still means they can do it just requires the political will too. We could go on forever quoting different literature arguing both sides, never coming to a conclusion(there is no conclusion or end). Maori will go on claiming anything they can think of to get more money. Money is all it is about. I have lodged many resource consents that are held up by local Maori, Until that taonga is given (I.e $100K or more) then all there ancestral beliefs and "Oh it will desecrate this and that" magically disappear. I have my beliefs and I don't want to completely derail this thread(might make a new one for VagaBundo to poo poo up). Maybe my beliefs are skewed because of all the real life dealings I've had with them. Not debating sitting at a computer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 05:05
|
|
|
God drat you don't know when to quit. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 05:08
|
|
|
Ark Silva posted:What's that? Sorry? I was distracted by how much of a racist you are.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 05:13
|
|
|
Ark Silva posted:Do I believe this? Certainly not. I believe we are all equal. Therefore not a closet racist. Wrong definition. You called their version of the Treaty "gibberish", have insinuated that they only care about the Treaty for the money and have suggested that they deserve no rights over land they had first claim to by appealing to an anthropological myth racists used at the turn of last century to justify systemic discrimination. You also said they were "cannibals" who were "still emerging into the 21st century", as if to suggest they are less civilised then us magical white people. You can bitch and moan about dictionary definitions all you like, but your words seem to suggest that you think the Maori are pretty loving inferior. quote:I believe this definition would suit some of the radical Maori sect (Tame iti, Mana Party to name a couple) who even publicly admit they are racist towards Pakeha "White people" and believe they are better. Oh you got us because we've all said we agree with Maori who publicly admit they're racist towards Pakeha, here's all the places where we have - quote:or even Vagabundo if he was Maori(I don't know if he is or not, but is very abusive) That's because you're an ignorant, arrogant racist. quote:Pidgeon There is no d in Pigeon. gently caress's sake. quote:"Yes the government can do something but it would hurt them" Still means they can do it just requires the political will too. We could go on forever quoting different literature arguing both sides, never coming to a conclusion(there is no conclusion or end). But they will never have the political will to because a) the courts, the Waitangi Tribunal and the United Nations will pull them up on it if they do and b) it will stir up a whole lot of poo poo that could send them down the track to losing their next election. Your argument relies on a hypothetical that you're begging to happen but never will. quote:Maori will go on claiming anything they can think of to get more money. Oh, so you're angry because you want to build on land that a tribe potentially has a claim to and that those tribes want either adequate compensation or a Tribunal ruling before you're allowed to go ahead and build wherever you want? It's you, you're the greedy son-of-a-bitch. quote:I have my beliefs and I don't want to completely derail this thread(might make a new one for VagaBundo to poo poo up). Maybe my beliefs are skewed because of all the real life dealings I've had with them. Not debating sitting at a computer. Your beliefs are skewed because you're an angry, ignorant, cocky white man who literally thinks history never happened and that the Maori Land Wars and systemic oppression of Maori well into the 20th Century was just the world righting itself after they ate a whole lot of people. You're disgusting. You disgust me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 05:18
|
|
|
Ark Silva posted:
Ark Silva posted:
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 05:19
|
|
|
He's just talking about the greedy ones though so it's not racist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 05:39
|
|
|
Ark Silva posted:I have my beliefs and I don't want to completely derail this thread(might make a new one for VagaBundo to poo poo up). Maybe my beliefs are skewed because of all the real life dealings I've had with them. Not debating sitting at a computer. Please, please, please do this! Make a thread here in D&D about your beliefs.  Seriously.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 05:57
|
|
|
Can't we all ignore Mr Chapman's follower and get on with talking about how out of touch Lockwood Smith is? I see he is not backing down and is now upset that the Greens have brought this issue out in to public. Key must have recieved advice that the public would support the new MP and has issued a wishy-washy statement supporting her getting the assistance she needs. No doubt there wil be more of this in the media in the next day or two before Key steps in and pulls rank on Lockwood to approve the funding.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 06:07
|
|
|
Varkk posted:Can't we all ignore Mr Chapman's follower and get on with talking about how out of touch Lockwood Smith is? http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6414948/Speaker-hits-back-in-technology-row Lockwood is upset that they have politicised a... political issue?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 06:19
|
|
|
Ark Silva, I'm Maori and I think I'm better than you. Not because you're a pakeha, but because you're a loving idiot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 06:32
|
|
|
Dead Alice posted:http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6414948/Speaker-hits-back-in-technology-row It seems like there's a fundamental difference in what they believe was said at the meeting this morning, with Smith saying it was a private meeting and stated as such and Hughes/Mathers saying they made clear that they would be making it public. Given history of both sides I'm going to go with 90% chance that Smith is the one lying. PS. Ark Silva: Just get out. No one wants to hear your racist uniformed opinions. Maybe you could go live in the hills with Kyle Chapman to protect their single woman from the ravages of the "browns".
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 06:34
|
|
|
Dead Alice posted:Lockwood is upset that they have politicised a... political issue? I remember a student protest when Lockwood came to Canty Uni when he was minister of education, and blockading him in a lab in the engineering building and he had to climb out a window to escape. Good times.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 06:48
|
|
|
Ark Silva posted:Maybe my beliefs are skewed because of all the real life dealings I've had with them. Not debating sitting at a computer. Oh, sorry, I didn't realise there were tiers of acceptability when it came to anecdotal evidence. About particular races. You're totes not racist though, right? Also, re: Mathers http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10785474 quote:Dr Smith said while Parliamentary Service paid for the technological support, the actual note-taker was a staffing cost, and he did not have the authority to approve such funding. Even if you can't do something, Lockwood, there are probably better ways you can say no. Dr Smith said the issue was on the agenda for next month's Parliamentary Service Commission (PSC) meeting, and he would take advice there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 06:53
|
|
|
I think there is a debate to be had about whether racism can be used as a tool for the good of society (race quotas in jobs/education, affirmative action, reverse discrimination), and whether the tool's many specific implementations actually achieve the goals without stepping on the civil rights or disadvantaging (is this a word?) of members and non-members of the target race. There is probably a debate to be had about whether having a quota for a race in education (IE 10% of medical school pupils must be Maori) is in fact racism, whether racism is even the correct word for this sort of discrimination - have I even used the word correctly in my first sentence? Can it BE a tool? On this, I think I could argue either way tbh. I don't think this is the right thread for that, but goddamn would I like to see goons like Ark Silva have to think deeply about what it is they are actually saying. FWIW generally I think the various programs in place and the fact the the waitangi tribunal exists is a societal good even if the odd claim seems silly at first glance (radiowaves anyone?!)
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 06:56
|
|
|
ClubmanGT posted:Dr Smith said the issue was on the agenda for next month's Parliamentary Service Commission (PSC) meeting, and he would take advice there. A month seems to be an obscene amount of time to wait for advice. This situation is ludicrous.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 06:58
|
|
|
klen dool posted:A month seems to be an obscene amount of time to wait for advice. This situation is ludicrous. Given how long they could reasonably have expected it to be an issue before now, yes. Just pay for drat closed captioning; it gives Mojo help, lets other deaf people interact with the process and gives lazy loving MP's who spend the entire session playing sudoku a transcript they can use later.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 07:10
|
|
|
Ark Silva posted:rac·ist Also here's some more advice - if you have to resort to dictionary definitions to prove you're not racist, you're probably racist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 07:42
|
|
|
klen dool posted:I think there is a debate to be had about whether racism can be used as a tool for the good of society (race quotas in jobs/education, affirmative action, reverse discrimination), and whether the tool's many specific implementations actually achieve the goals without stepping on the civil rights or disadvantaging (is this a word?) of members and non-members of the target race. Yes it can, particularly when the members of that particular race have historically been disadvantaged and discriminated against. "There is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequal people," after all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 07:48
|
|
|
Dead Alice posted:http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6414948/Speaker-hits-back-in-technology-row If you ignore the Greens' typical leave-out-the-actual-context nonsense you will understand that he was talking about parliamentary services.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 07:54
|
|
|
ledge posted:I remember a student protest when Lockwood came to Canty Uni when he was minister of education, and blockading him in a lab in the engineering building and he had to climb out a window to escape. I remember when Helen Clark cried at Waitangi and refused to go back every year afterwards. Good times.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 07:56
|
|
|
door.jar posted:It seems like there's a fundamental difference in what they believe was said at the meeting this morning, with Smith saying it was a private meeting and stated as such and Hughes/Mathers saying they made clear that they would be making it public. I suspect they're probably both telling the truth: the Speaker explained it was a private meeting and the Greens told him they were going to make it public and rushed off to the media all  Now Mathers will get what she needs in exactly the time frame as she would have otherwise, and the Greens will get to spend the next term wondering why the Speaker doesn't trust them any more and muttering darkly about how the Speaker who did more to hold the Government to account than the actual Opposition last term is a secret National stooge. Also: get the gently caress out Ark Silva, you aren't wanted here EDIT: Actually, I see from Smith's words that he assumed it was a private meeting. Not bright. Still, the fact that he fronted up with the Clerk of the House (who presumably backs his position) suggests that he's probably taken some advice on this. Nude Bog Lurker fucked around with this message at 08:14 on Feb 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 08:09
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:Yes it can, particularly when the members of that particular race have historically been disadvantaged and discriminated against. "There is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequal people," after all. I like this comic: http://leftycartoons.com/a-concise-history-of-black-white-relations-in-the-united-states/
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 08:18
|
|
|
Trouble Man posted:EDIT: Actually, I see from Smith's words that he assumed it was a private meeting. Not bright. Still, the fact that he fronted up with the Clerk of the House (who presumably backs his position) suggests that he's probably taken some advice on this. I'd be a bit disappointed if that as all that happens with it though - Parliament clearly hasn't got the flexibility to deal with impaired or disabled MPs if they need to. Maybe they could bring up the fact their infrequent review process at the next review. Hopefully we get past the 'Nat Speaker is Jerk to Green MP' angle relatively quickly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 08:23
|
|
|
ClubmanGT posted:I'd be a bit disappointed if that as all that happens with it though - Parliament clearly hasn't got the flexibility to deal with impaired or disabled MPs if they need to. Maybe they could bring up the fact their infrequent review process at the next review. Hopefully we get past the 'Nat Speaker is Jerk to Green MP' angle relatively quickly. For some reason everyone is supersensitive about making sure that every t is crossed and every i is dotted when it comes to Parliamentary spending. Can't possibly imagine why that might be. No sir. Probably the sensible thing to do would be to allocate the Speaker a fund for contingency spending next time they vote through the Parliamentary Service appropriation. I think in 2012 we can probably trust the Speaker not to spend it all on pledge cards.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 08:25
|
|
|
Trouble Man posted:For some reason everyone is supersensitive about making sure that every t is crossed and every i is dotted when it comes to Parliamentary spending. Can't possibly imagine why that might be. No sir. That might carry more weight if that was the reasoning they came out with but instead they act all offended that someone would dare make public the fact that they feel discriminated against due to a disability. I have to imagine that this kind of thing is upsetting to Mojo Mathers and Smith's response to the issue coming out couldn't really be worse for helping resolve the issue. PS. I hate the fact that Stuff puts out new versions of its stories and then seemingly redirects links to the first version so you can't find it later for wording.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 08:38
|
|
|
Trouble Man posted:EDIT: Actually, I see from Smith's words that he assumed it was a private meeting. Not bright. Still, the fact that he fronted up with the Clerk of the House (who presumably backs his position) suggests that he's probably taken some advice on this. That, plus this from the stuff article: quote:Hughes said Mathers made it clear at the meeting that she would be raising the matter publicly. If Mathers did make it clear she was going to talk to the press about it and Smith still assumed it was a private matter and is acting all about it, it's not a good look for him at all.That plus I'm pretty sure this will be remembered as "National MP uses powers as speaker to be a prick to deaf opposition MP."
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 08:50
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:
Unlikely. Contrary to the ridiculous levels of from the Standard and No Right Turn, Smith will be remembered as the most impartial Speaker Parliament's had for twenty years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 09:06
|
|
|
Trouble Man posted:For some reason everyone is supersensitive about making sure that every t is crossed and every i is dotted when it comes to Parliamentary spending. Can't possibly imagine why that might be. No sir. Oh I get that, absolutely. But that's the real thing here - that due process, whatever it is, isn't really up to scratch, and that's what the debate should be about. Smith's been OK. He's been more consistent than Wilson (although that wouldn't be hard) and has definitely improved things past 'acknowledging a question = answering it' bullshit we got from her. I would like to see him be more resolute when MPs whinge about being asked to leave though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 09:11
|
|
|
ClubmanGT posted:Oh I get that, absolutely. But that's the real thing here - that due process, whatever it is, isn't really up to scratch, and that's what the debate should be about. The rot in terms of Question Time really set in with Hunt - he's responsible for the original "addressing the question = answering it" Speaker's Ruling that wrecked Question Time for a decade. Smith's blessing and curse is that he's coming to the end of his career and doesn't really give a poo poo any more. So he can kick Ministers around with impunity (good) but be ridiculously bleep bloop about Parliament's rights and privileges (bad).
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 09:14
|
|
|
ClubmanGT posted:Oh I get that, absolutely. But that's the real thing here - that due process, whatever it is, isn't really up to scratch, and that's what the debate should be about. This is exactly it. They've had three months since the election to sort this, perhaps even earlier given they knew there was a deaf candidate on the Greens list and it could have been budgeted for at the end of the last financial year, even as discretionary spending, if Smith had been forward thinking enough (he is the one who sets the budget, after all - PCS only 'advises' him), and Mathers is having to wait another month because they just can't get their act into gear. For Parliamentary Services to be so terrible at filling its basic statutory function of assisting Mathers in "filling her role and function" as an elected Member of Parliament is a pretty big black mark on the 'efficiency' of the service as a whole and its ability to meet the demands of people with disabilities. That Smith explained away deafness as something not covered as a "physical disability" and then had a rage at the press conference about how "inexperienced" Hughes and Mathers were and that this was a "private" matter is just distracting from the issue, and while it won't be remembered come next election, I can see the Greens getting a bit of mileage out of it the next two weeks - hopefully they'll target the real issue as well instead of just playing the man. roarshark posted:If you ignore the Greens' typical leave-out-the-actual-context nonsense you will understand that he was talking about parliamentary services. This 'leave-out-the-context' nonsense is endemic in New Zealand (and world) politics and you're just showing your colours by pretending the Greens are the only ones guilty of it (after all, who could forget JK's "if we elect a different government, the ratings agencies will downgrade us" gaffe?).
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 10:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 10:07 |
|
|
Pigeon Shamus posted:This 'leave-out-the-context' nonsense is endemic in New Zealand (and world) politics and you're just showing your colours by pretending the Greens are the only ones guilty of it (after all, who could forget JK's "if we elect a different government, the ratings agencies will downgrade us" gaffe?). Oh no, my colours. What would they be, exactly? I didn't pretend they were the only ones that did it, but feel free to project whatever you'd like and then pretend it's okay because everybody else does it. While you're at it, please continue to have no idea about how sensitive parliament is about spending taxpayers money after the absolute fiascos we've all seen in the past few years, and somehow tie that together with a rage at the government at "not getting their act into gear".
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 10:48
|
|