|
Are you a This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| homeowner |
|
39 | 22.41% |
| renter |
|
69 | 39.66% |
| stupid peace of poo poo |
|
66 | 37.93% |
| Total: | 174 votes | ||
|
Surely a sportsman - even a cricketer - could beat that sack of poo poo?
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 23:11 |
|
|
fong posted:http://i.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/books/65463098/eleanor-cattons-problem-with-new-zealand I thought you were kidding. Then, I read the article. Why would stuff give john key the last word in an article about literature, literature awards, and an authors feelings - 3 things which he knows little about and whose opinion in unqualified garbage?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2015 11:04
|
|
|
I think we should be publicly asking any members of the armed forces to not go to Iraq. The sad thing is that they probably want to go.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Robo Captain posted:Unless you are one of the people who join because it's pretty much their only option for employment . What about people that join the military because they want to soldier? I do know a couple ex-army guys, and they didn't need the money, and they didn't want to just fight for fightings sake.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2015 07:05
|
|
|
focal ischemia posted:unless you're in the SAS you're not really going to shoot anyone. That's true, but while 100 of our troops fix bridges that leaves 100 spare US troops to shoot terrists. Its irrelevant what they personally do - we collectively pull the trigger. Edit: I am sure there are hundreds of us and UK troops who haven't personally shot or killed anyone, from cooks to infantry, pilots to tank drivers
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:This whole discussion is retarded. Armies exist because the world is the way it is; I realise that in an ideal world they wouldn't exist, but unfortunately humans are humans and thus they exist. If everyone refused to join an armed force then the world would be a better place. If everyone picked up a piece of rubbish every day there would be no need for street sweepers. Neither of these things are going to happen any time soon. What the gently caress of course people in the army get to decide if they go to a specific war or not. If they think the war is somehow wrong, they have an obligation to society to refuse.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2015 08:04
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Hahaha what? I often refuse out of obligation to society, a not-insignificant number of people do. Slavvy posted:That is the nature of institutions, of which the army is one. They function because they put individuals in a position where they either make a 'bad' choice to protect themselves or are shuffled further down the social ladder and replaced by someone more willing to do so. Do I quit my job because my company does things that are bad for the environment/someone in asia? Nope because I don't want to be unable to feed my kids because I've shat my own career down the toilet and then watch someone more morally flexible step into the gap and do the same things anyway. Do I quit the army/get put up for charges because Armies Are Bad and Violence Is Wrong? No because then I'm a completely unqualified bum with no money and no prospects/real work experience whatsoever and I get to watch someone less morally pure get promoted over me to do the same job anyway. Bullshit, you can't simplify life like this - its just not reality. Everyone has different motivations, and different things incentivise different people. If I was in the army, and I was told to shoot a civilian, I wouldn't need an incentive to not shoot them.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2015 09:20
|
|
|
Butt Wizard posted:I'm not sure I agree here - you can think war is wrong but you can think poo poo-heads like Isis are worse. Where does your obligation to society lie then? To help stop the bad guys or to make a point about war by not going? I don't believe this war is about stopping Isis. I believe wars like this creates the next Isis. I believe that participating in this war will cause civilians to die, civilians that won't die if we don't participate - and we are obliged to society to not intervene in the manner that we are going to. My stance isn't just for the principle of pacifism - its for the tangible outcome of reducing human suffering and extinguishment. I believe we turn a blind eye to atrocities happening all over the world all the time, Isis has nothing to do with why we are deploying. I believe there is a better solution than shooting (or helping to shoot) what the yanks and poms think we should. I believe Isis, and Jordan, and Israel, and the UK, and especially the US are all as bad, brutal, fanatical and uncivilised as each other. I believe that if the Palestinians had backing, they probably be as bad as Israel - and I kinda think we would be too. I don't believe in evil. I want my government - who is literally turning my efforts against me by using my taxes to cause the murder of civilians and using my taxes to tell me its necessary - to not become evil. I believe I have probably revealed to much about myself in this post, in far too pompous a manner, but gently caress man there are people over there and there is nothing more important than life.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2015 10:51
|
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:i hope we can all agree that the NZ SAS being complicit in torture is in fact bad Did I miss news? I thought our SAS just grew a badarse beard and shot at things in a building.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2015 10:52
|
|
|
Butt Wizard posted:I put the 'being able to turn down deployment if you don't like war' to one of my friends in the armed forces. He tells me that in actual war that wouldn't be an option because there's not a lot of point training someone in combat who is then going to refuse to go into combat situations so they generally get told it's not for them. The stuff the armed forces do at the moment is a different story (I'm guessing he means peacekeeping/humanitarian and reconstruction), and people coming home because the stress of being in what is effectively a war zone gets to them and they can't handle it is a thing that happens. This sounds an awful lot like "moral people don't make it long enough in the army to get deployed", but I could be misreading it. I am not suggesting there are people in the army who would refuse deployment - I am suggesting there may be people in the army who might refuse deployment to specific situations if they found it morally objectionable - ie they'd be happy to go into somalia and fight warlords and not happy to invade Iraq.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:Should pharmacists be free to refuse to supply the morning-after pill to women based on their personal assessment of the morality of it? They can refuse if they feel they should, and they will have to possibly face consequences - perhaps they will loose a licence or perhaps they could face fines. I certainly think that refusing medication that a human has a right to is wrong, and I don't think they have - or should have - legal right to deny anyone any medication they want (unless they need but don't have a prescription). But soldiers do have an obligation (morally, if not legally) to refuse immoral orders, and we hold them to that, and I happen to think the order to board a plane bound for Iraq in the current climate to be immoral, and I'd like to encourage soldiers to see it my way if they don't already and strike I guess....
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
John Key hung out with a pretty rad guy today: https://twitter.com/johnkeypm/status/568152729714954240 No, hold on - the opposite. John Key hung out with a man who enjoys torture: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=7402099
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
fong posted:Other than the reasons already posted (concern trolling, it wasn't violent, etc), its mostly because dusty forms his opinions as a knee jerk rather than actually thinking things through. He'd rather hate on "SJW"s than think about issues that people might be protesting. I love a good protest, regardless of if I agree. Especially one executed with reckless passion. I do happen to agree with this protest, not so much the pinkwashing protest - but the only losers are a bank and banks don't have feelings and the invade our collective environment with propaganda so gently caress em.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 08:41
|
|
|
Shihad - post churn. I nominate them as nz's worst band, only because they started so high and plummeted into mediocre rock so fast.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 09:59
|
|
|
YES https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAlXRp7JslQ YES https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iVc8hPdAB4 YES https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEe7sPORiaM YES https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n1ANoovaXA YES https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUtHUS9yopE
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:Follow-up on my previous post re: the resident dumb-gently caress of my form class - sent him to the Heads of House this morning, and it seems like he got a severe bollocking from them as well. He will be seeing them again in about an hour, but it seems parents will be called, meetings will be had and tears will be shed. He came to apologise to me and I told him that "maybe I'm not the one [he] needs to apologise to," and that the girl involved has every right in the world to hate him forever for what he did. I did catch up with her about 5 minutes ago and gave her a quick update on what's going on because she seemed nervous about being called in by the Heads of House, but I reassured her she has nothing to be worried about, that she shouldn't think she's done anything wrong because as far as we're aware, she hasn't, and that the kid will be coming to apologise to her later today or possibly tomorrow, but she has no obligation to forgive him, because as far as I'm concerned, that is entirely her call. Is this high school? What is a "heads of house"? Has school changed that much since I left in 1996 that I don't even understand the lingo anymore?!?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
Well that was certainly very frustrating to listen to. Does he not know who he works for? Will he resign, as he said he would? Does he realise that a lot of new zealand citizens are anti US? Goddamn what a loving wanker. Edit: dismissing actions because "they are just anti-us and anti spying" - well no poo poo, of course they are. That's the whole loving point. The. Whole. Point. Not liking us foreign policy, and not liking how nz interacts with the us, and not liking spy agencies are all perfectly valid and supportable viewpoints. klen dool fucked around with this message at 05:06 on Mar 9, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
bobbilljim posted:https://firstlook.org/theintercept/...w-retracts-vow/ I can't find a source where jk recanted his pledge.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
bobbilljim posted:uh.. from the article... http://m.tvnz.co.nz/news/top_stories/6251011 Sorry, I meant like a quote or something. What exactly did he say, and in what context? That article just asserts he said it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
bobbilljim posted:Forgive me for taking the headline at face value. I totally agree. Collection and surveillance are the same loving thing, you can't collect (hold, store, duplicate, inspect) something without first surveilling (observing, intercepting) it. That motherfucker is getting me so mad. So goddamn mad. He might push me to do something rash to him and his party. Something extreme - I might even go as far as not voting for him next election in an attempt to cut off his income and power! Now now I know a lot of you are saying "now steady on there klen, lets not threaten something that you could regret or get you into trouble" - but I really feel like I have no other choice. I am almost certainly going to put the little orange squiggle in a box other than nationals next election, I'll loving do it and none of you can stop me.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2015 07:31
|
|
|
Yaaaaaay no internet in island bay thanks Vodafone! At least the cell network is still up....
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
mirthdefect posted:Still? Its been out since 10am or so. It came back for me at about 7:30 - it's still reported as down on the status page though....
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:If you've got steam on offline mode, what's your problem? Lol yeah - stupid drm
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 08:11
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:"I think if people don't look after themselves and then put their hand out and expect other people to pick up their poor decisions then you could call them scum" - a man who has been sitting on the benefit for like the last five years due to depression over being a big fat failure at life. I really HATE to defend that fat gently caress, but mental illness isn't caused by not looking after yourself and the benefit is important. On the other hand, earthquakes are not caused by not looking after yourself either....
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 09:56
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:I'm so glad I spent today with Cryptowall instead of social media. huh. That was my last friday....
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 07:20
|
|
|
Butt Wizard posted:Amnesty International 'survey' shows that people don't want to be spied on. In other news, the sky is blue and the grass is green. Its Amnesty International, not some loving biased idealogical lobby group for fucks sake.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 09:37
|
|
|
BARONS CYBER SKULL posted:Yes but why else would they try and discredit good Ol' John unless they were dirty nazi leftists???? lol Ghostlight posted:To be fair, the idea that people have an inalienable human right to express non-violent opinions without violent suppression from their government is leftist. Really? Am I that naive that I don't know this? Kinda-free speach is kinda in our kinda-constitution, is it only the left that wants one?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 10:07
|
|
|
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11422509 I don't understand what the phrase "maintenance if the law" means 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 09:56
|
|
|
puchu posted:It's a company that's run for profit. You'll find that with any TV network that generates most of its income from advertising, ratings are key. On the bright side, this situation/discussion could give a boost to what I presume is the dormant campaign to have some sort of non-commercial public TV broadcaster in NZ like the BBC or the ABC. Does anyone know if countries of similar population to NZ have public NFP broadcasters and what sort of funding they receive? Would there be any lasting support for this sort of thing? Just because your primary goal is to make money, doesn't mean that it should be your only goal. In fact, having a single focus makes you, well, anti social. I don't mean "bad at relating to others" - I mean "anti society". If someone says something abhorrent, pointing out that its natural for that person to say that abhorrent thing does not excuse the person.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
puchu posted:Oh absolutely I agree that corporate social responsibility is important, but there is no point doing something for the public interest if it means you're hurting your own business. It's a matter of balance. Acting like a psychopath is not balance. There is most certainly a point in doing something despite it hurting your business, because money isn't as important as a lot of other things.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2015 12:11
|
|
|
puchu posted:It's not acting like a psychopath to say "a commercial channel needs to put on programmes that rate so the station can survive". Yes, it is.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2015 07:10
|
|
|
Infotainment! posted:Next time I am hungry I will just stab someone who has a cheeseburger. I will literally die if I don't eat so I'm sure you'll find this reasonable. Nope. Not in the slightest. I have no idea why you'd think I would be okay with this.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2015 09:20
|
|
|
puchu posted:If the news doesn't rate the rest of the night doesn't rate and then advertisers start demanding makegood which results in less inventory meaning less money coming in meaning the potential to not have a running station which means no news. So either way in your made up scenario, we have no news, but in one instance someone decided to get rid of it for money and in the other they failed honourably but did the right thing. That could happen, I guess, or here is another made up scenario: the news doesn't rate but the rest of the night still does rate and then advertisers are still happy. Or: If the news doesn't rate the rest of the night doesn't rate and then advertisers start demanding makegood which results in TV companies finding other ways to generate revenue and the news is still on. Or: If the news doesn't rate the rest of the night doesn't rate and then advertisers start paying less and the station just operates on less money and the news is still on. I can play games with stories as well.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2015 11:21
|
|
|
puchu posted:First, I just want to point out that it's highly unlikely that something so iconic as the nightly news will be cut. Even if it rates poorly on any of the networks, it would have to be absolute throw the whole thing out because no one apart from one grandma in Kaikoura is watching levels of bad to cut it. So what I'm going to write about isn't necessarily about the news but more general in nature. Yes, I realise that is how it currently works. It doesn't mean its not selfish and should be condemned. The executive that would cut the news for profit is still acting in an anti social manner, and so is the companies charter and probably the shareholders as well. I want it to change, I want a TV executive to pubicaly say "we would never stop broadcasting news in some form despite its costs, as its a public good" - I want all of them too. The first step is to condemn the attitude that money is more important than society.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
Butt Wizard posted:We have a state broadcaster for this exact reason? I don't think its that wacky an idea to expect your fellow human to act morally, regardless of who pays them. Plus, you need someone who isn't paid by the state. Although, RNZ seems to be doing a pretty good job of not being the govt's mouthpiece - probably because the govt slashed their budget. Maybe that was Nationals goal all along, and they really are good guys OH NO
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 11:51
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:The problem with that is that we live in a capitalist society where individuals feel the benefits of having more money instantly whereas the benefits of ~~doing social good~~ are ephemeral at best. I don't know why people keep trying to tell me how it currently is. I know how it is. I don't like how it is. I am not saying that right now tv executives are saying that they would never cut news because its the public good, I am saying that right now tv executives are saying they would cut the news if it made more money. Also, I am pointing out that that sort of behaviour is anti social and immoral. Also, people are not wired to think that personal well-being is more important than vague notions of social good? That is quite a ludicrous claim you've made there, one I don't think you can reasonably back up. klen dool fucked around with this message at 12:01 on Apr 13, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 11:58
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Yes they are, it's self-evident. Why do you work? It's not so you can give all your money to charity. Civilisation exists because people worked out that working together improves everyone's lot; everyone benefits in ways that they wouldn't be able to by their own labour alone. It's ultimately a self-centered structure. When given an ultimatum between direct harm to yourself vs intangible benefit to society, you choose yourself and this is totally normal and natural. Human nature, you might say. I'm not even sure why you're disputing this? Oh my god - you really believe all this poo poo? I'm out. I can't argue with someone so loving dumb.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
Weed dries up, and Campbell lives ratings drop. Coincidence?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:We're complicit in torture, again. How the gently caress are we supposed to hold them to account if he keeps refusing to talk about it? I am starting to think that the govt keeping silent on gcsb operational stuff is more damaging to nz than if he talked and the bad guys new what we were up to. This is bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 23:11 |
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:http://eveningreport.nz/2015/03/24/frances-joychild-qc-on-the-fading-star-of-the-rule-of-law/ A good read.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2015 06:02
|
|