Pre-election 2014 thread

[CCS]

Domestic violence isn't an issue that determines governments. People on the whole don't care enough.

Originally Posted by Ab

Because

Either way my family is not affected and I don't really see any evidence that those outside my family that I care about are affected either.

Not an issue for me because I'm not a rapist nor a woman beater. Cunliffe doesn't speak for me when he apologises for being a rapey violent man.

[leadinjector]

Originally Posted by CCS

Not an issue for me because I'm not a rapist nor a woman beater. Cunliffe doesn't speak for me when he apologises for being a rapey violent man.

quite. ive never laid a hand on a woman, ive never even raised my voice to my wife (cos shes knows im the baws). im not apologising for shit. a leader who apologises for being born a man strikes me as pathetic. unless he IS a rapey wifebeater, what the fuck is he apologising for? either-

1. hes a rapey wifebeater and i wouldnt want him in charge
2. he is making a fake ass apology for nothing and i wouldnt want him in charge (along with the long list of other dumb fucking shit hes already done)

you can be supportive. you can donate time and money to a womans shelter, rally their causes, etc etc. but apologising for being born a man? get the fuck out of here.

[Rince]

Originally Posted by leadinjector

what the fuck is he apologising for? either-

1. hes a rapey wifebeater and i wouldnt want him in charge
2. he is making a fake ass apology for nothing and i wouldnt want him in charge (along with the long list of other dumb fucking shit hes already done)

you can be supportive. you can donate time and money to a womans shelter, rally their causes, etc etc. but apologising for being born a man? get the fuck out of here.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by leadinjector

what the fuck is he apologising for? either-

1. hes a rapey wifebeater and i wouldnt want him in charge
2. he is making a fake ass apology for nothing and i wouldnt want him in charge (along with the long list of other dumb fucking shit hes already done)

I guess it's complex.

[Pimp-X]

I disagree, however it can be as complex as you'd like it to be.

[Ab]

Summary: your typical Cunliffe two-facedness. This is a guy who would go to a union meeting preaching nationalisation and compulsory union membership, then put on a $1000 suit to address a chamber of commerce meeting and talk privatisation and tax cuts.

The phenomenon already has its own label: David Cunliffe talks out of both sides of his mouth.

[Spoon1]

I agree to an extent with a "rape culture" in our patriarchal society but agree totally that it has nothing to do with David Cunliffe's motives in saying what he did. He is a greasy weasel and will say whatever the fuck he thinks the current audience wants to hear. He does it instinctively and that's what gets him into shit.

Just one face please.

WTB new Labour leader.

[Ab]

Now that he realises that what he said actually got heard by people outside the room he's backpedalling as fast as he can.

Rather than saying "yes I said it, yes I meant it, we need to have this conversation" he's playing it as "well those are the words I used but you have to look at it in context and imagine there was a comma in the words and it's an important conversation but right now we're focused on winning this election and we've got a great Labour team and I will certainly give that issue a lot of attention when I'm elected Prime Minister, vote Quimby".

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO140...d-cunliffe.htm

It's totally transparent - under pressure he just gurged up some words that he thought the vaginas in the room would want to hear. He doesn't actually give a shit.

[Rince]

Labour MPs ignoring the boss.... again: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...-sledge-pledge

Too many lol quotes to copy here....

[Lightspeed]

Where's your counter, Ab?

Originally Posted by Pimp-X

I disagree, however it can be as complex as you'd like it to be.

People disagree with climate change science too. "It's not getting hot here, it must be nonsense."

[Pimp-X]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

People disagree with climate change science too. "It's not getting hot here, it must be nonsense."

Is that the worst analogy you could summon?

[Lightspeed]

What's a better analogy for picking and choosing the science one accepts?

[Pimp-X]

I don't know guy. You tell me - it's your all-encompassing pigeon hole.

I simply disagree that I, or anyone in my recorded family tree are participants to this 'rape culture' in any format, and that some complex explanation would say that it's actually so.

Use enough words and anything can be so..

You cannot breathe underwater. If you're not breathing, you're dead. Therefore, if you're underwater you're dead. You're welcome.

[StN]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

What's a better analogy for picking and choosing the science one accepts?

Catholicism?

[Pimp-X]

Originally Posted by StN

Catholicism?

No, that'd be "If you have a cock in your throat you cannot breathe".

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Pimp-X

Use enough words and anything can be so..

Which is why we don't rely on what we can cook up ourselves but rather the works of peer reviewed scientists and scientific consensus.

[cyc]

.... strikes again: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11290631

Just why would you extend EQC coverage to crazies who refuse to insure their own home? And is Labour not even aware of the dedicated earthquake court at the DC level and the earthquake list at the HC level? I know I can't expect the party that proudly had an economic historian playing the role of Attorney-General the last time it was in government to know anything about the law but this is really a bit much.

I personally have a lot of sympathies for the general ideas (especially on the social side of things) that Labour espouse but this kind of pathetic populism basically explains why I've never, ever voted for them. They simply have no principles and seem determined to advocate only for the crazy.

[Pimp-X]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Which is why we don't rely on what we can cook up ourselves but rather the works of peer reviewed scientists and scientific consensus.

So, ready to admit god is a human construct then?

[Lightspeed]

I think you're confusing philosophy with science. Unless you can point me to the literature?

[Pimp-X]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

I think you're confusing philosophy with science. Unless you can point me to the literature?

You are very slippery, indeed.

I cannot engage a person that believes there's a man in the clouds that grants wishes and listens to a world full of inane blathering 24/7.

Oh, and then starts carrying on about relying on things that can be proven and reviewed accordingly.

I cannot take that seriously, I'm afraid.

[Lightspeed]

You don't know what I believe Pimp-X.

And if you think that the question of God can be penetrated by science, you are a scientific layperson.

[Pimp-X]

That last statement made your beliefs abundantly clear.

[Lightspeed]

Well, there's no piercing your solipsist fantasy. :/

[Lightspeed]

Seriously, what scientific paper speaks about the existence or non-existence of God? I don't believe there is a single paper, let alone any kind of scientific consensus regarding God.

Am I mistaken?

[Pimp-X]

You're not mistaken because god exists only in fantasy. Are you simple?

[Lightspeed]

You're showing off your layperson status Pimp-X. Science doesn't teach us what is real, science helps us discover what works.

Anyone frustrated with this discussion, please keep in mind it was the forum admin who introduced God into this discussion.

[Pimp-X]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Anyone frustrated with this discussion, please keep in mind it was the forum admin who introduced God into this discussion.

Uh, the fuck does that have to do with anything?

[Lightspeed]

Cause I usually cop a lot of crap for talking about God. I have memory, you know?

[Pimp-X]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Cause I usually cop a lot of crap for talking about God. I have memory, you know?

What does 'forum admin' have to do with this? Was there a job description I neglected to read? I'm as confused as everyone else gets when they engage you, I think.

[fixed_truth]

Anyway, let's not spam up this thread again eh?


Sex case diplomat's accuser: I want an apology

The woman at the centre of a diplomatic incident and the victim of an alleged sex attack says Foreign Minister Murray McCully should resign.

Ouch. At least we could have relied on Cunliffe for an apology

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Pimp-X

What does 'forum admin' have to do with this? Was there a job description I neglected to read? I'm as confused as everyone else gets when they engage you, I think.

There are power dynamics at play. Something which is more pronounced to those under that power than those with it. I upset you in the wrong way, I can be ejected from the community.

But you don't believe in that kind of thing, do you?

I suspect if people are confused when they engage with me it's because they come along with a bunch of assumptions about me which are inaccurate. Like "LS is a Christian, I know what Christians are like so LS is like that."

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Ouch. At least we could have relied on Cunliffe for an apology

Heh.

[Pimp-X]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

There are power dynamics at play.

And of course you say that because you've been on the sharp end. I'm not so sure others feel the same way or identify that threat the way you do. You're a member of a very exclusive club of people who've been sat outside until their brain and mouth synchronize sufficiently.

I think you consider that action to be unilateral, too. Allow me to assure you, it wasn't.

That aside, the number of logical fallacies presented on this forum daily is astonishingly large. That is, if I'm smart enough to know what one of that there thingums is.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Pimp-X

I think you consider that action to be unilateral, too. Allow me to assure you, it wasn't.

Arbitrary, not unilateral. It was clear some effort was being made by the cool kids club to reject me from the forum. Shit, you were hacking at the forum code to get my sparkly tag working.

But hey, thanks to your God tangent we're not talking about how you reject a body of science because it's offensive to your values. Good job!

[Pimp-X]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

But hey, thanks to your God tangent we're not talking about how you reject a body of science because it's offensive to your values. Good job!

I summed up. I think you overlooked that. You also just put words in my mouth.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Pimp-X

I summed up. I think you overlooked that.

Where you reject complex arguments because they don't suit you?

Originally Posted by Pimp-X

You also just put words in my mouth.

Gee, I have no idea what that must be like.

[Pimp-X]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Where you reject complex arguments because they don't suit you?

No, where I reject an unnecessarily complex argument in favor of observed reality.

Honestly, lose the ad hominem now eh. If you want to discuss something, it'll work a lot better without it.

[Lightspeed]

lolz, you want ME to lose the ad hominem? This whole forum is one great ad hominem attack. Are you simple?

But hey, if that's what you want, I'm totally on board.

[Pimp-X]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

But hey, if that's what you want, I'm totally on board.

It's just a suggestion. Do you think it's worthwhile?

[Lightspeed]

Absolutely. My approach has long been not to make it personal until it gets personal. Alas, it's usually immediately personal.

[Pimp-X]

I must admit that my verbal reactions to varying states of incredulity aren't entirely productive.