Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

1 | ... | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | ... | 268

2945 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#1943652 19-Jan-2018 17:00

Geektastic:

MikeB4:
Geektastic:

My wife's first comment "They're not even married."

Good grief are we in Victorian England.

No, but some of us adhere to standards and do not like to see endless b***ards churned out in the name of "progress".

That's a completely unacceptable comment in this day and age. Presumably you don't intend on posting on GZ any more.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1943653 19-Jan-2018 17:01

Geektastic:
MikeB4:
Geektastic:

My wife's first comment "They're not even married."

Good grief are we in Victorian England.

No, but some of us adhere to standards and do not like to see endless b***ards churned out in the name of "progress".

Good God what utter bilge

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1943654 19-Jan-2018 17:02

gulfa:

Geektastic

I seem to recollect that a recent PM came from a solo parent home Do you put him in this Ba***d category where do stand on Gay marriages etc.?? We as a community have moved on. Its time people like yourself do the same Even the Aussies have moved on

I don't know - it's not a category, it's a noun with a specific meaning. Within that specific meaning, yes he may be. I do not know if his parents were married at the time of his birth.

"Moving on" implies improvement. I prefer to call it "changed", which could describe something going either way.

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#1943656 19-Jan-2018 17:03

Geektastic:
MikeB4:
Geektastic:

My wife's first comment "They're not even married."

Good grief are we in Victorian England.

No, but some of us adhere to standards and do not like to see endless b***ards churned out in the name of "progress".

He's right though. Apparently it's super important for gays to be allowed to marry, doesn't seem to be of much concern to other couples to exercise their right to marry.

Personally I'm glad that my parents were married when I was born. For sure it's principle that's come down from previous generations ,but that doesn't make it wrong.

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1943660 19-Jan-2018 17:04

MikeB4:
Geektastic:

MikeB4:
Geektastic:

My wife's first comment "They're not even married."

Good grief are we in Victorian England.

No, but some of us adhere to standards and do not like to see endless b***ards churned out in the name of "progress".

Good God what utter bilge

It's a perfectly legitimate () view, no more bilge like than many of the views you express are to me.

People have different views.

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1943661 19-Jan-2018 17:07

SJB:

Geektastic:

MikeB4:
Geektastic:

My wife's first comment "They're not even married."

Good grief are we in Victorian England.

No, but some of us adhere to standards and do not like to see endless b***ards churned out in the name of "progress".

That's a completely unacceptable comment in this day and age. Presumably you don't intend on posting on GZ any more.

What exactly is unaceptable about that not uncommon view? It may be different from your opinion, but it's hardly unacceptable.

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1943663 19-Jan-2018 17:10

Geektastic:

What exactly is unaceptable about that not uncommon view? It may be different from your opinion, but it's hardly unacceptable.

So... does your view mean that you (or your wife) actually place more value on those born to parents who acceded to some silly ceremony and paid money for a piece of paper stating that they were at last allowed to do certain things with each other that might result in children? As in, permission from a higher authority is required for this act?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1943665 19-Jan-2018 17:15

Rikkitic:

Geektastic:

What exactly is unaceptable about that not uncommon view? It may be different from your opinion, but it's hardly unacceptable.

So... does your view mean that you (or your wife) actually place more value on those born to parents who acceded to some silly ceremony and paid money for a piece of paper stating that they were at last allowed to do certain things with each other that might result in children? As in, permission from a higher authority is required for this act?

No, it means that we consider a stable married couple the best vehicle for raising children and that the State should encourage that. This is hardly unusual and I cannot imagine why anyone would consider that to be remotely controversial.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1943667 19-Jan-2018 17:16

Geektastic:

What exactly is unaceptable about that not uncommon view? It may be different from your opinion, but it's hardly unacceptable.

Calling the future children of the leader of this country, and everyone else whose parents did not bother with a pointless and antiquated ceremony mandated by an increasingly irrelevant church, what you did is pretty unacceptable to me. I don't want you banned because Geekzone should not be an echo chamber and some of your comments are worth reading, but an apology in this instance would not be out of place.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1943669 19-Jan-2018 17:19

Geektastic:

No, it means that we consider a stable married couple the best vehicle for raising children and that the State should encourage that. This is hardly unusual and I cannot imagine why anyone would consider that to be remotely controversial.

This from someone who doesn't believe in children. Thank you for returning this thread to humour.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1943670 19-Jan-2018 17:22

Rikkitic:

Geektastic:

What exactly is unaceptable about that not uncommon view? It may be different from your opinion, but it's hardly unacceptable.

Calling the future children of the leader of this country, and everyone else whose parents did not bother with a pointless and antiquated ceremony mandated by an increasingly irrelevant church, what you did is pretty unacceptable to me. I don't want you banned because Geekzone should not be an echo chamber and some of your comments are worth reading, but an apology in this instance would not be out of place.

It's got nothing to do with religion - I never mentioned religion.

Are you suggesting that minority views should be apologised for? I used a noun of the English language which is used to describe children born out of wedlock. It's a perfectly accurate statement, using the correct English words. I fail entirely to see how that could give rise to any grounds for banning me to be honest.

I apologise if offence was given - none was intended, certainly.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1943672 19-Jan-2018 17:24

Rikkitic:

Geektastic:

No, it means that we consider a stable married couple the best vehicle for raising children and that the State should encourage that. This is hardly unusual and I cannot imagine why anyone would consider that to be remotely controversial.

This from someone who doesn't believe in children. Thank you for returning this thread to humour.

Just because I do not want them does not mean I cannot grasp the economic and societal consequences of how these things are dealt with.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1943675 19-Jan-2018 17:27

Geektastic:

Are you suggesting that minority views should be apologised for? I used a noun of the English language which is used to describe children born out of wedlock. It's a perfectly accurate statement, using the correct English words. I fail entirely to see how that could give rise to any grounds for banning me to be honest.

I apologise if offence was given - none was intended, certainly.

I used a noun of the English language which is used to describe a female dog receptive to breeding. Also perfectly accurate (contemporary) usage, employing a correct English word, and that got me banned for a week. Don't think it can't happen.

Apology accepted. thank you for making it.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1943682 19-Jan-2018 17:42

https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/on-the-inside/348469/baby-busy-bodies-the-same-old-sexist-story

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

rjt123

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#1943717 19-Jan-2018 18:20

Rikkitic:
Geektastic:

What exactly is unaceptable about that not uncommon view? It may be different from your opinion, but it's hardly unacceptable.

So... does your view mean that you (or your wife) actually place more value on those born to parents who acceded to some silly ceremony and paid money for a piece of paper stating that they were at last allowed to do certain things with each other that might result in children? As in, permission from a higher authority is required for this act?

Marriage is a committal between the husband and wife. It is not specifically limited to Christianity, and for any of the Christian's onthis forum YOU owe them an apology for calling their beliefs "increasingly irrelevant"

If they are not even prepared to solemnise that committal between themselves but are still prepared to have children together then it calls into question how much they value the longevity of their relationship. In my opinion in most areas of my life, business, personal, politics etc, if someone is not prepared to commit to something then I question their beliefs in the virtues of what they are doing or asked to do. If they intend to be together for life why not marry? If not, do they care about their child's upbringing, broken families cause significant societal issues. Or perhaps it's like the labour party's committal to their campaign promises: happy to make promises, not prepared to commit to them...

1 | ... | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | ... | 268