Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15
3811 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 603

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1071092 20-Jun-2014 16:03
One person supports this post
Send private message

afe66: Below are some things I came accross. I'm a little reluctant to do this for fear it will turn into a heated discussion which often on the internet gets nasty,
but I suppose I should give some indication of why I am concerned.


NZ Women are promiscusous
I'm married I live my life a certain way
Sex outside committed relationship is wrong
I'm a very strong, committed christian,but not a church goer
Had weekly prayers in his office
Not support gay marriage.
I dont think think majority of NZ want to 'redefine marriage'  http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/im-not-church-goer-colin-craig-ck-118705


"A belief in the equality of all New Zealanders and that all citizens, regardless of race, gender or religion, have equal rights and privileges"

      No reference to sexual orientation being part of freedom of the individual on conservative party website, although sexual orientation is mentioned in anti discrimination law.
                         (this is on the conservative party website)


Whilst I come from a very different perspective I would have to concede that your critism is probably fair. I personally believe that politicians should avoid talking about issues relating to sex or personal relationships because they are not politically relevant. They may be important to some people in a broader sense, but in a political context these issues serve as nothing more than a distraction.

I don't have a problem with him being a Christian or praying. That is his business.

832 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 259

Trusted

  Reply # 1071094 20-Jun-2014 16:05
Send private message

Fred99:

Because social conservatism is a religion.
There's no other rational explanation for why some people would want to impose their conservative values on everybody else, legislated - and therefore able to be legally enforced,  if resisted then ultimately through initiating the use of force - without some belief system that they have which grants them the moral right to force others what to do what they tell them to do.  They are much the same as hard-line communists - which should also be considered a religion IMO.


I'm not sure that communism has ever really sort to explain the reason for the existence of the universe.

 
 
 
 


3811 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 603

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1071096 20-Jun-2014 16:07
One person supports this post
Send private message

Fred99: Because social conservatism is a religion.
There's no other rational explanation for why some people would want to impose their conservative values on everybody else, legislated - and therefore able to be legally enforced,  if resisted then ultimately through initiating the use of force - without some belief system that they have which grants them the moral right to force others what to do what they tell them to do.  They are much the same as hard-line communists - which should also be considered a religion IMO.


I think you are confusing conservatism with authoritarianism. The latter is prevalent across the political spectrum.

I choose to live my life free of sin because I believe that I enjoy better quality of life that way. I certainly don't force my views on others, and don't tolerate them forcing their views on me.

11679 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5329

Trusted

  Reply # 1071097 20-Jun-2014 16:10
Send private message

Fred99:
alasta:
afe66: The only political party I get nervious about the the Conservatives.

As an aetheist I dont want laws passed on the preferences of one religous group who believe in one brand of sky fairy. (When we know nz gods were Ranginui and Papatuanuku).


Why do people assume that social conservatives are all reglious?


Because social conservatism is a religion.
There's no other rational explanation for why some people would want to impose their conservative values on everybody else, legislated - and therefore able to be legally enforced,  if resisted then ultimately through initiating the use of force - without some belief system that they have which grants them the moral right to force others what to do what they tell them to do.  They are much the same as hard-line communists - which should also be considered a religion IMO.


One of the risks you take when living in a democracy is that from time to time groups maybe elected to power that you do not agree with and the policies they enact whether you support them or not will affect you.




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

 

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

 

 


5391 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2596


  Reply # 1071111 20-Jun-2014 16:16
Send private message

alasta:
Fred99: Because social conservatism is a religion.
There's no other rational explanation for why some people would want to impose their conservative values on everybody else, legislated - and therefore able to be legally enforced,  if resisted then ultimately through initiating the use of force - without some belief system that they have which grants them the moral right to force others what to do what they tell them to do.  They are much the same as hard-line communists - which should also be considered a religion IMO.


I think you are confusing conservatism with authoritarianism. The latter is prevalent across the political spectrum.

I choose to live my life free of sin because I believe that I enjoy better quality of life that way. I certainly don't force my views on others, and don't tolerate them forcing their views on me.


Oh no I'm not.  The only reason why social conservatives want political power is that they want to force their conservative views on you and me.  That is authoritarianism.
They're presently free to express their views and try to convince you and me that their value system is something we should choose.  But that's not enough for them apparently - they want to use legislative power to force their opinions down our throats.  They are evil - through and through.  False prophets.  I'm pretty sure Jesus wouldn't have liked them much either.

5391 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2596


  Reply # 1071112 20-Jun-2014 16:19
Send private message

KiwiNZ:
Fred99:
alasta:
afe66: The only political party I get nervious about the the Conservatives.

As an aetheist I dont want laws passed on the preferences of one religous group who believe in one brand of sky fairy. (When we know nz gods were Ranginui and Papatuanuku).


Why do people assume that social conservatives are all reglious?


Because social conservatism is a religion.
There's no other rational explanation for why some people would want to impose their conservative values on everybody else, legislated - and therefore able to be legally enforced,  if resisted then ultimately through initiating the use of force - without some belief system that they have which grants them the moral right to force others what to do what they tell them to do.  They are much the same as hard-line communists - which should also be considered a religion IMO.


One of the risks you take when living in a democracy is that from time to time groups maybe elected to power that you do not agree with and the policies they enact whether you support them or not will affect you.


That's true. But the less legislation based on "conservative" moral values the better.
Laws which seek to protect our freedoms are the important ones - and it's obviously hard enough for them to get that right.

832 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 259

Trusted

  Reply # 1071220 20-Jun-2014 18:05
One person supports this post
Send private message

Fred99:

That's true. But the less legislation based on "conservative" moral values the better.
Laws which seek to protect our freedoms are the important ones - and it's obviously hard enough for them to get that right.


Conservative values aren't always in opposition to freedom.  Often "liberal values" are responsible for removing particular rights and freedoms.  Liberal societies often believe that particular rights should be invested in the state, rather than the individual. For example the right to kill, the right to own weapons.  This may be necessary for civil society but it is still a loss of freedom.

You seem to actually be talking about traditional Christian values.

Talk DIrtY to me
4094 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2139

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1071221 20-Jun-2014 18:09
One person supports this post
Send private message

My two cents worth? They're just another single-issue political group who'll go nowhere.




Whatifthespacekeyhadneverbeeninvented?


5391 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2596


  Reply # 1071332 20-Jun-2014 22:21
Send private message

Glassboy:
Fred99:

That's true. But the less legislation based on "conservative" moral values the better.
Laws which seek to protect our freedoms are the important ones - and it's obviously hard enough for them to get that right.


Conservative values aren't always in opposition to freedom.  Often "liberal values" are responsible for removing particular rights and freedoms.  Liberal societies often believe that particular rights should be invested in the state, rather than the individual. For example the right to kill, the right to own weapons.  This may be necessary for civil society but it is still a loss of freedom.

You seem to actually be talking about traditional Christian values.


One of Colin Craig's cornerstone policies is the US "shootin' for Jesus" lunatic brigade's "upholding the right to self defense and defense of one's property".
On rare occasions, this strikes a chord in a populist kind of way, talkback radio morons, some internet forums/blogs etc.
Liberals don't actually believe in transferring individual rights to the state. They generally believe that initiating the use of force is to be avoided.

832 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 259

Trusted

  Reply # 1071338 20-Jun-2014 22:33
Send private message

Fred99:
One of Colin Craig's cornerstone policies is the US "shootin' for Jesus" lunatic brigade's "upholding the right to self defense and defense of one's property".


Also know as an Englishman's home is his castle.  It's been a stable of anglo politics for hundreds of years. 


On rare occasions, this strikes a chord in a populist kind of way, talkback radio morons, some internet forums/blogs etc.
Liberals don't actually believe in transferring individual rights to the state. They generally believe that initiating the use of force is to be avoided.


That's a hippy not a liberal.

1495 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 368


  Reply # 1071357 20-Jun-2014 23:07
One person supports this post
Send private message

I think free internet for all is on its way anyway. At a bare minimum all that's required is say a meg or two bits/sec, something that a local free wifi hotspot could easily provide, the number of which is increasing. All it would take is for a council to strike a deal with a WISP to provide "free" wireless (need more data? Click here to buy a plan!) in lower income areas. Your rates would be paying for internet. The other possibility is for the price of mobile data to plummet or provide specially catered plans as everyone has a smartphone these days that can browse the net on its own or be tethered to.

I've seen around the world where you can get free facebook on your phone in return for buying a certain plan. This is in a developing country where they have signs everywhere saying something like "wifi not required" - hinting at how widespread their mobile data is used.

2086 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 517


  Reply # 1071373 20-Jun-2014 23:40
Send private message

MadEngineer: I think free internet for all is on its way anyway. At a bare minimum all that's required is say a meg or two bits/sec, something that a local free wifi hotspot could easily provide, the number of which is increasing. All it would take is for a council to strike a deal with a WISP to provide "free" wireless (need more data? Click here to buy a plan!) in lower income areas. Your rates would be paying for internet. The other possibility is for the price of mobile data to plummet or provide specially catered plans as everyone has a smartphone these days that can browse the net on its own or be tethered to.

I've seen around the world where you can get free facebook on your phone in return for buying a certain plan. This is in a developing country where they have signs everywhere saying something like "wifi not required" - hinting at how widespread their mobile data is used.


Telecom and 2degrees have 0.facebook.com available to their customers for free

2391 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 548

Subscriber

  Reply # 1071392 21-Jun-2014 02:28
Send private message

DarthKermit: My two cents worth? They're just another single-issue political group who'll go nowhere.


Sums it up perfectly.

If I'm considering off-the-wall parties, I would rather lean towards a party with a broader range of policies - like these guys:

http://thecivilianparty.org.nz/full-policy-list
/

I am particularly attracted to their policy to "Establish a space program, and become the first nation in Australasia to send a man to the moon; not to explore it, just someone we don’t like." Seems to be in a similar vein to the Internet Party policy. Tough choice.





3009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 881

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1071447 21-Jun-2014 09:31
One person supports this post
Send private message

1eStar: As far as I can make out, Dotcom is disruptive and antiestablishment. He has a personal vendetta against John Key and is prepared to spend any amount of $$ to try to topple him. The whole internet party thing is a fancy smoke screen.


And he's not going to achieve this, I don't think he'll even come close. I believe what will happen is the opposite of Dotcom wants - votes will be mostly taken away from Labour putting National in even stronger position than they might otherwise have been. I also believe Hone's weakened the position of his party. Looking at the two parties websites (as they don't seem to have merged them yet, Internet has almost nothing and Mana has a bunch of brush-over statements. Given their appears to be no cohesion between the two, one is left wondering, what would they actually do policy wise if they got into power? Bicker would seem to be the logical answer.

On a lighter note, I'm surprised no-one's posted this little bit of satire from an old tv show yet:


5391 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2596


  Reply # 1071557 21-Jun-2014 11:49
Send private message

Glassboy:
Fred99:
One of Colin Craig's cornerstone policies is the US "shootin' for Jesus" lunatic brigade's "upholding the right to self defense and defense of one's property".


Also know as an Englishman's home is his castle.  It's been a stable of anglo politics for hundreds of years. 


On rare occasions, this strikes a chord in a populist kind of way, talkback radio morons, some internet forums/blogs etc.
Liberals don't actually believe in transferring individual rights to the state. They generally believe that initiating the use of force is to be avoided.


That's a hippy not a liberal.


As far as the "home is a castle" myth goes, if you google, then someone has probably put together a list of authorities in NZ who may enter your home without any specific warrant or court order, and you're powerless to stop them.  There will be many.
Our trespass laws don't allow you to initiate the use of force, shoot people, set up man-traps etc.  I assume by wanting to "increase one's right to self defense", Craig is trying to appeal to populist support for the few cases in NZ where individuals who were either the victims of crime - or were mere witnesses to crime - over-reacted and used potentially deadly force - sometimes when only property crime was involved.  Yes the perpetrators were rotten eggs not likely to receive public sympathy - but we don't condone summary execution or brutality by police for good reason.  It's bad enough that occasionally police use excessive force - despite being trained to behave appropriately.  Condoning vigilantism is nuts.  Gun ownership for "personal protection" is nuts. Colin Craig is nuts (and evil IMO).

Not initiating the use of force is fundamental to classic liberal ideology - I think you'd find Jamie Whyte of ACT would agree.
The similarity between a hippy and what I know of Jamie Whyte's philosophy is that both believe that you should be able to sit around smoking dope and dropping acid all day - so long as you don't harm anybody else. The difference is that the hippy probably wants to be paid to do this - by way of a benefit etc.  In that case because the money has to come from somewhere, then a classic liberal would consider that as that money has to be extracted against someone else's will (ultimately under threat of use of force - if you refuse to pay tax, then eventually government will use force to throw you in prison and keep you there).  Hence classic liberalism is strongly anti-socialist, in practice at the opposite end of the spectrum from hippies.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

CPTPP text and National Interest Analysis released for public scrutiny
Posted 21-Feb-2018 19:43


Foodstuffs to trial digitised shopping trolleys
Posted 21-Feb-2018 18:27


2018: The year of zero-login, smart cars & the biometrics of things
Posted 21-Feb-2018 18:25


Intel reimagines data centre storage with new 3D NAND SSDs
Posted 16-Feb-2018 15:21


Ground-breaking business programme begins in Hamilton
Posted 16-Feb-2018 10:18


Government to continue search for first Chief Technology Officer
Posted 12-Feb-2018 20:30


Time to take Appleā€™s iPad Pro seriously
Posted 12-Feb-2018 16:54


New Fujifilm X-A5 brings selfie features to mirrorless camera
Posted 9-Feb-2018 09:12


D-Link ANZ expands connected smart home with new HD Wi-Fi cameras
Posted 9-Feb-2018 09:01


Dragon Professional for Mac V6: Near perfect dictation
Posted 9-Feb-2018 08:26


OPPO announces R11s with claims to be the picture perfect smartphone
Posted 2-Feb-2018 13:28


Vocus Communications wins a place on the TaaS panel
Posted 26-Jan-2018 15:16


SwipedOn raises $1 million capital
Posted 26-Jan-2018 15:15


Slingshot offers unlimited gigabit fibre for under a ton
Posted 25-Jan-2018 13:51


Spark doubles down on wireless broadband
Posted 24-Jan-2018 15:44



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.