Open mike 30/07/2021

59 comments on “Open mike 30/07/2021 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Robert Guyton 1

   30 July 2021 at 6:36 am

   Sacred futurism.

   "Sacred futurism views all these stories as powerfully interactive. Our ability to embrace uncertainty with imagination, compassion, and hope affects our role in the unfolding universal story. Joanna Macy has called this the time of the “Great Turning,” and invokes the powerful metaphor of three rivers: “Now, in our time, these three rivers—anguish for our world, scientific breakthroughs, and ancestral teachings—flow together” to help us face the unknown.1 Transformation tends to converge what we consider disparate: birth and death, old and new, despair and hope. Tension between opposites creates the warp and woof of life’s mysteries. Nature requires us to tolerate this tension, and as we learn to flow with it, we discover the essence of transformation."

   https://realitysandwich.com/sacred-futurism-radical-enchantment/
   “Berry and Swimme describe the tendency for all systems in the universe to generate a cascade of ever-expanding complexity through symmetry-breaking differentiation. As this cascading process continues, higher orders of increasing complexity self-organize, and new systems with new capacities emerge. Although the universe’s complexity expands in a dazzling kaleidoscopic of patterns, everything remains related, interconnected, and in deep communion—the sacred fundament of cosmic evolution.”

   “In the 1960s, Buckminster Fuller gave a powerful call to the world: “We are called to be the architects of the future, not its victims.” To this he added an equally powerful and provocative challenge: “[to] make the world work for 100 percent of humanity in the shortest possible time through spontaneous cooperation without ecological damage or disadvantage to anyone.”
   • RedLogix 1.1

     30 July 2021 at 8:07 am

     Just last night I was having a similar – parallel if you like – conversation with our lead process engineer, surrounded by a heavy industrial plant the very antithesis of a food forest. Yet the motivations were not a million miles apart. The crucial theme I would underscore from your comment is the idea that we all bring something of value to the table because of our differences.

     This is the reason why I so vociferously resist the idea that the world is 'overpopulated'. By contrast I see each individual, each unique with their own experience and identity – as also being connected at a level we have yet to properly appreciate. Let me try an analogy (as risky as they are around here).

     A child growing up has a sense of belonging to a family, but until perhaps their late adolescence or early adulthood, lacks the ability to understand the emotional, social and economic bonds that brought and held their family together. If I extend the this to the idea that humanity collectively sits on the cusp of a similar transition into early adulthood – then perhaps we are also just beginning to be able to properly conceive of how all humans – indeed all life at some level – shares an unbreakable bond.

     Once that idea becomes more visible to more of us – then I suggest that finding common purpose, common will and action will come more easily to us.
     • Robert Guyton 1.1.1

       30 July 2021 at 8:40 am

       "This is the reason why I so vociferously resist the idea that the world is 'overpopulated'. By contrast I see each individual, each unique with their own experience and identity – as also being connected at a level we have yet to properly appreciate. "

       It's as if you accessed my mind and harvested one of my primary thoughts 🙂
       • mikesh 1.1.1.1

         30 July 2021 at 9:17 am

         If each individual is "unique with their own experience and identity – as also being connected at a level we have yet to properly appreciate", it does not follow that the world is not overpopulated.
         • RedLogix 1.1.1.1.1

           30 July 2021 at 9:52 am

           I'll indulge your little derail this far:

           1. Take some time to look around this source. Contrary to what many people still imagine the peak rate of human population growth was way back in 1968, We've been slowing down ever since.
           2. It's my view that much environmental pessimism is rooted in a Malthusian bigotry, the extremes of which were openly shared by the Unabomber, the ChCh and El Paso terrorists. They all took the time to explain in writing that they believed overpopulation, mass immigration from poorer countries would destroy the environment. Not nice company – no matter how much you would repudiate their acts, there isn’t much daylight between your motivations.
           3. It turns out that the more people there are, the more capacity we have to find and use resources more intelligently. The Simon-Erlich wager was perhaps the first time this apparently paradoxical idea was formalised:

           And so, as you listen to the purveyors of doom on the television and the radio, and read apocalyptic predictions of humanity’s future on Twitter and in the newspapers, bear in mind that with every hungry mouth comes a pair of hands and a brain capable of thought, planning, and innovation.

           But none of this was my primary point – that not only does each individual bring an arithmetic increment to the capacity of the human species – but when we understand our common bond and essential unity, our ability to work toward a common purpose expands exponentially.
           • Brigid 1.1.1.1.1.1

             30 July 2021 at 10:58 am

             Those are awesome websites. Thanks
           • Gabby 1.1.1.1.1.2

             30 July 2021 at 11:07 am

             Did you just set up a wee racist man made of straw there?

             [Take a long weekend off for your ongoing needling here with your dimwitted one liners that add nothing to (the) debate – Incognito]
             • Incognito …

               30 July 2021 at 11:15 am

               See my Moderation note @ 11:07 am.
             • Incognito …

               30 July 2021 at 11:22 am

               Ok, you want to debate? Debate then. Make it work or have a break!
             • Incognito …

               30 July 2021 at 12:20 pm

               I’m waiting, but maybe I should stop holding my breath?

               As usual, you were very quick to respond and criticize my Moderation note. I gave you the opportunity to step up to the mike and all we hear is crickets.

               So, how about it? Are you going to contribute to the debate or continue with your needling and one-liners, and spit the dummy and walk away when you don’t get your way?
               • Gabby …

                 30 July 2021 at 4:39 pm

                 You know your lack of selfawareness is quite breathtaking, you of the snarky little comments and what have to be deliberate missings of the point (because who could really be that dense?). You didn't notice the sly little implication that anyone claiming overpopulation is a bigot and against immigration?
                 • Incognito …

                   30 July 2021 at 4:49 pm

                   Hi dipshit, you’re barking up the wrong tree here and wasting (my) time. You want to contribute to debate and respond to the comment by RedLogix @ 1.1.1.1.1 then go ahead, state your case, make your argument, and debate. This is the reason why I lifted your 3-day ban. Instead, you come here barking at me like an angry chihuahua, which makes me regret my reversal. If you’re too stupid to understand that you now have an opportunity to redeem yourself here then maybe I should put you back in the rabbit hole so you can whine to the Easter Bunny again.
                   • Gabby …

                     30 July 2021 at 5:42 pm

                     Of course if I suggested you were a wankstain of the first water you'd act all offended and pontificate on how unacceptable personal abuse is, wouldn't you. Did you have a go at the selfproclaimed logical one over his illogical suggestion that lesser mortals disagreeing with him must be morally reprehensible? The fuck you did.
                   • Incognito []

                     30 July 2021 at 6:06 pm

                     Hi ‘gain, dipshit. Ignoring your fuckwittery, for the moment, are you going to add some discussion to the thread in response to RedLogix @ 1.1.1.1.1, which you seemed to be keen on? Or were you merely pretending again? Just give me a clear signal, so that we can move on from here, one way or another, thanks. Please don’t tell me I have to do the donkey work for you and enter the discussion with RedLogix about your pet peeve, whatever that is, just because you want me to. That would be an utterly ridiculously stupid thing to even think. If you have an argument to make to a commenter about their comment then fucking make it and engage in a conversation with that commenter and possibly others. Surely, even you can manage that? You’re heading for the self-martyr cliff and you know it; in your case, it may be a free-fall into the bottomless pit of oblivion. Now, let’s see how fucking stupid you can really be. BTW, you have typed more words in your last couple of utterly wasteful comments than in ages; you must be exhausted after all that mental effort and may want to give it a break before you break down and end up in tears. Just saying, as your friend.
                   • Gabby …

                     30 July 2021 at 8:52 pm

                     Well, friend, my critique of the poster was pretty clear. The aspect I engaged with, which you seem to be wilfully ignoring, is his preemptive claim that disagreement with his view, ie environmental pessimism, would be due to a Malthusian bigotry, ie a moral shortcoming. Do you think that is a valid way to present an argument? I think it's an arrogant assumption of ones own moral superiority. As to the point he seems to have appropriated, that infinite population growth is infinitely good, it's nonsense for reasons of available space. Several other posters have pointed this out. Wtf d'you need that spelt out?
                   • Incognito []

                     30 July 2021 at 9:50 pm

                     Oooohhh, is that what you meant when you wrote the following one-liner and for which I gave you a long weekend off?

                     Did you just set up a wee racist man made of straw there?

                     No, that was not clear, but I had forgotten to update my Mind-Reader app, sorry.

                     Subsequently, you wrote this, which ended up in the Trash folder because you were already having the long weekend off:

                     That’s a bullshit mod note and you know it. The guy equated belief in overpopulation with racism.

                     Therefore, I thought I’d give you a second chance, to explain and discuss, with Redlogix, which you almost blew and you’re still not completely out of the woods.

                     Indeed, several others have engaged with RedLogix in a constructive way although not all agreed with him. I may have missed anybody pointing out an issue with racism in his comment to which you were replying, but I take your word for it. Overall, a good discussion thread, mostly; the only ‘outlier’ appears to be you.

                     Now, if you could address your comments to the right person, i.e., to RedLogix instead of to me, that would be grand. It may have escaped you, but I’m actually not participating in this thread, as such, and I have no intention doing so, even though you apparently want me to do this so badly that it hurts.

                     I would like to draw a line under this, not waste one more word on it, and move on, especially tonight 🙂
           • pat 1.1.1.1.1.3

             30 July 2021 at 11:30 am

             Which all ignores the exponential function….until such time as population growth turns negative any growth rate is problematic.

             1968 growth rate 2.09%…additional annual population 73 million

             2020 growth rate 1.05%…additional annual population 81 million

             but even more apparent…

             Population density 1968 24 people per km2

             Population density 2020 52 people per km2

             A mere 50 years

             And co-operation goes out the window when theres a dearth of resources
             • RedLogix …

               30 July 2021 at 11:55 am

               Again spend more time with the source I linked to – all of the developed nations now have almost zero or negative population growth rates. (And this may well be nothing to celebrate in fact.) The only place on earth where growth is not project to slow down this century is Africa. Entirely because it’s the least developed of all the continents.

               Secondly while humanity uses roughly half the ice-free land available, our move toward urbanisation means that we actually live on about 3% of it at far higher densities than your numbers suggest.

               As agriculture becomes more efficient (we've more than halved the amount of land use per head since 1960) – we're seeing in the developed world land revert back to forest and wilderness.

               And finally, as the Simon-Erlich wager so vividly demonstrated, if resources were getting more scarce their price would be increasing over time. With few exceptions – they're not.

               None of this means there is no shortage of specific environmental issues that demand attention, but the idea that their solution lies in a genocidal reduction of human population – however you think it might be achieved – is bunk.
               • pat …

                 30 July 2021 at 12:09 pm

                 I have spent time on that resource (and others like it) and it dosnt change the exponential function (as much as you wish that it would)

                 Yes we are only capable of using a small portion of the worlds land mass and we are increasingly reducing that which is useful…and that only makes those numbers even worse than they appear at first glance.

                 Using a monetary measure for anything is a fools errand when 'money' is a human construct which is manipulated for political ends.

                 Finally, you once again fall back on the bogus argument that anyone who points out the logical fallacy in your position is demanding humanicide dosnt change the reality of the situation…..the world is grossly overpopulated (human)
                 • mikesh …

                   30 July 2021 at 4:33 pm

                   We don't have to resort to genocide. Nature will accomplish that for us.
                   • pat …

                     30 July 2021 at 4:37 pm

                     something some appear unwilling to understand
                   • arkie …

                     30 July 2021 at 4:50 pm

                     The effects of this natural 'genocide' will be disproportionally felt by those least equipped to deal with it or enact the system change needed to mitigate it; those that are already the poorest globally. It's incumbent on those of us not in that cohort to actually do what is necessary to prevent this and not wash our hands of the responsibility to help fellow humans.
           • Drowsy M. Kram 1.1.1.1.1.4

             30 July 2021 at 11:43 am

             …when we understand our common bond and essential unity, our [the human species] ability to work toward a common purpose expands exponentially.

             Can't wait for that expanding global human population (and so our expanding ability to work toward a common purpose) to implement fixes for anthropogenic global warming and ecosystem collapse.

             It's theoretically possible that the corrosive effects of civilisation on spaceship Earth's life-support systems are due to insufficient human crew. Maybe another billion is just what the doctor ordered for that "common purpose" to 'gel' (between, say, China, India and the slighly less populous combined developed world) in time to produce sustainable solutions for our many well-established problems – time will tell.

             Engineers’ Solutions to Scientists’ Warnings
             A Climate Healers Position Paper

             In the original Scientists Warning to Humanity issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists in 1992, the authors noted,

             “We, the undersigned, senior members of the world’s scientific community, hereby warn all humanity of what lies ahead. A great change in our stewardship of the earth and the life on it is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated.”

             Twenty five years after this original warning, a Second Notice was published in Nature magazine in 2017, signed by 15,372 scientists from 184 nations. This Second Notice looked back at the original warning and evaluated the human response by exploring the available time-series data. It pointed out that with the exception of stabilizing the stratospheric ozone layer, humanity had failed to make sufficient progress in generally solving these foreseen global ecological challenges, and alarmingly, most of them were getting far worse.
           • arkie 1.1.1.1.1.5

             30 July 2021 at 12:16 pm

             I agree entirely that overpopulation is a Malthusian myth. Humanity has the capacity and ability to feed and house the current world population plus 20-40%. As to why we don’t manage to do it currently, despite that surplus of resources? That is a matter of ideologies.
             Some would say that the current incarnation of international capitalism is demonstrating its inability to adequately distribute those resources, and is therefore woefully ill equipped to lead us through the global crises that we all face; climate change.
             Overconsumption is perhaps the best way we could frame the ‘overpopulation’ arguments that are based around observations of the growing and unjust inequity across humanity?
             • pat …

               30 July 2021 at 12:26 pm

               Those that study it dont agree with you

               "As the nations gear up for a World Population Conference to be held in Cairo next September, a Cornell professor has given them something to talk about. He says the number of human beings, currently 5.6 billion and rising, really should be somewhere around 2 billion."

               https://donellameadows.org/archives/the-most-undiscussable-topic-in-the-world/
               • arkie …

                 30 July 2021 at 12:49 pm

                 So all the empty houses and food waste do not demonstrate the wasted resources brought about by profit motives?
                 That food and shelter going to waste isn’t a sign of overconsumption rather than overpopulation problem?
                 It is a dangerous territory to frame it as such precisely because it can be used to support ideologies that devalue human lives; to oppose that, humanity should be working so that everyone has health, home, food and education. Working towards that can begin with a voluntary reduction in consumption by those of us with the privilege to, wouldn’t you agree?
                 • pat …

                   30 July 2021 at 12:59 pm

                   No one is denying there is overconsumption or waste (misallocation) of resources but that is not the issue…the issue is what level of human population is sustainable on this planet and what is the optimal level of consumption that enables that…those that study complex systems have determined it is considerably less than current and the limits are hard real limits of water, land fertility, biodiversity and pollution (waste)….everything else is subservient to that (in the long run).

                   Humans have had decades to make co-operative progress on these issues and have not only failed but made things worse.
                   • arkie …

                     30 July 2021 at 1:22 pm

                     And I do not disagree with any of what you're saying either, other than the framing as 'overpopulation'. Instead, it is lack of political will and the lack of ability for the vast majority of us to do anything to mitigate the excesses of capitalism; the machinery of the world is subservient to profit motive and status quo rather than real sustainability and the systemic change that is necessary to reach that. I think as peoples needs are met they can be trusted to reduce consumption in myriad of ways, one of which is whether they have children. This is observable already.
                 • pat …

                   30 July 2021 at 1:30 pm

                   You can blame capitalism (or any other ism) but it dosnt change the fact that the world cannot support approaching 8 billion human beings for any length of time and therefore that number will reduce…we can engage with that process or not.
                   • arkie …

                     30 July 2021 at 2:34 pm

                     How does expressing the overconsumption of the finite carrying capacity of the earth as overpopulation engage with the process then? Overpopulation has the vaguely sinister solution in the elimination of people rather than the systemic, and not solely individual change that is needed to alter the path that we are on. While nature itself might provide the 'solution' for us, I would prefer to blame that on human systems failing those people who will inevitably hit hardest, instead of potentially blaming individuals for their own existence or seeing widespread death as nature 'healing itself'. Those are misanthropic and unhelpful views.
                   • pat …

                     30 July 2021 at 2:48 pm

                     You may choose to take that intent of meaning from the term 'overpopulation' it dosnt mean it is there.

                     I would suggest it is difficult to address something if its existence is denied or it is misidentified…..as it has proven to be.
                   • mikesh …

                     30 July 2021 at 4:44 pm

                     We are barely managing to feed the population we have; and while we could no doubt distribute food more fairly, and/or change our diet to allow for the production of more calories from our existing resources, the difficulties seem to indicate overpopulation.
                   • arkie …

                     30 July 2021 at 6:02 pm

                     There are vast food surpluses in the developed world, as well as unoccupied houses, it really is a matter of redistribution, but that aside, okay, we've done it, we diagnose earth with overpopulation; now what is the next step following that declaration?
                   • pat …

                     30 July 2021 at 6:22 pm

                     What is the next step?….one would expect some sort of population planning (incorporating the necessary distribution) a la the Paris accord on climate….of course what is needed and what eventuates are likely two very different things, much like Paris.(indeed it could be incorporated)

                     So much for the increased capacity of numbers to problem solve.
                   • arkie …

                     30 July 2021 at 6:43 pm

                     'Population planning' may rub up against the UN Declaration of Human Rights and reproductive freedoms, but that aside, this planning entails what? Something akin the One Child policy? How is this enforced and by whom?
                   • pat …

                     30 July 2021 at 7:02 pm

                     I dont think im likely to be called on to write a population strategy for the world but Im quite sure there would be plenty capable ….as to how its implemented and enforced…how are any global treaties enacted and enforced?
                   • arkie …

                     30 July 2021 at 8:05 pm

                     There comes to mind a vast number of actions and solutions to our overconsumption and distribution problems, and many have written widely about these, the global productivity and transport networks already exist.

                     The actions and solutions to overpopulation come to mind too, but throughout history these have been inflicted on the powerless, and IMO inaction to prevent 'nature' from 'solving it for us' is similarly inexcusable.
                   • pat …

                     30 July 2021 at 11:56 pm

                     "From a biophysical perspective, human civilisation is a non-equilibrium thermodynamic or dissipative system that must maintain a minimum level of available exergy to avoid entropic decay and a yet higher level to permit physical growth [4]. From the ecological economics perspective, it can be viewed as an ‘economic superorganism’ that seeks to maximise energy consumption through self-organisation at a large scale [1], or the ‘megamachine’ driven to ever greater size and scope by the enhancing feedbacks of capital accumulation [5]. The Earth System is, however, finite in spatial extent, energetic capacity and overall complexity, and the ongoing expansion of human endeavours has and will continue to result in the Earth System’s limits being exceeded and the system being moved out of equilibrium. The Earth System (characterised as ‘Gaia’) is a self-regulating mechanism [6], and observable shifts in the behaviour of Earth Systems may be manifestations of balancing feedbacks resulting from the strong and growing perturbation from human activities. These may have the potential to fundamentally undermine the agriculture-based civilisation that has flourished in benign Holocene conditions."

                     https://www.interest.co.nz/sites/default/files/embedded_images/sustainability-13-08161.pdf
           • Ad 1.1.1.1.1.6

             30 July 2021 at 1:15 pm

             Lovely links cheers
           • Subliminal 1.1.1.1.1.7

             30 July 2021 at 3:00 pm

             I don't find much to agree with you Redlogix but absolutely with you 100% on this one. The best cure for any tendency towards overpopulation is to raise standards of living and increase access to free education. Its easy as that.
           • mikesh 1.1.1.1.1.8

             30 July 2021 at 4:06 pm

             [I’ll indulge your little derail this far:]

             I was not expressing an opinion as to whether the world is or is not overpopulated, but merely pointing out a non sequitur. However, our capacity to feed the the current world population seems to depend on the use of synthetic fertilizers; and, according to a recent article in New Scientist, such use seems to be upsetting nature's nitrogen balance, and will eventually lead to disaster.
2. Sanctuary 2

   30 July 2021 at 7:10 am

   Tell me they are a drug cheat without saying they are a drug cheat lol

   https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/olympics/300365971/rowings-surprise-package-the-main-obstacle-to-emma-twiggs-olympic-redemption
   • Pete 2.1

     30 July 2021 at 4:43 pm

     I wonder if it is that any announcer saying "Russia" instead of "Russian Olympic Committee" will be sacked?

     The farce of letting the Russians, drug cheats, compete but by punishing them hideously by saying they must be called the "Russian Olympic Committee" should be unbelievable. It isn't though.

     What chance some small country would have been accorded the same treatment if they'd done the same as the Russians?

     The stuff article is a good one. Well done to Ian Anderson for the research.
3. Ad 3

   30 July 2021 at 7:28 am

   Huge shoutout to Portia Woodman and team for going deep into a 21 point hill, and still coming back with the win.

   Outstanding mental toughness there team.
4. left for dead 4

   30 July 2021 at 7:29 am

   Incognito

   My question is why does the curser go back to an already filled in space,with out pointing out the that most go to comment,tap away and hit sent

   [TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]
   
5. aom 5

   30 July 2021 at 7:50 am

   Oh dear – how sad especially for farmers whose plight was the original motivation when a NZ Government looked after the country ahead of the plunderers.

   The answer would have been NZ's own shipping company as was established under the Kirk Government to prevent such problems.

   Yes – undone by Roger Douglas! No doubt his mates did well out of the deal!
   • alwyn 5.1

     30 July 2021 at 9:13 am

     What is this about? What has upset the farmers that causes this comment today?
   • aom 5.2

     30 July 2021 at 11:12 am

     Sorry, didn't check that the link had attached.

     https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/125900465/pressure-ramps-up-for-nz-to-charter-its-own-ships
6. tc 6

   30 July 2021 at 8:09 am

   All eyes on NSW's bugled lockdown and a premier who is economical with the truth, a federal treasurer suggesting they'll cause a recession and a PM who's not even bothered reprimanding his own consirapacy – anti vaxxing colleagues.

   Covid doesn't care and appears to have grasped the opportunity. Epic leadership failure from the ‘blue light’ state.
7. Patricia Bremner 7

   30 July 2021 at 10:42 am

   They have as predicted, brought in the army and hefty fines. Time is ticking. Their neighbour, QLD has closed their border and is terrified of the renegades who sneak across this huge borderline between the states.
   • tc 7.1

     30 July 2021 at 11:15 am

     QLD should be worried, it's got George Christiansen (one of barnaby's lot) attending rallies and whipping up the Qanon'ers etc in Mackay last weekend.

     There's a t-shirt about with Barnaby's 'I don't care about melbourne' comment on it dated and attributed to him.

     These are members of federal parliament ! Pretty sad.
   • KSaysHi 7.2

     30 July 2021 at 3:23 pm

     Military on the streets of Sydney sounds like a terrible idea. Surely this will only heighten the fear and mistrust. smh.
8. pat 8

   30 July 2021 at 11:11 am

   "The fortunes of the two classes; the securely housed and the others, are intimately connected. The solution is not to rant simplistically that more supply is the only answer, or to hanker after a capital gains tax. The horse has bolted. We need to use the resources in housing more intelligently.

   From an economics perspective the current situation has resulted in a gross misallocation of resources and a sharply divided society in which we are gifting the rich and their children a
   reason not to contribute through useful paid work. Upgrading the family home to a mansion is a highly tax advantaged way to accumulate wealth. Developers have an incentive to produce new builds for the investor class, who can avoid the recent demand-side impositions. All these activities divert scarce building resources away from providing basic housing for low- income New Zealanders."

   https://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/111527/susan-st-john

   An excellent piece by Susan St John that identifies the heart of the problem and offers a potential solution.
   • Molly 8.1

     30 July 2021 at 2:45 pm

     Thanks, pat. I enjoy reading Susan St Johns contributions.

     I don't know if I agree with her solution, but she does eloquently state the problem – and why it is such a problem. Many media articles limit the housing issue to "I/We/My kids can't afford to buy a house", when we are housing many children in motels or worse. "Carring" them instead of caring.
9. KSaysHi 9

   30 July 2021 at 11:51 am

   Good call on criminalising gay conversion therapy! Common sense and well overdue.

   "Conversion practices have no place in modern New Zealand. They are based on the false belief that any person's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression is broken and in need of fixing.

   "Health professionals, religious leaders and human rights advocates here and overseas have spoken out against these practices as harmful and having the potential to perpetuate prejudice, discrimination and abuse towards members of rainbow communities."
   • Patricia Bremner 9.1

     30 July 2021 at 1:29 pm

     +1 KSaysHi
     • Forget now 9.1.1

       30 July 2021 at 3:20 pm

       +2

       Though there doesn't seem to be much room for historical redress, at least those injured by being force-fed the poisoned chalice of self hatred will be better able to seek treatment. It is weird talking to Leitis about the exorcisms trusted community leaders convinced their families to subject them to as children. Plural Leitis!

       https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/448077/conversion-therapy-widely-discredited-by-science-faafoi
   • Molly 9.2

     31 July 2021 at 8:40 am

     Proviso: As long as appropriate counselling and support services for children presenting with body and gender dysphoria does not fall under this large umbrella.

     I'm concerned this particular law change may have long-term consequences for children if clumsily applied. (Which on reflection, probably makes it a bad law change made with good intent.)
10. Ad 10

    30 July 2021 at 3:41 pm

    Having lived with a national-level rower I give huge respect to the 24-7 dedication that New Zealand rowers have done for 12 years to get to this point.

    Huge well done both men and women's teams.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS