Written By: - Date published: 10:03 am, October 24th, 2008 - 132 comments
Categories: election 2008, helen clark, labour, national, sexism, The Standard line -
Tags: The Standard line
So, you’re talking with someone about politics and they say something really dumb and wrong and you know it’s wrong but you don’t have the arguments and facts at your fingertips to make a decisive point. That’s where our election series, The Standard line, comes in. The info you need in bite-size form. Today: photoshop
Points:
- First off, it’s so saddening that this is even a topic people are discussing. Governing is important business; too important for us to spend the campaign discussing use of photoshop instead of what the politicians would actually do if they were in government.
- Clark is not heavily photoshopped in her hoarding picture. Sure, as you would expect they’ve chosen a picture to make her look her best. She’s well made-up and the lighting is good and there have been some minor touch-ups, just as there are on Key’s images.
- If you’ve actually seen Clark in person close-up, you’ll know she projects the same radiance as is evident in the picture (see, for example, Janet’s comments on meeting Clark for the first time).
- These attacks are ony being made on Clark because she is a woman, a strong and confident one whose leadership and political skills has seen her defeat a number of conservative men.
- Like Lockwood Smith’s racist comments, Bill English’s homophobia, this sexism reveals how much National’s worldview is stuck in the past.
- It speaks volumes that National and their supporters would rather spread sexist smears than discuss serious issues
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
It is quite possible then, Akldnut, that he did the Christian thing: in the face of certain death he may have put his values on hold (those values being his own life and the love of his wife and kids), and placed the drowning woman’s life above it all — which is indeed altruistic. Which is indeed a selfless act… and an immoral one.
“Immoral?!” I hear you cry?
Morality is the act of distinguishing between right and wrong, good and bad. If he jumped in because God, or the baby Jesus, or the chinless twat at the local church insisted that, as a moral imperative, he sacrifice himself to others, that was a very, very bad choice.
The moment he selflessly exchanged something of lesser value (the life of the woman) for a greater value (his own life and the love of his family) he became a sacrifice for a doctrine that insists you have no right to exist for your own sake; that your life is less important than another’s; that the life of a total stranger who you care less about is more important than that of your wife or kids for whom you selfishly adore. It’s the doctrine that places you and everything you selfishly value about the needs of your fellow man — that subordinates the individual to the greater good of the group.
And that is the very point where Christianity and socialism meet. Altruism is evil. And so are your doctrines.
But clearly none of you has the skill to argue this point, so until the seemingly reasonable and well-mannered Anita comes back I’m taking a break from this inane and ignorant onslaught.
Miss Bookie, you’re the one who wants to regurgitate the old argument; don’t be a lazy sod and do your own bidding. But there’s no need to find the link — I can successfully re-stitch you right here.
IIRC you advocate a system of a social democracy:
1) where the majority of society gets to chose their government,
2) that allows their government to determine “how much or how little” private property may be confiscated from individuals,
3) of a sum that remains eternally uncapped and may in fact, at some future date, include ALL of an individual’s property.
Therefore, when the society elected the government that confiscated the Indian lands they were — in accordance with your system — well within their rights as a majority rule.
I, on the other hand, advocate a system of a constitutional democracy:
1) where the majority of society gets to chose their government,
2) that limits the power of the government to the role of protecting the private property rights of every individual,
3) that allows minimal taxation to cover the cost of protecting those rights — and not a penny more — eternally enshrined and codified in a future-proofed constitution.
This system would have ensured the Chickawa were still farming their lands today.
* 1) where the majority of society gets to *choose their government,
A final point, Pascal: in a truly civilised society funding the system of government and the necessary public utilities would be funded by voluntary taxation. And before you all cry, “Pipe dreams!” remember this fact: America didn’t even have income tax until 1862. Prior to that they existed solely on tariffs, and as the above article attests, a system of rational selfishness: if they needed a firehouse, the local businesses pulled their money and built one to protect their own property. No council busybody, or social democrat, needed to twist their arms.
It’s ironic that the Arabs are now showing the West how it should work: Dubai is virtually tax free and its economy is booming beyond belief, and while rent and some services like schooling are expensive, at least their citizens get to choose how their money is be spent. And I can tell you first hand that it ain’t on a massive bureaucracy.
Ahh… Hookah dreams, hey.
* … at least their citizens get to choose how their money is *spent.
Bring back the edit function, BOFH!
[lprent: It is, but seems to fail on some systems. The joys of ajax. At this point it will have to wait until after the election.]
* … It’s the doctrine that places you and everything you selfishly value *above the needs of your fellow man…
What can I say… it’s late, and one against nine is exhausting.
chicken. That wasn’t what I was saying at all. You don’t understand that my talk about constructed rights isn’t normative, but descriptive. Even in your fantsy libertarian world, the rights you would have, if they were worth anything, would be constructed. But you think rights are written in the fabric of the universe, which is what you have in common with Christian Dominionists and the like.
run along.
G: “DumbDeeDub, I go and provide you with a quote from your beloved Karl to show you socialism’s key focus, contrary to your cry of “bollocks!’, is indeed on those in need, and that’s your sad little retort? I know it’s hard when you’re shown up among your peers, but really, can’t you come back with more than ad hominem?”
Taking a SINGLE sentance and calling it ‘socialisms focus’ is just infantile and self-serving.
What is obvious to everyone here G’tard is that you read a lot to confirm your predjucies in the inimitable style of the late son of one A. Schickelgruber. ie.
“A man who possesses the art of correct reading will, in studying any book, magazine, or pamphlet, instinctively and immediately perceive everything which in his opinion is worth permanently remembering, either because it is suited to his purpose or generally worth knowing….”
I find it most amusing that almost all of you social Darwinists point to the future by revisiting the ugly foolishness of the past?!! Thatcher was always harping on about how great and ‘moral’ things were in Victorian Britain??!! Hell, yeah! Let’s have the WORKHOUSE back again and the magical days when ‘charity’ from the rich will rescue the poor???!! Didn’t work then won’t work now.
And now you dribbling on about how great things were done pre-1862 in America without income tax….. Easy to not have income tax when you have the ultimate in free labour though eh? Heard of SLAVERY? Actually income tax was introduced in the US to pay for the war to end slavery. Do you think businesses would nave ‘banded together’ to pay for that to happen? I doubt it.
Don’t mess with G. He saw a wittle wideo on teh interwebz so he knows what he’s talking about.
Such a silly boy. The best part is that these “discussions” are archived for eternity so even when he grows up he’ll be able to taste the bitter sting of his own stupidity with a quick google.
The ball, people, not the player — Jesus you guys are useless at debating. Stop getting so emotional and engage the brain for once. If you’ve got one.
Anita…?!
[BTW, Pascal, this time round I cut to the chase, arrived at the essential construct of your preferred political system, and compared it with my own so that everyone can plainly see only one of us advocated the protection of private property for the Chickawa. Correct me if I'm wrong, otherwise I'll take it you got 'pwnd' (god I hate that juvenile phrase) yet again.]
Pat. if you think the major issue of this campaign is a picture of Helen Cark’s teeth you’re pathetic.
So why did Clark do it?
Nah G. The Chickawa were a sideshow. The debate was whether or not property rights are constructed by societies. You keep confusing this meta point about what all rights are, with what set of rights I would advocate for.
But for the record, I said that under my prefered system the Chickawa would have their property rights recognised, as would the nomadic tribes that you considered to be subhuman savages.
No, as I recall, the Chickawa became the defining case in point in a discussion regarding rights (specifically property rights), that crystalised and distinguished our respective systems.
But whatever the case may be, if what you say is true, Pascal, HOW would your system have protected the Chickawa exactly? By your own acknowledgement society retains the right to determine “how much or how little property one may keep”, which in the case of the Chickawa (and the nomads for that matter) was precisely none.
Same way you would have numbbrain.
By constructing and obeying a different set of rules around property than that followed by the US gov’t at that time. Bearing in mind that that US gov’t was the closest example you could come up with to show Libertarianism existing in practice.
You really are quite boring aren’t you G. You’ve got nothing new after all this time, just the same old strawmen.
CU
Stop contradicting yourself… you said, and I think I accurately quote you, “society retains the right to determine how much or how little property a citizen may keep.”
Where exactly is the mechanism in your system that would have stopped society from determining to confiscate all the Chickawa land?
Pwnd!! … run baby, run.
God, I remember kicking your arse over this months ago G. Go and find the old thread and re-read it a little, you’re boring.
captcha: Athens Society (you know, the one they constructed that said that free men had a vote? Where was the mechanism that allowed them to excude slaves? Oh, wait…)
You should all know by now there’s no arguing with libertarians. They’re impervious to reason (these are the geniuses who came up with the Freedom Ship) and quick to claim personal victory.
Pwnd!! run baby, run.
This is the level that G operates at. In other threads he is shown to be wrong time and again on factual matters (and deeply unpleasant in his values, such as referring to a group of women as “silly bitches”).
So G prefers content free “philosophical” debates where he can stick to rock hard stupid statements until the end of time. Once everyone else gets sick of making their fingers bleed trying to reason with the unreasonable, G autostimulates his own little ego with a juvenile ejaculation such as the above. But he uses a smiley, so I guess that’s all OK.
If someone uses ‘owned’ freely (10:46) then pretends to hate ‘pwnd’ you know they’re affecting a style to pretend they’re not someone else.
SP, that freedom ship must be getting ready to sail soon, maybe G should book a berth and see how well his ideas work in practice.
In his limited defence I started with the pwnge, but I used it in a metaphor, punning on the ambiguity of the 1337 spelling. He just, well, whatever it is he does.
I think it involves those masks with glases and a moustache and chains and whips and things
Here’s Pascal’s actual quote: “An individual is entitled to own whatever property the property rights recognised by the society she is a part of, determine is hers by constructing a system of property rights society is setting the rules regarding how much it can interfere. It may be a lot, in may be very little.’
Then she says the Chickawa farmer was unjustly robbed of his land.
And yet the principle of the system she advocates expressly permits society to “interfere” with as much property as it likes, which in the case of the Chickawa was ALL of it.
“Pwnd” was her expression, not mine. I hijacked it for the purposes of making a point. “Contradiction exposed” is more my style.
I see you blog hosts have nothing intelligent to add. Keep up the mediocrity fellas.
“I see you blog hosts have nothing intelligent to add. Keep up the mediocrity fellas.
Ahh, I’m sure they have more interesting things to do than re-hash a debate such as this. You have no idea how boring it can be – similar to debating with flat-earthers and creationists, except with far less humour.
When did Pascal’s Bookie confirm they were a “she”, G? I must have missed it.
G
October 28, 2008 at 10:36 am
“The ball, people, not the player — Jesus you guys are useless at debating. Stop getting so emotional and engage the brain for once. If you’ve got one.”
I played ‘the ball’, mate… and, I might add to stretch your analogy to breaking point, put one right past you and into the net!
All you libs seem think you are intellectual gods – the supermen of your dreamed of meritocracy – and you’re happy to argue theory until the cows come home – but the moment a real human issue comes up you have NOTHING to say and your arguments are shown for what they are; “…a tale told by an idiot, full of wind and fury…” etc etc
MP: “Ahh, I’m sure they have more interesting things to do than re-hash a debate such as this. You have no idea how boring it can be – similar to debating with flat-earthers and creationists, except with far less humour.”
Well it’s infinitely more intelligent than rehashing stale ad hominem, Matt. The “debating with a libertarian is like arguing with a flat-earther” has been leveled at me at least half a dozen times since I’ve been here. And for your information, Pascal and I haven’t actually completed the last argument on property rights and the Chickawa — she flounced at the very same point in the debate the last time, when her contradiction was outed.
And as for you, DumbDeeDub, you were playing your own little game of footsies, taking the point completely out of context and then topping it off by plagiarising Pascal’s ad hominem.
Unintelligent and unoriginal.
I was discussing the nature of morality and how it pertains to our respective political philosophies, and all you clowns can do is regurgitate epithets. Grow the fuck up.