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!
Repeat after G:
“We’re all individuals.
We care only for our own self gratification.
Anything you feel for another individual must be ignored.
No deviation from these truths shall be deemed acceptable.
We all came to these conclusions independently of course as we are all individuals.”
Whatever.
You know what G? I think I’m starting to understand why it seems to you that there’s no such thing as society.
Here’s Wiki’s definition, Anita, which I take to be the general view: “Altruism is selfless concern for the welfare of others… Altruism is the opposite of selfishness… Altruism can be distinguished from feelings of duty… Pure altruism is giving without regard to reward or the benefits of recognition.
Altruism is an ethical doctrine that holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve, or benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self interest. Auguste Comte’s version of altruism calls for living for the sake of others. One who holds to either of these ethics is known as an “altruist.”
You are not obligated to give the old neighbour your eggs. You sound like a good sort, Anita. I would be most surprised if you performed this act of charity as a lifeless automaton, doing it because you HAD to do it; doing it without bringing some sense of personal joy; doing because you could care less whether she enjoyed your eggs or not.
Felix,
Add:
‘Where I ended up in the world is a result of my own doing and nobody elses’
or:
‘Anyone can be a CEO like me if they put their mind to it’
Chris G, you’re clearly too thick to get your head around any philosophical discussion, but let me try at least and enlighten you as to my political leanings. The true political spectrum isn’t Left-wing state vs Right-wing state, because ultimately you’re stuck with a large dose of state with varying degrees of liberalism, conservatism and totalitarianism. So here’s another paradigm with which you may not be familiar:
TOTALITARIAN GOVERNMENT — MODERATE GOVERNMENT — LIMITED GOVERNMENT — NO GOVERNMENT/ANARCHY. I am neither “right” nor “left”. Once and for all, for the umpteenth time, I subscribe to a limited constitutional government.
[lprent: Personally I just wish you wouldn't shout - especially slogans. Hurts my eyes as I scan over comments]
Oh… and I’m an anti-theist.
Felix, you too seem to be a rather confused young man.
“We’re all individuals.
Correct
We care only for our own self gratification.
You’re describing a hedonist; I have family and friends for whom I care deeply and most selfishly.
Anything you feel for another individual must be ignored.
Who said?
No deviation from these truths shall be deemed acceptable.
Them’s your rules, mate — not mine.
We all came to these conclusions independently of course…
Them’s your delusions, mate — not mine.
… as we are all individuals.”
Correct
And for even more clarity: there is no such thing or unit called society which is an entity that is apart from or superior to the sum of its individual members. Society is simply a great number of people who live together in the same place, who in their daily lives deal with one another.
zOMG!!!1
G lives in a 2 dimensional world not just a one dimensional one!!
You think you’ve got a handle on these amazing concepts that no-one else understands but seriously, it’s like watching a chimp get excited about learning to tie shoelaces.
BZZZZZ… and you’re outta the game, Felix. I’ve noticed that you reach for the unsubstantiated epithet — or ad hominem — faster than anyone else on this blog.
‘I subscribe to a limited constitutional government’ Sound like an ACT supporter to me as thats one of their catch-phrases. They are right wing, that is fairly obvious and they would quickly admit that themselves.
Your paradigm reduces any political philosophy to a one dimensional factor based on the size of the government. So essentially we all voting according to how large we want a government? Thats what your saying. Thats revolutionary thinking G, publish that.
Finally: Care to elaborate on your statement “Politics without sound principle and a moral philosophy is a very blunt instrument indeed. I’m sick of being bludgeoned by Nanny” Why are left wingers (or as you call them big government supporters) without sound principle and moral philosophy, and more importantly Why and How do you, conversely, have So much?
Your one of those ACT supporters I hate talking to. Get Michael Tabachnik back here, he’s an ACT guy who I respect and actually made me think that if your an ACT person your not deranged, you make me think otherwise.
G, know your sources. I just viewed the wikipedia article you’re
“Altruism can be distinguished from feelings of loyalty and duty. Altruism focuses on a motivation to help others or a want to do good without reward, while duty focuses on a moral obligation towards a specific individual (for example, God, a king), a specific organization (for example, a government), or an abstract concept (for example, patriotism etc). Some individuals may feel both altruism and duty, while others may not.”
The article directly contradicts your assertion that altruism is based on a sense moral obligation.
Anita is therefore clearly displaying some level of altruism by giving up her eggs to help her elderly neighbour. She is driven by the motivation to do something that she believes to be good. She may or may not feel a sense of duty, but that’s really not for you to say.
In your own example, paying of taxes by the filthy rich (or at least grubby rich) is in no way due to altruism. It is legally required due to policies that place a high value on equity within our economy. It is not due to the wealthy feeling deeply motivated to help out the poor/unemployed/sick at no personal gain. Neither is it due to moral obligation (a feeling of duty) even, but more due to the fact that you like living in New Zealand and would rather obey the law and lose some of your income to tax than leave for a country like Kyrgyzstan which has a flat tax rate but not many of the benefits you enjoy here in New Zealand.
Actually, perhaps you should do that, Homie G. Some Kyrgyz probably wouldn’t mind your mindless blathering, given that English is not widely spoken there. And less people would argue with you than on here. I think I have just solved all your problems. But I am not being altruistic. Because I am driven by the selfish wish that you would just f off.
Ghere it is from the ass’s mouth: “From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need.’ And there is no such entity as society: there is only a collection of individuals, which socialism attempts to bind into an amorphous collective.
[Edit for clarity: ... there is no such entity as society: there is only a collection of individuals, which socialism attempts to bind into a singular unit.]
I think your definition’s wrong, just an interpretation by a pommie bitch who screwed over her own people too. An entity can be a group or body of people in any perspective. ie NZ is its own entity compared to the rest of the world which would make our Kiwi society a different entity to that of say UK, Israel, Egypt……
or should we be bound by laws made in their countries? I think not!
That makes our society an entity unto itself, hence society = entity
Among certain circles ACT is otherwise known as the Association of Compulsion Touters. They are right-wing semi-socialists; they are NOT libertarian. Though they do get points for supporting small government, self-governance, self-responsibility and eliminating some elements of Nanny from our households.
To be crystal clear, Chris, a government SHOULD be one-dimensional: its sole and proper role is to protect the rights of EVERY individual — not just the poor and disenfranchised — or for that matter just the rich. It needn’t be any bigger than it has to be, and if we had a constitution that prevented the mob-rule situation we’re suffering today where the majority can and does dictate how the minority lives their lives, then it wouldn’t really matter who was in power: it would simply be a matter of electing a competent and honest manager to oversee and protect the constitution.
It’s not just the Left that bludgeon; the Right do it too. They’re both operating without morality for reasons I’ve already stated above: altruism, the doctrine which sacrifices the individual to society and the state, is utterly immoral.
“My” system is moral because in it EVERYONE is equal in the eyes of the law, and EVERYONE has the right, as a consenting adult, to deal with other consenting adults in any way they choose — PROVIDED they respect the individual rights of others. In other words, live and let live.
This is my last sound off because I’ve decided its not worth talking to you for much longer.
“a government SHOULD be one-dimensional: its sole and proper role is to protect the rights of EVERY individual”
Firstly, I said your paradigm was one-dimensional and how ridiculous it was to assume we should vote based purely on how big we want a govt to be. Secondly: How can protecting the rights of every individual be one-dimensional. A collection of individuals is so multi-faceted it never ceases to amaze me and simply banging out a constitution is unlikely to address everyones concerns.
“It needn’t be any bigger than it has to be”
How do we know when its too big? When your worried about how much taxes your paying?
Your idealistic, ill give you points for trying, but good luck with convincing anyone how your libertarian ideas will work.
To Libertarians: You assume that limited government will lead to freedom for everyone and the ‘shackles that once held you’ (ie. govt) will be removed and no one will be in a position of power above you ‘bludgeoning you’(Do they do it for fun?). Well, G, Mans pursuit of POWER will never stop and you are a fool to think that if you remove government you wont have someone in Power or searching for Power above you. To get me to my point: You limit government, you increase the power of the next most capable people of gaining a hold of power and those who will always seek it: Corporations. The drive for more money and power are often synonmous. Someone will always want to ‘bludgeon you’ as you put it.
You will have more of tripe like the Channel One Network in America. Where schools who dont get enough Govt funding in search of money have to take money from corporations so long as the kids have to sit and watch ads.
Cos you like wiki so much: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_One_News
Plus, I’m convinced your a Christian Right nutter.
This is my last sound off because I’ve decided its not worth talking to you for much longer.
“a government SHOULD be one-dimensional: its sole and proper role is to protect the rights of EVERY individual”
Firstly, I said your paradigm was one-dimensional and how ridiculous it was to assume we should vote based purely on how big we want a govt to be. Secondly: How can protecting the rights of every individual be one-dimensional. A collection of individuals is so multi-faceted it never ceases to amaze me and simply banging out a constitution is unlikely to address everyones concerns.
“It needn’t be any bigger than it has to be”
How do we know when its too big? When your worried about how much taxes your paying?
Your idealistic, ill give you points for trying, but good luck with convincing anyone how your libertarian ideas will work.
To Libertarians: You assume that limited government will lead to freedom for everyone and the ‘shackles that once held you’ (ie. govt) will be removed and no one will be in a position of power above you ‘bludgeoning you’(Do they do it for fun?). Well, G, Mans pursuit of POWER will never stop and you are a fool to think that if you remove government you wont have someone in Power or searching for Power above you. To get me to my point: You limit government, you increase the power of the next most capable people of gaining a hold of power and those who will always seek it: Corporations. The drive for more money and power are often synonmous. Someone will always want to ‘bludgeon you’ as you put it.
You will have more of tripe like the Channel One Network in America. Where schools who dont get enough Govt funding in search of money have to take money from corporations so long as the kids have to sit and watch ads.
Cos you like wiki so much: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_One_News
Thanks for your consideration, Daffodil. I can see how you might think this contradicts, but it’s really a question of semantics.
Ethically they’re one in the same. An obligation and a duty (which you’ll find side-by-side in any thesaurus) is in this case simply a distinction made for the one who’s demanding you sacrifice your self to society. Above I quoted directly from Wiki: “Altruism is an ethical doctrine that holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve, or benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self interest.”
If, as I said, joy is a value to Anita, then she has received her ‘reward’ and it’s not altruistic. If she received no value like happiness or joy from performing this act of charity, imagine how deflated the oldie would feel: would the oldie rather receive the eggs as a generous gift that the giver ENJOYED giving? Or an act of pure pity where the giver could care less and felt absolutely NOTHING for it?
Let’s be clear here: the act of caring (and loving) is a self-ish act — it is your SELF that feels something to care about. To care self-less-ly is a contradiction in terms: it is to say, “I, my self, cares without the self.” The only thing that acts to care without a “self” is a pre-programmed robot.
Now let’s look at what would happen if Anita received no reward from the oldie. Say she delivers the eggs and gets NOTHING from the exchange — just a completely blank look. Would that bring a smile to Anita’s face? My guess is that it wouldn’t. Anita would be giving, and giving, and giving, without knowing how the oldie felt about it. Now THAT would be a thankless task, and one would have to question WHY Anita was doing it. If the oldie was autistic and felt no gratitude for the eggs because of her unfortunate infliction, one would hope that Anita would still get some sense of her own goodness, a little pump to her self-esteem (another value) from doing the charitable work.
If NEITHER of them felt anything from the gift, if neither could care less if the oldie starved to death, then you have something that is entirely neutral — the act cannot be said to have ANY moral value whatsoever.
Akidnut:
entity |ˈentitÄ“| — noun ( pl. -ties) — a thing with distinct and independent existence.
Indeed New Zealand, the country, is a distinct landmass that exists independently of another landmass like say Australia; as an individual is a distinct human-mass that exists entirely independently of his neighbour. If you lump one neighbour in with another, then what you’re trying to sell me here is that the world populace is one great big entity… la-la-la, Kumbaya… and pop goes your argument that we’re an entirely different entity to that of say UK, Israel etc. Of course if the Islamofascists had their way…
The thing you socialists are trying to do is eliminate the importance of individuality, and individual rights; you want to sacrifice the individual to the whole just as the Communists and National Socialists attempted to do last century with murderous consequences.
Stop it. I am not your brother’s keeper. I am not a number. I am a free man.
G – I find your robot analogy of selfless to be incorrect, there are such acts by humans as I’m sure families of many, many selfless heroes who have passed would agree ie The gentleman from Whangarei who died trying to help a woman in Auckland a 2-3 weeks ago. (a selfless act doing what he though was right)
G: No duty. It is interesting providing a channel for ideas to propagate in. There is a certain morbid amusement in being a BOFH when required.
Besides it is allowing me to keep certain skills up to scratch.
G:
“Stop it. I am not your brother’s keeper. I am not a number. I am a free man.”
No. You are just a pompous knob with delusions of intellectual superiority!
G – entity |ˈentitÄ“| — noun ( pl. -ties) — a thing with distinct and independent existence.
Our society is quite distinctive and independent of many other countries societies, the distinctness is quite glaring when comparing to some asian or middlle eastern countries. IMO Kiwi society is an entity quite seperate and independent of others.
G:
Wrong. You just have a limited frame of reference. A better (as in more predicable) way to view landmasses geologically is as the scum of lighter materials (SiAl) floating on a mobile bed of denser SiMa. The system is made mobile by being powered by a very large nuclear fission reactor with the energy generated by the radioactive decay chain of various isotopes (mainly U238).
That is easy to see even if you just look at recent history (well for a earth scientist as I originally trained in) over the last 65Myears at NZ’s deformation at the junction of a couple of ocean floor plates. The landmasses are irrelevant, it is the seafloor that is active on both landmasses.
Any other flawed analogies you’d like to share? Thats ok – keep them to yourself… They’re sure to have the same limited reference frames
G: “Stop it. I am not your brother’s keeper. I am not a number. I am a free man.”
You won’t be needing those roads that my taxes paid for then eh?
ROFLMAS @ Killinginthenameof
Hey G-tard,
Why don’t you save everyone some time and post a link to that interminably long thread where I so generously attempted to a) understand your sorry arse, and b) educate it. I have no fear of others reading our little conversation, after all, you got pwnd more often than a junky’s watch.
Have you worked out whether the 5th amendment to the US constitution establishes, protects, or extinguishes private property rights as you understand them yet? That was something you had some problem with as I recall.
And while I’m here, and I live to serve, ‘semantics’ is the study of meaning. When people say the difference is merely semantic they usually don’t know what they are talking about. Sentences with different semantic content, mean different things. That’s kind of the point.
You also might want to brush up on ‘category errors’ and (still) ‘begging the question’.
There may be a test, but I doubt it, ‘be nice to a libertarian’ month is long over.
Whatever G.
You remind me of Rodney Hide. You both operate at a mental level of an amoeba yet expect people to believe you’re smart just because you’re impressed by the tripe you regurgitate. Quit pretending you’re holding a torch of special political wisdom – it’s stuff most of us rejected years ago because it fails to withstand any serious analysis.
When you grow up and out of your wittle wibertawian fantasy maybe you’ll find people who take you seriously enough to have a serious discussion about it. Until then who can be bothered? So you read a bunch of shit on teh interwebz that appeals to your selfish nature. Big deal G, not everyone else is so easily impressed.
But you cling tight to the fantasy that you’re smarter than everyone else as you cry yourself to sleep alone.
Well you can disagree all you like, Aikidnut, but I’m telling you this: the only way the gentlemen from Whangarei would have jumped into save the total stranger and done it absolutely and entirely selflessly, would be if he didn’t care about himself, or indeed his own existence.
I can’t be sure, but I’m guessing he wasn’t suicidal.
The moment he was concerned enough about her to take the calculated risk of jumping in to save her, he was motivated by the rationally selfish emotion of caring. Or it may be that he couldn’t have lived with himself if he didn’t at least try to save her, in which case he was motivated by the rationally selfish protection of his own self-esteem. Then again, he may have imagined himself a hero and was motivated by the rationally selfish emotion of pride.
My guess is that somewhere at the core of that courageous gentleman from Whangarei was a man fully aware of him-self, with a full accounting of the value of his own life, and the dangerous action, the calculated risk, he was about to take.
The self-less man, one who has little regard for himself, for his own life, who ranks all human beings above himself, is a sad man without a shred of self-esteem. Generally they’re not the courageous type, though they may do something that would be incorrectly perceived as brave, when in fact he really had nothing to lose.
G: No duty. It is interesting providing a channel for ideas to propagate in. There is a certain morbid amusement in being a BOFH when required… Besides it is allowing me to keep certain skills up to scratch.
Well I’m happy for you Iprent, and I’m glad to see you’re getting a selfish return on your investment.
What the hell is a BOFH?
“What the hell is a BOFH?”
Is google broken?
Results 1 – 10 of about 1,260,000 for BOFH. (0.18 seconds)
nope.
G you moron – this man was a devout christian and family man. You should be fucking ashamed of what you’ve just written. you clown
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?
Iprent: “Wrong. You just have a limited frame of reference. A better (as in more predicable) way to view landmasses geologically is as the scum of lighter materials (SiAl) floating on a mobile bed of denser SiMa. The system is made mobile by being powered by a very large nuclear fission reactor with the energy generated by the radioactive decay chain of various isotopes (mainly U238).
That is easy to see even if you just look at recent history (well for a earth scientist as I originally trained in) over the last 65Myears at NZ’s deformation at the junction of a couple of ocean floor plates. The landmasses are irrelevant, it is the seafloor that is active on both landmasses.”
DumbDeeDub: “No. You are just a pompous knob with delusions of intellectual superiority!”
Killing, I paid my taxes too. What’s your point?
As I recall Miss Bookie, I owned your ass when I successfully established that your support of a society who has the power to vote in a government that can do what the hell it likes with a percentage of your property (up to and including 100% of it if it so chooses), means that according to you, people like the Chickawa Indian were ‘righty’ confiscated of their land.
Ironic, don’t you think, that it’s the libertarian who fights to protect their property rights — not you “love and caring” lefties.
Post the link then chump. Seeing how you think you even touched me, you should be proud. You didn’t successfully establish shit. Which is kind of like how Libertarianism has never been establshed anywhere, ever, outside of fevered imaginations. Reality fucks with that shit too hard.
That strawman drivelis what you kept saying though, even though you couldn’t even start on establishing it. Basically you don’t understand what it means when someone says that ‘Property rights are constructed by societies’. You (still) seem to think that that means those rights don’t exist, when in fact, it is the only way those rights can exist. This is all shown in that thread, so let’s not do it over. No mulligans I’m afraid.
And you again misrepresent what I was saying completely. I also said that if I was in charge the Chickawa would not have had their land confiscated. Unlike you though, I also recognised that the nomadic tribes also had property rights, something your libertarian foolishness couldn’t cope with. You considered them subhuman svages, IIRC.