• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 10:42
CEST 16:42
KST 23:42
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Serral wins EWC 202522Tournament Spotlight: FEL Cracow 20259Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202580RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15
Community News
[BSL 2025] H2 - Team Wars, Weeklies & SB Ladder2EWC 2025 - Replay Pack2Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced35BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams10Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0
StarCraft 2
General
Serral wins EWC 2025 Greatest Players of All Time: 2025 Update #1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 EWC 2025 - Replay Pack
Tourneys
Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) TaeJa vs Creator Bo7 SC Evo Showmatch Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $10,000 live event Esports World Cup 2025
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 484 Magnetic Pull Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune
Brood War
General
BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Shield Battery Server New Patch Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced Help: rep cant save [G] Progamer Settings
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL] Non-Korean Championship - Final weekend [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China CSL Xiamen International Invitational
Strategy
Does 1 second matter in StarCraft? Simple Questions, Simple Answers Muta micro map competition [G] Mineral Boosting
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Total Annihilation Server - TAForever [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine UK Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
INnoVation Fan Club SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Gtx660 graphics card replacement Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
TeamLiquid Team Shirt On Sale The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Eight Anniversary as a TL…
Mizenhauer
Flash @ Namkraft Laddernet …
namkraft
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 644 users

New Zealand politics - Page 3

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 Next All
Swede
Profile Joined June 2010
New Zealand853 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-08-21 08:47:56
August 21 2011 08:37 GMT
#41
I'll probably vote for the Greens based on them being comparatively non-corrupt and their seemingly greater moral integrity. People rule out the Greens because of stereotypes (e.g. they're all hippies and stoners), and yet Gareth Hughes was virtually the only politician with the slightest clue about the recent changes to piracy laws, and Sue Bradford spearheaded one of the most controversial and important changes in social policy in the last few years (removal of reasonable force as a defence for child abuse).

The Greens have their issues, sure, but I feel like they're a lot more focused than National or Labour who's goals basically just seem to be 'do whatever it takes to stay in power'.

Oh, and the OP's analysis of the Greens is shit. Having subscribed to their newsletter I happen to know that they do A LOT of what they claim to for the environment. Or at least do their best to, which is all you can expect.

Also, 'socialist party that agrees with everything Labour does' is actually not a legitimate criticism of the party, if that's what it was intended to be. Firstly, it's wrong, secondly, so what if Labour and Greens sometimes (or even often) agree? Are parties not allowed to agree on things? You should be criticising the policies they agree on (if you find them disagreeable), not the fact that they agree.
Kiwifruit
Profile Joined August 2011
New Zealand130 Posts
August 21 2011 08:45 GMT
#42
On August 21 2011 17:37 Swede wrote:
I'll probably vote for the Greens based on them being comparatively non-corrupt and their seemingly greater moral integrity. People rule out the Greens because of stereotypes (e.g. they're all hippies and stoners), and yet Gareth Hughes was virtually the only politician with the slightest clue about the recent changes to piracy laws, and Sue Bradford spearheaded one of the most controversial and important changes in social policy in the last few years (removal of reasonable force as a defence for child abuse).

The Greens have their issues, sure, but I feel like they're a lot more focused than National or Labour who's goals basically just seem to be 'do whatever it takes to stay in power'.


Interesting perspective you have there, that in your opinion it was previously OK to commit child abuse if you used reasonable force. I was not aware of this previous law which said that reasonable force was a defence for child abuse. I had thought that child abuse was against the law, but thanks to you I am now informed that previously it was OK to commit child abuse so long as you used reasonable force.
"You take the good things from every different discipline, use what works, and you throw the rest away" - Bruce Lee, Atheist.
Nancial
Profile Joined July 2011
197 Posts
August 21 2011 08:48 GMT
#43
I don't live in australia, but im a libertarian too.
Swede
Profile Joined June 2010
New Zealand853 Posts
August 21 2011 08:54 GMT
#44
On August 21 2011 17:45 Kiwifruit wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 21 2011 17:37 Swede wrote:
I'll probably vote for the Greens based on them being comparatively non-corrupt and their seemingly greater moral integrity. People rule out the Greens because of stereotypes (e.g. they're all hippies and stoners), and yet Gareth Hughes was virtually the only politician with the slightest clue about the recent changes to piracy laws, and Sue Bradford spearheaded one of the most controversial and important changes in social policy in the last few years (removal of reasonable force as a defense for child abuse).

The Greens have their issues, sure, but I feel like they're a lot more focused than National or Labour who's goals basically just seem to be 'do whatever it takes to stay in power'.


Interesting perspective you have there, that in your opinion it was previously OK to commit child abuse if you used reasonable force. I was not aware of this previous law which said that reasonable force was a defense for child abuse. I had thought that child abuse was against the law, but thanks to you I am now informed that previously it was OK to commit child abuse so long as you used reasonable force.


I'm not sure what this post is about. It seems like a really misguided attempt at being an a-hole, but I can't be certain. Clarification?
Dali.
Profile Joined June 2010
New Zealand689 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-08-21 08:56:06
August 21 2011 08:55 GMT
#45
On August 21 2011 17:45 Kiwifruit wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 21 2011 17:37 Swede wrote:
I'll probably vote for the Greens based on them being comparatively non-corrupt and their seemingly greater moral integrity. People rule out the Greens because of stereotypes (e.g. they're all hippies and stoners), and yet Gareth Hughes was virtually the only politician with the slightest clue about the recent changes to piracy laws, and Sue Bradford spearheaded one of the most controversial and important changes in social policy in the last few years (removal of reasonable force as a defence for child abuse).

The Greens have their issues, sure, but I feel like they're a lot more focused than National or Labour who's goals basically just seem to be 'do whatever it takes to stay in power'.


Interesting perspective you have there,that in your opinion it was previously OK to commit child abuse if you used reasonable force. I was not aware of this previous law which said that reasonable force was a defence for child abuse. I had thought that child abuse was against the law, but thanks to you I am now informed that previously it was OK to commit child abuse so long as you used reasonable force.


Its called a loophole. My mother worked with underprivileged kids at a kindergarten who would come in with bruises obviously NOT from childsplay and there was nothing that could be done because CYFS knew there was almost no chance of convicting them unless the situation escalated.

Don't act so smug. Its pathetic, especially when at the expense of abused children.
CaptainCharisma
Profile Joined February 2011
New Zealand808 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-08-21 08:57:52
August 21 2011 08:55 GMT
#46
On August 21 2011 17:21 Kiwifruit wrote:

Well I don't know whether Hone had officially established the Mana Party yet when the OP was created. He was kicked out of the Maori Party and classified as an independent for a while. Also if you read the OP's post directly below his OP you will note that he said he forgot to include the Maori Party. If you are offended by this, then perhaps you need to lighten your sensitivities.


The Mana party was established in May of this year (see my second link above) and Hone Harawira had won the Te Tai Tokerau by-election by the 25th June according to this article (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5193349/Hone-Harawira-wins-Te-Tai-Tokerau-by-election-slashes-margin). In any event, it was clear some two months ago that Mana would have a seat in Parliament leading up to the next election.

Again, you seem to have a problem with this. I did read that the OP said he forgot the Maori party, as I made clear in the first line of my first post in this thread. I'm not 'offended' by this, I said the OP was shambolic in general. This was driven by the lack of two current parties in the poll and the overall bad quality of the OP in general (e.g. the loaded party descriptions).

On August 21 2011 17:21 Kiwifruit wrote:
And the point I am making is this - regardless of whether you or the OP are correct, your attitude is ass and if you actually made an effort to explain why you support the Greens rather than just attacking the PM's personality without any substance to back up your claims then maybe people would think about it and agree with you. Because of your negative attitude, and if such an attitude is common amongst Green campaigners, then they're hardly going to earn any support because people will feel unwelcome and threatened by such an abusive demeanour.


Don't deflect it to the OP, you, personally, were wrong about Harawira. Also, I think the reason you think my attitude is 'ass' is because I am wiping the floor with you and you don't like it. That last part of your response was just garbage rhetoric.

Stay tuned, an in-depth post from me explaining exactly why I like the Greens may well be forthcoming!

Also, your response to Swede was complete bullshit and I will explain why later when I have the time.

Edit: On the smacking part, the people above have given good responses too. <3

EG.DeMuslim --- EG.ThorZain --- TSL.Polt --- LGIMMvp --- Mill.fOrGG --- EG.Stephano --- EGiNcontroL --- EG.IdrA --- MarineKing.Prime --- SlayerS_MMA --- Liquid'Hero
Kiwifruit
Profile Joined August 2011
New Zealand130 Posts
August 21 2011 08:56 GMT
#47
On August 21 2011 17:54 Swede wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 21 2011 17:45 Kiwifruit wrote:
On August 21 2011 17:37 Swede wrote:
I'll probably vote for the Greens based on them being comparatively non-corrupt and their seemingly greater moral integrity. People rule out the Greens because of stereotypes (e.g. they're all hippies and stoners), and yet Gareth Hughes was virtually the only politician with the slightest clue about the recent changes to piracy laws, and Sue Bradford spearheaded one of the most controversial and important changes in social policy in the last few years (removal of reasonable force as a defense for child abuse).

The Greens have their issues, sure, but I feel like they're a lot more focused than National or Labour who's goals basically just seem to be 'do whatever it takes to stay in power'.


Interesting perspective you have there, that in your opinion it was previously OK to commit child abuse if you used reasonable force. I was not aware of this previous law which said that reasonable force was a defense for child abuse. I had thought that child abuse was against the law, but thanks to you I am now informed that previously it was OK to commit child abuse so long as you used reasonable force.


I'm not sure what this post is about. It seems like a really misguided attempt at being an a-hole, but I can't be certain. Clarification?


It would have been better if you were honest and said that the change in social policy was to remove reasonable force as a defence for child discipline/spanking. To label it child abuse is saying any parent who smacked their children previously was 'abusing' them, or 'committing child abuse'. In that case, I could go around telling people that because my mum and dad used to smack me I am a victim of child abuse, and that I was abused as a child. Are you also a victim of child abuse?
"You take the good things from every different discipline, use what works, and you throw the rest away" - Bruce Lee, Atheist.
Kiwifruit
Profile Joined August 2011
New Zealand130 Posts
August 21 2011 08:58 GMT
#48
On August 21 2011 17:55 Dali. wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 21 2011 17:45 Kiwifruit wrote:
On August 21 2011 17:37 Swede wrote:
I'll probably vote for the Greens based on them being comparatively non-corrupt and their seemingly greater moral integrity. People rule out the Greens because of stereotypes (e.g. they're all hippies and stoners), and yet Gareth Hughes was virtually the only politician with the slightest clue about the recent changes to piracy laws, and Sue Bradford spearheaded one of the most controversial and important changes in social policy in the last few years (removal of reasonable force as a defence for child abuse).

The Greens have their issues, sure, but I feel like they're a lot more focused than National or Labour who's goals basically just seem to be 'do whatever it takes to stay in power'.


Interesting perspective you have there,that in your opinion it was previously OK to commit child abuse if you used reasonable force. I was not aware of this previous law which said that reasonable force was a defence for child abuse. I had thought that child abuse was against the law, but thanks to you I am now informed that previously it was OK to commit child abuse so long as you used reasonable force.


Its called a loophole. My mother worked with underprivileged kids at a kindergarten who would come in with bruises obviously NOT from childsplay and there was nothing that could be done because CYFS knew there was almost no chance of convicting them unless the situation escalated.

Don't act so smug. Its pathetic, especially when at the expense of abused children.


I likewise volunteered with Barnardos in 2008. I agree that it was a loophole. I disagree with Swede's labeling of parents who used to smack their kids as child abusers.
"You take the good things from every different discipline, use what works, and you throw the rest away" - Bruce Lee, Atheist.
sickle
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
New Zealand656 Posts
August 21 2011 08:58 GMT
#49
On August 21 2011 17:56 Kiwifruit wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 21 2011 17:54 Swede wrote:
On August 21 2011 17:45 Kiwifruit wrote:
On August 21 2011 17:37 Swede wrote:
I'll probably vote for the Greens based on them being comparatively non-corrupt and their seemingly greater moral integrity. People rule out the Greens because of stereotypes (e.g. they're all hippies and stoners), and yet Gareth Hughes was virtually the only politician with the slightest clue about the recent changes to piracy laws, and Sue Bradford spearheaded one of the most controversial and important changes in social policy in the last few years (removal of reasonable force as a defense for child abuse).

The Greens have their issues, sure, but I feel like they're a lot more focused than National or Labour who's goals basically just seem to be 'do whatever it takes to stay in power'.


Interesting perspective you have there, that in your opinion it was previously OK to commit child abuse if you used reasonable force. I was not aware of this previous law which said that reasonable force was a defense for child abuse. I had thought that child abuse was against the law, but thanks to you I am now informed that previously it was OK to commit child abuse so long as you used reasonable force.


I'm not sure what this post is about. It seems like a really misguided attempt at being an a-hole, but I can't be certain. Clarification?


It would have been better if you were honest and said that the change in social policy was to remove reasonable force as a defence for child discipline/spanking. To label it child abuse is saying any parent who smacked their children previously was 'abusing' them, or 'committing child abuse'. In that case, I could go around telling people that because my mum and dad used to smack me I am a victim of child abuse, and that I was abused as a child. Are you also a victim of child abuse?


The change in the law was completely overblown by the media. In the current law you can still smack your children as long as its reasonable.
Dali.
Profile Joined June 2010
New Zealand689 Posts
August 21 2011 09:01 GMT
#50
On August 21 2011 17:56 Kiwifruit wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 21 2011 17:54 Swede wrote:
On August 21 2011 17:45 Kiwifruit wrote:
On August 21 2011 17:37 Swede wrote:
I'll probably vote for the Greens based on them being comparatively non-corrupt and their seemingly greater moral integrity. People rule out the Greens because of stereotypes (e.g. they're all hippies and stoners), and yet Gareth Hughes was virtually the only politician with the slightest clue about the recent changes to piracy laws, and Sue Bradford spearheaded one of the most controversial and important changes in social policy in the last few years (removal of reasonable force as a defense for child abuse).

The Greens have their issues, sure, but I feel like they're a lot more focused than National or Labour who's goals basically just seem to be 'do whatever it takes to stay in power'.


Interesting perspective you have there, that in your opinion it was previously OK to commit child abuse if you used reasonable force. I was not aware of this previous law which said that reasonable force was a defense for child abuse. I had thought that child abuse was against the law, but thanks to you I am now informed that previously it was OK to commit child abuse so long as you used reasonable force.


I'm not sure what this post is about. It seems like a really misguided attempt at being an a-hole, but I can't be certain. Clarification?


It would have been better if you were honest and said that the change in social policy was to remove reasonable force as a defence for child discipline/spanking. To label it child abuse is saying any parent who smacked their children previously was 'abusing' them, or 'committing child abuse'. In that case, I could go around telling people that because my mum and dad used to smack me I am a victim of child abuse, and that I was abused as a child. Are you also a victim of child abuse?


Considering the nature of physical discipline - used to show right from wrong for those unable to make rational decisions for themselves - should we strike mentally disabled peoples of all ages to teach them? Assuming they fit into the above criteria?
Kiwifruit
Profile Joined August 2011
New Zealand130 Posts
August 21 2011 09:02 GMT
#51
On August 21 2011 17:55 CaptainCharisma wrote:
Don't deflect it to the OP, you, personally, were wrong about Harawira. Also, I think the reason you think my attitude is 'ass' is because I am wiping the floor with you and you don't like it. That last part of your response was just garbage rhetoric.


Actually you are not wiping the floor, all you are doing is making ad hominum attacks on the parties you disagree with. The OP (currently banned) stated that what he had written was his opinion and that people were free to disagree. You on the other hand simply come in here attacking John Key as being weak (not giving examples), state that the majority who voted for him resulted in the worst election result as if it were a self-explaining statement of fact as to why it was the worst result, and discard ACT's policies as being bullshit and hardline populist without explaining what the flaws of those policies are. You are the one who is full of garbage rhetoric and you are unable to see that from a different perspective nothing you say is actually explaining everything - rather all you are doing is attacking personalities without providing facts or substance.
"You take the good things from every different discipline, use what works, and you throw the rest away" - Bruce Lee, Atheist.
Kiwifruit
Profile Joined August 2011
New Zealand130 Posts
August 21 2011 09:05 GMT
#52
On August 21 2011 18:01 Dali. wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 21 2011 17:56 Kiwifruit wrote:
On August 21 2011 17:54 Swede wrote:
On August 21 2011 17:45 Kiwifruit wrote:
On August 21 2011 17:37 Swede wrote:
I'll probably vote for the Greens based on them being comparatively non-corrupt and their seemingly greater moral integrity. People rule out the Greens because of stereotypes (e.g. they're all hippies and stoners), and yet Gareth Hughes was virtually the only politician with the slightest clue about the recent changes to piracy laws, and Sue Bradford spearheaded one of the most controversial and important changes in social policy in the last few years (removal of reasonable force as a defense for child abuse).

The Greens have their issues, sure, but I feel like they're a lot more focused than National or Labour who's goals basically just seem to be 'do whatever it takes to stay in power'.


Interesting perspective you have there, that in your opinion it was previously OK to commit child abuse if you used reasonable force. I was not aware of this previous law which said that reasonable force was a defense for child abuse. I had thought that child abuse was against the law, but thanks to you I am now informed that previously it was OK to commit child abuse so long as you used reasonable force.


I'm not sure what this post is about. It seems like a really misguided attempt at being an a-hole, but I can't be certain. Clarification?


It would have been better if you were honest and said that the change in social policy was to remove reasonable force as a defence for child discipline/spanking. To label it child abuse is saying any parent who smacked their children previously was 'abusing' them, or 'committing child abuse'. In that case, I could go around telling people that because my mum and dad used to smack me I am a victim of child abuse, and that I was abused as a child. Are you also a victim of child abuse?


Considering the nature of physical discipline - used to show right from wrong for those unable to make rational decisions for themselves - should we strike mentally disabled peoples of all ages to teach them? Assuming they fit into the above criteria?


The question should be asked - can the mentally disabled person learn from being smacked?

If you have a child who runs across the road because he is generally rowdy, and trying to talk rationale and logic into why it is dangerous is not working and he continues to do that - then a smack may work in showing him that doing it is a naughty thing. It is a temporary measure to prevent him from running around on the road until he is mature enough to understand why.

If a mentally disabled person, no matter how you explained it to them, could not understand that concept - perhaps it would be necessary (what's the alternative - to tie them up in a cell)? If smacking them once showed them running across the road with lots of traffic is dangerous and prevents them from doing it, then it is for their benefit.

You are effectively arguing that the parents who smacked their children were doing it because they were committing child abuse. In some cases that was the case, but the way Swede put it - labeling all parents as committing child abuse - is ridiculous.
"You take the good things from every different discipline, use what works, and you throw the rest away" - Bruce Lee, Atheist.
Swede
Profile Joined June 2010
New Zealand853 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-08-21 09:11:41
August 21 2011 09:05 GMT
#53
On August 21 2011 17:56 Kiwifruit wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 21 2011 17:54 Swede wrote:
On August 21 2011 17:45 Kiwifruit wrote:
On August 21 2011 17:37 Swede wrote:
I'll probably vote for the Greens based on them being comparatively non-corrupt and their seemingly greater moral integrity. People rule out the Greens because of stereotypes (e.g. they're all hippies and stoners), and yet Gareth Hughes was virtually the only politician with the slightest clue about the recent changes to piracy laws, and Sue Bradford spearheaded one of the most controversial and important changes in social policy in the last few years (removal of reasonable force as a defense for child abuse).

The Greens have their issues, sure, but I feel like they're a lot more focused than National or Labour who's goals basically just seem to be 'do whatever it takes to stay in power'.


Interesting perspective you have there, that in your opinion it was previously OK to commit child abuse if you used reasonable force. I was not aware of this previous law which said that reasonable force was a defense for child abuse. I had thought that child abuse was against the law, but thanks to you I am now informed that previously it was OK to commit child abuse so long as you used reasonable force.


I'm not sure what this post is about. It seems like a really misguided attempt at being an a-hole, but I can't be certain. Clarification?


It would have been better if you were honest and said that the change in social policy was to remove reasonable force as a defence for child discipline/spanking. To label it child abuse is saying any parent who smacked their children previously was 'abusing' them, or 'committing child abuse'. In that case, I could go around telling people that because my mum and dad used to smack me I am a victim of child abuse, and that I was abused as a child. Are you also a victim of child abuse?


No, because the change in social policy wasn't for that purpose. It was changed because people were abusing their children and getting away with it. I'm not talking about people smacking. I'm talking about parents beating their children. I'm not for smacking, but I would certainly never call it child abuse... The fact is that smacking had to be banned in order to remove the ambiguity between these two things (smacking and child abuse). It's no great loss to any decent parent.

My original description was completely accurate.

As a side note, I was smacked as a child and I hold nothing against my parents for disciplining me in that way.

I disagree with Swede's labeling of parents who used to smack their kids as child abusers.


Not what I said at all. It's a shame that your argument relies on misrepresenting peoples' opinions.

If you have a child who runs across the road because he is generally rowdy, and trying to talk rationale and logic into why it is dangerous is not working and he continues to do that - then a smack may work in showing him that doing it is a naughty thing. It is a temporary measure to prevent him from running around on the road until he is mature enough to understand why.


The problem with this argument (which seems to come up so often) is that a smack is not the only alternative to rationale and logic. For example, you could tell your child that he/she will not be allowed out of the house until he/she stops running onto the road. You might not agree with this example (and fair enough, I'm no parent and I just thought of it now), but the point is that there are viable alternatives that are just as effective if not mores so.
CaptainCharisma
Profile Joined February 2011
New Zealand808 Posts
August 21 2011 09:10 GMT
#54
On August 21 2011 18:02 Kiwifruit wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 21 2011 17:55 CaptainCharisma wrote:
Don't deflect it to the OP, you, personally, were wrong about Harawira. Also, I think the reason you think my attitude is 'ass' is because I am wiping the floor with you and you don't like it. That last part of your response was just garbage rhetoric.


Actually you are not wiping the floor, all you are doing is making ad hominum attacks on the parties you disagree with. The OP (currently banned) stated that what he had written was his opinion and that people were free to disagree. You on the other hand simply come in here attacking John Key as being weak (not giving examples), state that the majority who voted for him resulted in the worst election result as if it were a self-explaining statement of fact as to why it was the worst result, and discard ACT's policies as being bullshit and hardline populist without explaining what the flaws of those policies are. You are the one who is full of garbage rhetoric and you are unable to see that from a different perspective nothing you say is actually explaining everything - rather all you are doing is attacking personalities without providing facts or substance.


The reason I haven't been explaining party policy is because I have been too busy explaining why basically everything you said in response to me has been really bad. Also, it's actually quite hard to write lengthy explanations for why/why I don't support any of 6 parties in my first post, so I wrote general stuff. There's plenty of time before the election to get deeper.
EG.DeMuslim --- EG.ThorZain --- TSL.Polt --- LGIMMvp --- Mill.fOrGG --- EG.Stephano --- EGiNcontroL --- EG.IdrA --- MarineKing.Prime --- SlayerS_MMA --- Liquid'Hero
Kiwifruit
Profile Joined August 2011
New Zealand130 Posts
August 21 2011 09:10 GMT
#55
On August 21 2011 18:05 Swede wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 21 2011 17:56 Kiwifruit wrote:
On August 21 2011 17:54 Swede wrote:
On August 21 2011 17:45 Kiwifruit wrote:
On August 21 2011 17:37 Swede wrote:
I'll probably vote for the Greens based on them being comparatively non-corrupt and their seemingly greater moral integrity. People rule out the Greens because of stereotypes (e.g. they're all hippies and stoners), and yet Gareth Hughes was virtually the only politician with the slightest clue about the recent changes to piracy laws, and Sue Bradford spearheaded one of the most controversial and important changes in social policy in the last few years (removal of reasonable force as a defense for child abuse).

The Greens have their issues, sure, but I feel like they're a lot more focused than National or Labour who's goals basically just seem to be 'do whatever it takes to stay in power'.


Interesting perspective you have there, that in your opinion it was previously OK to commit child abuse if you used reasonable force. I was not aware of this previous law which said that reasonable force was a defense for child abuse. I had thought that child abuse was against the law, but thanks to you I am now informed that previously it was OK to commit child abuse so long as you used reasonable force.


I'm not sure what this post is about. It seems like a really misguided attempt at being an a-hole, but I can't be certain. Clarification?


It would have been better if you were honest and said that the change in social policy was to remove reasonable force as a defence for child discipline/spanking. To label it child abuse is saying any parent who smacked their children previously was 'abusing' them, or 'committing child abuse'. In that case, I could go around telling people that because my mum and dad used to smack me I am a victim of child abuse, and that I was abused as a child. Are you also a victim of child abuse?


No, because the change in social policy wasn't for that purpose. It was changed because people were abusing their children and getting away with it. I'm not talking about people smacking. I'm talking about parents beating their children. I'm not for smacking, but I would certainly never call it child abuse... The fact is that smacking had to be banned in order to remove the ambiguity between these two things (smacking and child abuse). It's no great loss to any decent parent.

My original description was completely accurate.

As a side note, I was smacked as a child and I hold nothing against my parents for disciplining me in that way.

Show nested quote +
I disagree with Swede's labeling of parents who used to smack their kids as child abusers.


Not what I said at all. It's a shame that your argument relies on misrepresenting peoples' opinions.


It's not a misrepresentation. If you had written that the change in social policy was for the purpose of preventing global warming, that wouldn't change the fact that the effect of the law change was to remove reasonable force as a defence for spanking.

The effect of the law change was to remove reasonable force as a defence for smacking.

Regardless of its purpose, that is its effect.

If you were to give an accurate description of what Sue Bradford accomplished, then that is what you would write.

Instead you encompassed all parents who previously smacked their children as child abusers by saying that it removed the reasonable defence for child abuse.
"You take the good things from every different discipline, use what works, and you throw the rest away" - Bruce Lee, Atheist.
Kiwifruit
Profile Joined August 2011
New Zealand130 Posts
August 21 2011 09:13 GMT
#56
On August 21 2011 18:10 CaptainCharisma wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 21 2011 18:02 Kiwifruit wrote:
On August 21 2011 17:55 CaptainCharisma wrote:
Don't deflect it to the OP, you, personally, were wrong about Harawira. Also, I think the reason you think my attitude is 'ass' is because I am wiping the floor with you and you don't like it. That last part of your response was just garbage rhetoric.


Actually you are not wiping the floor, all you are doing is making ad hominum attacks on the parties you disagree with. The OP (currently banned) stated that what he had written was his opinion and that people were free to disagree. You on the other hand simply come in here attacking John Key as being weak (not giving examples), state that the majority who voted for him resulted in the worst election result as if it were a self-explaining statement of fact as to why it was the worst result, and discard ACT's policies as being bullshit and hardline populist without explaining what the flaws of those policies are. You are the one who is full of garbage rhetoric and you are unable to see that from a different perspective nothing you say is actually explaining everything - rather all you are doing is attacking personalities without providing facts or substance.


The reason I haven't been explaining party policy is because I have been too busy explaining why basically everything you said in response to me has been really bad. Also, it's actually quite hard to write lengthy explanations for why/why I don't support any of 6 parties in my first post, so I wrote general stuff. There's plenty of time before the election to get deeper.


Before I addressed your post, this is what you wrote:

"The National Party is just Labour but with arrogance and a wimpy leader."

Nothing to back up that statement.

"The Maori party started good, but has lost all its focus and is now just enjoying the perks of government."

Oh OK, we'll just take your word for it then.

"Peter Dunne does fuck all and is only there because of some stupid worm which rose whenever he said "common sense"."

I agree with this part - I have no idea what his party stands for.

"Also I just want to say that choosing John Key over Helen Clark (HELEN CLARK FFS) has got to be one of the worst election results in NZ history."

I was unaware that Helen Clark being better than Key FFS was a self-evident fact. And not just that, it's the worst election result in NZ history... Well, I'd have to say Muldoon winning the election in the 70s was the worst result due to the incredibly way he fucked up the economy back then through price freezes and establishing SOEs but whatever.
"You take the good things from every different discipline, use what works, and you throw the rest away" - Bruce Lee, Atheist.
Swede
Profile Joined June 2010
New Zealand853 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-08-21 09:19:58
August 21 2011 09:15 GMT
#57
On August 21 2011 18:10 Kiwifruit wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 21 2011 18:05 Swede wrote:
On August 21 2011 17:56 Kiwifruit wrote:
On August 21 2011 17:54 Swede wrote:
On August 21 2011 17:45 Kiwifruit wrote:
On August 21 2011 17:37 Swede wrote:
I'll probably vote for the Greens based on them being comparatively non-corrupt and their seemingly greater moral integrity. People rule out the Greens because of stereotypes (e.g. they're all hippies and stoners), and yet Gareth Hughes was virtually the only politician with the slightest clue about the recent changes to piracy laws, and Sue Bradford spearheaded one of the most controversial and important changes in social policy in the last few years (removal of reasonable force as a defense for child abuse).

The Greens have their issues, sure, but I feel like they're a lot more focused than National or Labour who's goals basically just seem to be 'do whatever it takes to stay in power'.


Interesting perspective you have there, that in your opinion it was previously OK to commit child abuse if you used reasonable force. I was not aware of this previous law which said that reasonable force was a defense for child abuse. I had thought that child abuse was against the law, but thanks to you I am now informed that previously it was OK to commit child abuse so long as you used reasonable force.


I'm not sure what this post is about. It seems like a really misguided attempt at being an a-hole, but I can't be certain. Clarification?


It would have been better if you were honest and said that the change in social policy was to remove reasonable force as a defence for child discipline/spanking. To label it child abuse is saying any parent who smacked their children previously was 'abusing' them, or 'committing child abuse'. In that case, I could go around telling people that because my mum and dad used to smack me I am a victim of child abuse, and that I was abused as a child. Are you also a victim of child abuse?


No, because the change in social policy wasn't for that purpose. It was changed because people were abusing their children and getting away with it. I'm not talking about people smacking. I'm talking about parents beating their children. I'm not for smacking, but I would certainly never call it child abuse... The fact is that smacking had to be banned in order to remove the ambiguity between these two things (smacking and child abuse). It's no great loss to any decent parent.

My original description was completely accurate.

As a side note, I was smacked as a child and I hold nothing against my parents for disciplining me in that way.

I disagree with Swede's labeling of parents who used to smack their kids as child abusers.


Not what I said at all. It's a shame that your argument relies on misrepresenting peoples' opinions.


It's not a misrepresentation. If you had written that the change in social policy was for the purpose of preventing global warming, that wouldn't change the fact that the effect of the law change was to remove reasonable force as a defence for spanking.

The effect of the law change was to remove reasonable force as a defence for smacking.

Regardless of its purpose, that is its effect.

If you were to give an accurate description of what Sue Bradford accomplished, then that is what you would write.

Instead you encompassed all parents who previously smacked their children as child abusers by saying that it removed the reasonable defence for child abuse.


Your analysis of its effects are incomplete though. It's more like this:

The effect of the law change was to remove reasonable force as a defense for child abuse at the expense of the freedom to smack.

No clear headed person would call that a bad thing. If you are so attached to smacking as a means of discipline that you would have child abusers roam free with no consequences then you are an idiot.

And notice how both of my previous posts have clearly distinguished between smacking and child abuse? I don't consider people who smack to be child abusers.
Kiwifruit
Profile Joined August 2011
New Zealand130 Posts
August 21 2011 09:23 GMT
#58
[QUOTE]On August 21 2011 18:15 Swede wrote:
[quote]The effect of the law change was to remove reasonable force as a defense for child abuse at the expense of the freedom to smack.[/quote]

This is a good summarisation.

[quote]No clear headed person would call that a bad thing. If you are so attached to smacking as a means of discipline that you would have child abusers roam free with no consequences then you are an idiot.
[/QUOTE]

You are the idiot if you think the solution to child abuse is to remove a method of discipline from good parents. It goes far deeper than just smacking. It is the result of family circumstances, poverty, mental illness, stresses in life, etc. This article by Muriel Newman (former ACT MP) explains part of the issues:

[quote]Raising children - using traditional methods of discipline when necessary - has withstood the test of time. There is no evidence to show that such children have grown up to be anything but normal, balanced, healthy, contributing members of society (click here to read a Berkeley University study on this). Whereas hostile youths, who have not been adequately disciplined or socialised, have long been the scourge of any community.

A British study “Broken Homes and Battered Children” by Robert Whelan, carried out in 1994, shed light on the real causes of child abuse. The study found that the incidence of child abuse is 20 times higher for children living with their cohabiting parents and 33 times higher among children living with their mother and her boyfriend compared to children living with their biological, married parents. With child deaths, the situation is even worse children living in households in which the child's biological mother is cohabiting with someone who is unrelated to the child were 73 times more likely to be killed than those living in a traditional, intact, married family.

With child abuse predominantly occurring in single parent families reliant on welfare in New Zealand - Maori children now being the most at-risk group in our society - the Green Party and all of those organisations that claim they want to reduce child abuse, should support a national campaign to reform welfare. The campaign would need to prioritise a reduction in the reliance on the Domestic Purposes Benefit, and it should also promote the traditional married biological family as society's safest child-rearing unit.

Yet, after a decade of calling for welfare reform, I have noticed only limited support for such a campaign from organisations that purport to care. Perhaps those that receive government funding are fearful of speaking out in case their money supply is cut and they are blacklisted, or perhaps it is simply too PC to talk about traditional values any more.[/quote]
"You take the good things from every different discipline, use what works, and you throw the rest away" - Bruce Lee, Atheist.
CaptainCharisma
Profile Joined February 2011
New Zealand808 Posts
August 21 2011 09:25 GMT
#59
On August 21 2011 18:13 Kiwifruit wrote:
Before I addressed your post, this is what you wrote:

"The National Party is just Labour but with arrogance and a wimpy leader."

Nothing to back up that statement.

"The Maori party started good, but has lost all its focus and is now just enjoying the perks of government."

Oh OK, we'll just take your word for it then.

"Peter Dunne does fuck all and is only there because of some stupid worm which rose whenever he said "common sense"."

I agree with this part - I have no idea what his party stands for.

"Also I just want to say that choosing John Key over Helen Clark (HELEN CLARK FFS) has got to be one of the worst election results in NZ history."

I was unaware that Helen Clark being better than Key FFS was a self-evident fact. And not just that, it's the worst election result in NZ history... Well, I'd have to say Muldoon winning the election in the 70s was the worst result due to the incredibly way he fucked up the economy back then through price freezes and establishing SOEs but whatever.


Those are just my brief summary opinions on the parties. If you disagree with any of that that's fine and I don't mind, but I reserve the right to choose when and where I explain my opinions. I don't demand to know why you think posting a picture of Goff with donkeys is relevant, but I ignore it because it's trivial and not worth discussing, just like my opening remarks.

Also, you lack basic reading comprehension. "One of the worst" does not equal "the worst". I am quite aware of the Muldoon era.
EG.DeMuslim --- EG.ThorZain --- TSL.Polt --- LGIMMvp --- Mill.fOrGG --- EG.Stephano --- EGiNcontroL --- EG.IdrA --- MarineKing.Prime --- SlayerS_MMA --- Liquid'Hero
Mafe
Profile Joined February 2011
Germany5966 Posts
August 21 2011 09:26 GMT
#60
Election during Rugby World Cup? Will anybody care for politics then?
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
OSC
12:30
King of the Hill Weekly #220
CranKy Ducklings200
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Harstem 526
Hui .367
mouzHeroMarine 284
ProTech50
trigger 22
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 46593
Bisu 4577
Horang2 3972
ggaemo 3606
Flash 2109
Jaedong 1553
Hyun 903
Barracks 774
EffOrt 755
Mini 598
[ Show more ]
Larva 453
Soulkey 418
actioN 266
Snow 256
ZerO 254
Killer 129
ToSsGirL 117
Zeus 112
Rush 112
JYJ103
Sharp 60
sSak 43
Movie 39
sas.Sziky 36
[sc1f]eonzerg 34
sorry 30
yabsab 24
Sacsri 23
Shinee 20
zelot 19
Shine 18
Terrorterran 15
Aegong 15
ajuk12(nOOB) 11
Hm[arnc] 9
Noble 8
IntoTheRainbow 6
Stormgate
RushiSC27
Dota 2
Gorgc6945
qojqva3532
Dendi1359
420jenkins349
XcaliburYe255
Counter-Strike
ScreaM2864
oskar171
markeloff144
kRYSTAL_31
Other Games
singsing2292
B2W.Neo1163
hiko1086
Fuzer 363
DeMusliM337
ToD139
QueenE55
ZerO(Twitch)10
Organizations
Other Games
BasetradeTV17
StarCraft: Brood War
Kim Chul Min (afreeca) 6
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 17 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• StrangeGG 87
• davetesta46
• tFFMrPink 9
• poizon28 8
• IndyKCrew
• sooper7s
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
StarCraft: Brood War
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• WagamamaTV426
League of Legends
• Nemesis3436
• Jankos1147
Upcoming Events
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
1h 18m
The PondCast
19h 18m
Online Event
1d 1h
Korean StarCraft League
2 days
CranKy Ducklings
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
Mihu vs QiaoGege
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs TBD
Online Event
3 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
Bonyth vs TBD
OSC
5 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

BSL 20 Non-Korean Championship
FEL Cracow 2025
Underdog Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL 20 Team Wars
CC Div. A S7
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025

Upcoming

BSL 21 Qualifiers
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
WardiTV Summer 2025
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
HCC Europe
Yuqilin POB S2
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.