About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

March 1, 2013 8:00am by Kokila Patel

General Debate 1 March 2013

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment179

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (179)

Login to comment or vote

David Garrett

A wee suggestion DPF…in addition to the daily GD, perhaps we could also have a daily “God is real/No he isn’t” thread (someone can think of a much snappier title) so those interested in an endless debate with no conclusion – until the Grim Reaper gets you – can do it there? Saves the old scrolling finger….
5 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 1:52pm
Weihana

David Garrett,

debate with no conclusion…

Is there another kind? Even in a democracy debate is not ended when legislation is passed. Debate never ends. 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 1:54pm
hinamanu

Why are central banks buying so much gold while demonising it in the media ?
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 2:10pm
hinamanu

About time

NZ First is drafting policy that would make it compulsory for government departments, state-owned companies and local councils to give first preference to NZ firms over foreign competitors.
0 2
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 2:13pm
Komata

And what NZ companies does Winston (a Laawyer BTW), have shares in already?

One wonders.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 2:19pm
bhudson

^^ Oh no! Winston’s form of Stalinism, with the big central plan. What an enormously regressive step!

Won’t help our FTA’s too much either. So much for growing exports!

I guess his next brainwave will be to have the same govt agencies buy all the exports, so that our exporters don’t suffer and continue to grow. If things then get a bit flaky he might try wage & price freezes to help keep things on an even keel.

What an outdated, outmoded and fundamentally flawed idea.
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 2:23pm
Harriet

Liars @ LGBT

Gay sex is nothing like what ‘man-woman’ – humans – would ever do if they were the last two people on earth.

Now, would the last lesbian and last gay-boy on earth please admit that they ‘are not born that way’?

Or would gays really hate mankind that much and prefer to live like animals ‘naturally’ and kill humans off – forever?

The jokes on the gays and the MP’s! 😎
0 2
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 2:38pm
Pete George

NZ First is drafting policy that would make it compulsory for government departments, state-owned companies and local councils to give first preference to NZ firms over foreign competitors.,/blockquote>
That would open up some good business opportunities.

If any government departments, state-owned companies or local councils tendr for something that isn’t normally supplied in New Zealand have an NZ registered company do a deal with one potential supplier to supply through the company, effectively excluding any other foreign competitors.

Less competition, bigger margin, but hey, if Winston’s in Government his friend Russel will print him the extra money.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 2:40pm
TheContrarian

“Now, would the last lesbian and last gay-boy on earth please admit that they ‘are not born that way’?”

Are you attracted to Gerry Brownlie, Harriet?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 2:44pm
krazykiwi

About time

NZ First is drafting policy that would make it compulsory for government departments, state-owned companies and local councils to give first preference to NZ firms over foreign competitors.

When will NZ First find the time to REPAY THE $158,000 they owe the NZ taxpayer?
4 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 2:47pm
RRM

Since we’re cross-posting from other threads into General Debate…

Head over to the ‘husband and wife’ thread if you want a free lesson from Harriet on how to have a wank, or anal sex:

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/03/still_husband_and_wife_not_just_spouses.html/comment-page-1#comment-1105238
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 2:48pm
Viking2

Exposing a complex software system developed from scratch to millions of users from one second to the next is not something that you would normally do.

However, with all of our assets still restrained, we had to build the site with minimal resources and simply didn’t have the luxury of extensive pre-launch software and infrastructure testing. Nevertheless, the teething troubles were remarkably moderate, and within 72 hours, all major soft- and hardware bottlenecks were resolved.

So if Mega can do this why couldn’t Novapay????

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10868503
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 2:49pm
virtualmark

Weihana,

Thus the only rational meaning that can be attached to the terms “good”, “moral”, “ethical” is a conditional meaning that objectively describes the means of achieving some predefined goal. You say there is no purpose in our existence but this is wrong: we give ourselves purpose and no one and nothing else can ever do that for us.

Kind of.

Practically all religions impose a universal moral law where everyone in the society shares a common view of what is “good”, “moral”, “ethical” etc. They can do this because they also have a universal moral lawgiver, and the religion says that ultimately that lawgiver is keeping score of whether each person is “good” or “bad”, and there will be reward and punishment.

Atheism doesn’t have that universal moral lawgiver nor the reward or the punishment. So atheism devolves into everyone having their own individual view of what is “good”, “moral”, “ethical”. And in that worldview no one person’s idea of “good” is inherently superior to any other person’s view of “good”.

You might be nice and love your neighbour. Someone in Papua New Guinea might eat their neighbour. Who is to say which of those two options is “good”?

Ultimately all that creates is the fertile environment for the strongest person in the society to impose their view of “good” on everyone else. Enter Stalin, and every other totalitarian.

From an atheistic point of view Stalin is just the logical extension of Kant’s attempts to create a universal moral law without God. Eventually Kant said the only way you can make that work is if individual happiness is NOT the objective. Instead everyone has to subordinate their own happiness for the greater good of the whole society. So who defines what that good of the whole society is? Why the dictator of course! So Kant saying “you can’t live for your own individual happiness, but only for the good of the society” leads directly to Stalin saying “don’t worry about whether you’re happy, your only goal is to live and die for the good of Mother Russia”.

People like Kant, Kierkegaard, Hume, Russell etc have tried all the avenues for creating an attractive atheistic society. And all have failed. Atheism leads down a path to either totalitarianism, or hedonism, or nihilism. None of those are the basis for a society I want to live in.

But “atheists” like we see here in GD aren’t really atheists at all. They say they are. But really they’re “Christians minus”. They live to Christian values, but minus God. They just don’t see that because they’ve been marinating in those Christian values all their lives, since they are baked into the very structure of our Western world. But they are uniquely Christian values … and clearly not present in societies based on Islam, Buddhism, Confucianism, Mayan or whatever other religion you want to point to. And they are clearly values atheism could not rationally and logically develop itself.

I have no real problem with the “Christian minus” thing – people are free to choose the life they like. But I am bemused they then round on Christianity when their lives are actually 90% Christian and 10% atheist.
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 2:52pm
Harriet

RRM#

I was adding it into what Kea and others were talking about –

“….What I’m saying is that Dawkin’s view of altruism, which I paraphrased, is effectively the same as yours. Behaviours that don’t immediately benefit the individual, but which the individual hopes will eventually benefit them via society being better off.

And Dawkin says that bumpkiss…..Is he wrong?…”

Well RRM is he wrong or right? if a lesbian and a gay male were the last two pwople on earth?

Would they forgo the ‘I was born this way’ bullshit and be altruistic? 😎
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 2:57pm
Harriet

virtualmark#

Atheism is really only the ‘rejection’ of theism. Religions ect.

It is not a ‘replacement’.

‘replacement’ for the most part is another topic altogether.

“…But “atheists” like we see here in GD aren’t really atheists at all. They say they are. But really they’re “Christians minus”….”

thanks. that is true.

BTW. they are going to hate you forever. 😎
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 3:03pm
RRM

I was adding it into what Kea and others were talking about –

Oh what utter bullshit Harriet; all your words are still there in black and white on that thread, you cannot tell bare faced lies in this media and expect to get away with it.

And I think it’s sad that you cannot comprehend a straight couple giving head or doing anal 😎
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 3:07pm
Harriet

RRM # 2:48pm

“…Since we’re cross-posting from other threads into General Debate……”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 3:12pm
thedavincimode

RRM

Thanks for that. I came back here to get away from Auntie Harriet’s Introductory Homosexual Sex 101. She seems remarkably well informed – unnaturally so in fact.

BTW, do you know what is with harriet’s : 😎 ? Every time a coconut yet there doesn’t ever appear to be anything cool, clever or even vaguely sensible in what she says.

Oops, how could I forget: 😎
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 3:17pm
Northland Wahine

RRM… I don’t have a penis, so does that mean I can’t masturbate?

…awaits for Mrs H’s condemnation….
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 3:24pm
Pete George

Atheism is really only the ‘rejection’ of theism. Religions ect.

Nonsense. I’ve never rejected ‘theism’, I’ve never believed in theism so couldn’t reject it.

We are all born without any beliefs. We learn and acquire beliefs of others as children, so theism is acquired as part of the learning process – by some, and others don’t become thiest at all, while others become theist when they get older and decide for themselves. And only some become theist and then reject it – although many only partly reject it.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 3:29pm
Harriet

Yep!

If a gay boy and a lesbian from NZ were the last two people on earth – mankind would die out!

Because they were ‘born that way’!

Gay MP’S in the parliment of NZ are lying ! 😎 😎 😎 😎 😎 😎 😎
0 4
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 3:39pm
Harriet

“…and others don’t become thiest at all,…”

Fucken bullshit Pete!

No man is an island. One way or another they DO subcribe to at least one belief!
0 4
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 3:41pm
bhudson

@RRM,

The stream of nonsense from Harriet that you linked to does not really reflect at all on gays or lesbians. It does, however, reflect a great deal on Harriet…
4 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 3:43pm
TheContrarian

“So atheism devolves into everyone having their own individual view of what is “good”, “moral”, “ethical”.”

So if religion was the opposite we’d see a cohesive religion without schism or fracture. But we don’t see that, we see all different religions and factions of the same religion all proclaiming themselves to be the absolute truth and the absolute moral authority. All of them having their own individual view of what is “good”, “moral”, “ethical”.”

“But “atheists” like we see here in GD aren’t really atheists at all. They say they are. But really they’re “Christians minus”. They live to Christian values, but minus God.”

These ‘Christian values’ aren’t really Christian values at all. The Code Hammurabi outlines laws and ethical behaviour and it predates the ten commandments and wasn’t based on Christianity at all.
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 3:54pm
Pete George

One way or another they DO subcribe to at least one belief!

Some who have strong religious beliefs seem to have trouble comprehending being able to have no religious beliefs.

Do any religious people accept that it’s possible to have no religious belief, or is it a foreign concept to all believers?
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 3:57pm
Harriet

Yep!

If a gay boy and a lesbian from NZ were the last two people on earth – mankind would die out!

Because they were ‘born that way’!

But to save mankind they could ‘change’ – surely then they would!

SOooooooo if a gay wants to ‘get Married’ and RESPECTS the institution of Marriage[one man one woman] – like they say they do – then why don’t they recognize Marriage for what it is – the safest and best place on earth for children to be reproduced and develop into adults – the future generations!

Gay MP’S in the parliment of NZ are lying ! 😎
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 3:57pm
krazykiwi

It’s beer-o’clock.

Time for a scrummy Three Boys Porter.

Yummmmmmm…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 4:01pm
Weihana

virtualmark (1,331) Says:
March 1st, 2013 at 2:52 pm

You might be nice and love your neighbour. Someone in Papua New Guinea might eat their neighbour. Who is to say which of those two options is “good”?

You can’t. But you can if you rephrase the question in terms of a predefined goal. The guy in Papua New Guinea can go eat his neighbour. Then maybe another neighbour will come and eat him. Meanwhile me and my neighbour will be living in peace and harmony. Now if he truly values living in a society where people cannibalize each other and enjoy a shared miserable existence then sure, who is to say his way of life is any worse or better than mine? But I bet if given the choice he wouldn’t prefer it and in that context, when that basic premise has been agreed to, one can make logical and objective conclusions about what is “better” and what is “good”.

It is a mistake to expect that you can construct a moral code and have it apply to the sociopath. That’s like expecting a shark not to eat you simply because you don’t want to be eaten. It’s in their nature and so it is in the nature of a sociopath to do what they do. But that doesn’t negate the validity of a moral code agreed to by rational people based on a set of simple shared values.

Ultimately all that creates is the fertile environment for the strongest person in the society to impose their view of “good” on everyone else. Enter Stalin, and every other totalitarian.

From an atheistic point of view Stalin is just the logical extension of Kant’s attempts to create a universal moral law without God. Eventually Kant said the only way you can make that work is if individual happiness is NOT the objective. Instead everyone has to subordinate their own happiness for the greater good of the whole society. So who defines what that good of the whole society is? Why the dictator of course! So Kant saying “you can’t live for your own individual happiness, but only for the good of the society” leads directly to Stalin saying “don’t worry about whether you’re happy, your only goal is to live and die for the good of Mother Russia”.

No dictator comes to power on his strength alone. Every dictator comes to power by manipulating public opinion. Every dictator has a base of support and his rule depends upon keeping that base happy, not the other way around.

People like Kant, Kierkegaard, Hume, Russell etc have tried all the avenues for creating an attractive atheistic society. And all have failed. Atheism leads down a path to either totalitarianism, or hedonism, or nihilism. None of those are the basis for a society I want to live in.

You have referred to some philosophers. These people write philosophy, they do not create societies. Moreover, atheism is merely a disbelief in God, it does not imply any particular moral code. Your assertion that atheism “leads down the path to totalitarianism” is an assertion offered without proof and based on the flimsiest of historical analyses.

But “atheists” like we see here in GD aren’t really atheists at all. They say they are. But really they’re “Christians minus”. They live to Christian values, but minus God. They just don’t see that because they’ve been marinating in those Christian values all their lives, since they are baked into the very structure of our Western world. But they are uniquely Christian values … and clearly not present in societies based on Islam, Buddhism, Confucianism, Mayan or whatever other religion you want to point to. And they are clearly values atheism could not rationally and logically develop itself.

Balderdash. 🙂

Christianity is not unique… at least not for the most part.

But more importantly, the “Western World” as we know it today is a recent phenomenon. Christianity has existed for many many centuries and for most of that time civilization did not progress beyond the accomplishments of Rome. The “Western world” as we know it was born from industrialization which came much later than the advent of Christianity and is more closely associated with the scientific and enlightenment revolutions.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 4:01pm
Weihana

krazykiwi (8,885) Says:
March 1st, 2013 at 4:01 pm

It’s beer-o’clock.

Hallelujah for that!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 4:07pm
Weihana

Harriet (1,204) Says:
March 1st, 2013 at 3:39 pm

Yep!

If a gay boy and a lesbian from NZ were the last two people on earth – mankind would die out!

And if a single person was the last person on Earth they could not procreate with themselves. Mankind would die out! Death to all single people!! 😎
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 4:10pm
virtualmark

Weihana,

It is a mistake to expect that you can construct a moral code and have it apply to the sociopath

I’m not saying you can create a universal moral code and compel every person to follow it – the sociopath will still be the sociopath. But you can create a universal moral code that (a) >95% of the population follow and (b) they can use these shared values as the basis of all saying the sociopath is “bad” or “evil” and (c) they can use their shared values as the basis for a set of laws that can reasonably apply across the whole society.

Meanwhile atheism can rely only on individual relativistic morals … who in that world could say the sociopath is “bad”. They just are what they are. In an atheistic world sociopaths aren’t bad, they’re just misunderstood …

No dictator comes to power on his strength alone. Every dictator comes to power by manipulating public opinion. Every dictator has a base of support and his rule depends upon keeping that base happy, not the other way around

Sure. But what I said is that totalitarianism is one of the natural outflows of atheism. What you’re talking about is the mechanics of how it happens. I’m talking about why it happens, and why we shouldn’t be surprised that it does happen.

These people write philosophy, they do not create societies. Moreover, atheism is merely a disbelief in God, it does not imply any particular moral code

And philosophy is, ultimately, the study of how our values and societies come into being. Of why we hold certain values and not others.

And absolutely atheism doesn’t imply any particular moral code. Which is my central point.

But remember, atheists still believe in values and morals – it’s just that those don’t rest on a God. Modern atheists (aka rational humanists) profess to believe in hard proven facts (that’s Hume by the way). That is their equivalent of “God” (ie that is the central belief of their “religion”).

Balderdash.

Christianity is not unique… at least not for the most part.

No. Think harder. What I said is that “atheists” in the Western world overlook the extent to which they have absorbed Christian values by default through having grown up in a Christian-based world. It’s got nothing to do with industrialisation or science. Even Westerners who don’t profess to be Christians cannot escape the extent to which our society is based on Christian values. The types of values I’m referring to are things like:
* the sanctity of life (all life is precious, life is to be preserved and protected, and it is a tragedy when people die);
* the sanctity of each individual (each person has a set of “human rights” that they are entitled to);
* the responsibility to protect the weak and disadvantaged.

etc. As an example, feel free to take any of those three examples above and construct a rational string of statements starting with “There is no God” and ending with “That is why life is sacred” or “That is why we must protect the weak” etc. Take your time, it won’t be easy.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 4:43pm
TheContrarian

A theocratic government is no better than a totalitarian government. Both demand adherence to a deity. In the totalitarian government it is the leader, in a theocracy it is whomever the leader believes in.

“absorbed Christian values by default through having grown up in a Christian-based world”

And Christian forget the absorbed the laws handed down before Christianity
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 4:50pm
Ross12

What a load of garbage we get from many in our unversities

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/16275640/charter-school-board-desperate-and-undemocratic/

Does getting quoted in the MSM count toward their annual publishing target these days ? ( the old publish or perish syndrome)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 5:03pm
James Stephenson

No. Think harder. What I said is that “atheists” in the Western world overlook the extent to which they have absorbed Christian values by default through having grown up in a Christian-based world.

Christians in the Western world overlook the extent to which out culture is firmly rooted in pre-Christian times. Democractic ideas were developed by the Greeks, the Vikings and the Saxons well before the concept of monotheism arrived from the middle east…

We had polytheism then we had monotheism, the next stage in human development is atheism.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 5:27pm
axeman

Pete George (16,486) Says:
March 1st, 2013 at 8:03 am

On climate change:

1. There’s no conspiracy. The accumulation of evidence demands serious attention.
4. There is more than enough evidence to cause major concern.
5. Overwhelming scientific consensus is discredited with fallacious and irrelevant claims.

Do you mean like this?

Collapsing consensus!
http://notrickszone.com/2013/02/25/collapsing-consensus-another-german-meteorology-site-wondering-about-the-global-temperature-stagnation/

“Us climate scientists oversold. We said we had to announce the basic truth, and not to overload the people with too many details. Thus the problem arose because climate science did not understand its own role.”
http://notrickszone.com/2013/02/26/von-storch-blasts-climate-scientists-not-the-keepers-of-the-truth-says-they-oversold-the-science/

German Media Reopen Climate Discussion – Concede Warming Has Stopped And Other Factors At Play
http://notrickszone.com/2013/02/28/movement-german-media-reopen-climate-discussion-concede-warming-has-stopped-and-other-factors-at-play/
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 5:39pm
axeman

Obviously Mr George has never seen this summary of GLOBAL WARMING SCEPTICISM

“First they tried to convince us with the evidence
Then when we showed the evidence didn’t support them, they manufactured the evidence
Then when we explained that their “evidence” didn’t prove their case
… They tried to tell us we (the majority) were the ill-informed minority
Then when it became clear we were far from ill-informed and far less a small minority.
They tried to ridicule us
Then when we laughed at their attempts to ridicule us
They tried to sue us
Then when they realised that threatening to sue when the evidence supported us
They tried to tell us we were mad. etc.
Finally … in the face of overwhelming evidence and lack of public interest in their non-science they get over their tantrum, they stop writing idiotic papers to journals and stop helping to write ridiculous articles for journalists … it all goes quite
and then they try to pretend it never happened.”
4 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 5:42pm
thedavincimode

RRM… I don’t have a penis, so does that mean I can’t masturbate?

NW

It seems that you can’t. But the good news appears that you are in fact equiped to masturbate a homosexual male on his wedding night. Don’t hold me to it though because Harriet is taking us into new territory here and I’m still trying to get to grips with it all (so to speak).
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 6:15pm
Steve (North Shore)

Seems many here are blind, they can’t read what they write ——>
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 6:33pm
Weihana

virtualmark (1,332) Says:
March 1st, 2013 at 4:43 pm

But you can create a universal moral code that (a) >95% of the population follow…

True but popularity doesn’t mean such beliefs are rational. It is important to remember that a rational ethics requires non contradiction and if they start from the premise that they value life, for instance, but have incorrect ideas about how to achieve that then they are acting immoral according to their own values.

Meanwhile atheism can rely only on individual relativistic morals … who in that world could say the sociopath is “bad”. They just are what they are. In an atheistic world sociopaths aren’t bad, they’re just misunderstood …

Not true. The subjectivity of our values does not change the fact that we exist in a world with physical and natural laws and that you cannot realize your values by arbitrary means. The world imposes constraints on us that we must account for. I cannot kill people and expect my own life to be secure (generally speaking). In that context the sociopath is “bad”. However, morality is still conditional and the sociopath is only “bad” within the context of predefined values. Inventing (or believing in) God doesn’t change this. Even if God does exist and he imposes rules, what makes those rules “moral”? I do not see that God solves the is-ought problem. That God imposes rules does not logically imply that those rules are “good”.

Sure. But what I said is that totalitarianism is one of the natural outflows of atheism. What you’re talking about is the mechanics of how it happens. I’m talking about why it happens, and why we shouldn’t be surprised that it does happen.

It didn’t happen because of atheism. Imagine you were a Russian in 1917. You really think some philosophical musings on God is at the forefront of the ordinary peasants daily concerns? Or do you suppose that the skyrocketing inflation from financing WW1 might be more capable of getting you to support some sort of revolution against the Tsars?

And absolutely atheism doesn’t imply any particular moral code. Which is my central point.

A valid point if the point was that religion in primitive society serves the useful purpose of organizing a population around a moral code. I agree with that, but I don’t agree that makes religion necessary for a moral society and I do not agree that accelerating rates of non-religious belief have resulted in people who are less rational or less ethical.

No. Think harder. What I said is that “atheists” in the Western world overlook the extent to which they have absorbed Christian values by default through having grown up in a Christian-based world. It’s got nothing to do with industrialisation or science. Even Westerners who don’t profess to be Christians cannot escape the extent to which our society is based on Christian values. The types of values I’m referring to are things like:
* the sanctity of life (all life is precious, life is to be preserved and protected, and it is a tragedy when people die);
* the sanctity of each individual (each person has a set of “human rights” that they are entitled to);
* the responsibility to protect the weak and disadvantaged.

I am not aware that individualism (i.e. individual human rights) is a significant feature of Christianity per se, and charity and protection of human life is not unique to Christianity.

etc. As an example, feel free to take any of those three examples above and construct a rational string of statements starting with “There is no God” and ending with “That is why life is sacred” or “That is why we must protect the weak” etc. Take your time, it won’t be easy.

I will not start with the premise that there is no God because that premise is irrelevant. My argument should hold irrespective of the existence of God. The argument is:

I value my own life. Other people value their life. If I do not value the life of others they are inclined not to value mine. If they don’t value mine, my life is at risk. Therefore, I should value and respect the life of others as I value my own.

Q.E.D. 🙂
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 7:18pm
Viking2

So the boot goes in.
Sell off assets, Peter Costello audit tells Queensland Premier Campbell Newman

PETER Costello has handed Queensland a radical blueprint for privatisation, outsourcing of transport and health services and public sector industrial reform that could erase almost half the state’s debt.

A commission of audit headed by the former federal treasurer today released an executive summary of its 1000-page report with a warning Queensland will not be able to reclaim its AAA credit rating without selling major assets, including state-owned electricity generators and several ports.

It has also recommended outsourcing across the government, particularly in health, education, transport and prisons.

The call is in line with the Newman government’s current push for government departments to undergo “contestablity” analysis to compare its cost and efficiency in delivering services against the private sector.

“Contestability should be introduced progressively on a phased basis, concentrating initially in southeast Queensland where competitive market conditions are most likely to be found,” the audit report says.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/sell-off-assets-peter-costello-audit-tells-queensland-premier-campbell-newman/story-e6frgczx-1226588376565
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 7:32pm
Azeraph

Anyone interested in this? The first thing is how many actually read this and then there is the fact that a lot of Americans read it.

http://literallyunbelievable.org/

http://www.theonion.com/articles/gay-teen-worried-he-might-be-christian,2888/

The net use to be knowledge, a virtual library but the reality is quite different in today’s world.

What did one cia source say? That Obama gets 30 threats a day, making him the most spotlighted president in american history, how does this make the news? it doesn’t and it wouldn’t but a lot of pattern inferrecing does about the nwo he leads.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 7:44pm
kowtow

james stephenson

the next stage in human development is atheism.

OK and what are tomorrows’ Lotto numbers.

When the US went to war against the Axis ,the training films from the govt (secular)for it’s soldiers rooted the democratic cause firmly in the tradition of the world’s major religions with quotes from the Bible ,Old and New Testament,Koran ,Confusious.

See the Frank Capra series Why we Fight.

Allied morality was based on religious morality. Even Stalin allowed public prayer when the nazis were at the gates of Moscow.

The British Parliament adjourned to St Margarets Church for a Thanks Giving Service on VE day.

You don’t like it but our culture is based on Christian ethics.

And that human development you say will lead to atheism is actually on a path, due to demographics ,human rights and migration to an Islamic future ,not atheism.
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 7:46pm
nasska

Ref: https://www.dropbox.com/s/5ueor8wzqa721r5/not_gay.jpg
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 7:53pm
Scott Chris

Based on a justice system based heavily on Christian values and ethics.

Err no. Laws forbidding murder predate Christ – or Moses for that matter. [wikipedia]One of the oldest known prohibitions against murder appears in the Sumerian Code of Ur-Nammu written sometime between 4100 and 4050 BP. The code states, “If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed.

Goes to show – morality is a product of society – as are we to a large extent.
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 7:57pm
nasska

For his final project in a statistics class, a student decided
to conduct a survey. So it wouldn’t be a boring project, he
chose to find out peoples’ favourite pastimes.

The teacher required that he sample at least 100 people, so
he started out his project visiting a fairly large apartment
building near the university.

He knocked on the first door and a man answered.
“Sir, what is your name ?” ; asked the student

“John” ,replied the man.

“Sir, I’m doing a school study and would like to know what
is your favourite pastime ?”

“Watching bubbles in the bath,” Came the reply.

He liked the esoterical answer and continued down the hall,
until he came to the next door, when he asked again.
“Sir, what is your name ?”

“Jeff !” ,said the second man.

“Sir, Would you please tell me your favourite pastime ?”

“Watching bubbles in the bath,” was the answer.

Quite amused and confused he went on to ask a good number
of people in the building and all of them had the same pastime
“watching bubbles in the bath”.

He left the building and walked across the street where there
were several houses to continue the survey. At the first
house, he knocks and an attractive college girl opens the door.
Our surveyor starts again
“What is your name?”

“Bubbles.”
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 8:00pm
TheContrarian

“You don’t like it but our culture is based on Christian ethics”

People keep saying variations of this and I have mentioned several times today that the laws as held by the 10 Commandments pre-dated Christianity and were basic laws lived by in Babylonian times as one example. The Greeks as another

We don’t live on Christian Ethics – we live via ethics that have evolved 100’s of years before Christianity.

Why do people here pretend this isn’t the case and repeat such falsehoods, provable falsehoods, as “our culture is based on Christian ethics”?
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 8:04pm
kowtow

because c@ntrarian says something several times ,it makes it fact!

Meanwhile another narcissist has forgotten the US Civil War was about States’ rights.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/8370372/Obama-backs-gay-marriage-in-Supreme-Court
2 2
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 8:09pm
TheContrarian

“because c@ntrarian says something several times ,it makes it fact!”

It IS fact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi for starters. Right there, all you need do is click the link.

You think before Christianity there was no law, no morals?
Your throwaway comment is just that, throwaway.
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 8:12pm
Rodders

No man is an island

Although Harriet could be likened to Krakatoa.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 8:12pm
kowtow

When Parliament opens with a Prayer to Baal and MPs swear an oath on the Code of Hammubari,or witnesses in court for that matter,or when our Head of state becomes the Head of the Cult of Fertility I might be persuaded that our culture is based on a very ancient Fertile Crescent pagan religion.

Till then I’ll stick with the conventional view.
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 8:22pm
thedavincimode

We don’t live on Christian Ethics – we live via ethics that have evolved 100′s of years before Christianity.

Blasphemy.

kowtow

c@ntrarian

Great material. Your own or was it divine inspiration?
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 8:30pm
thedavincimode

Sooo. This is interesting. Is it JK, was it Lam, is it the new coaching support staff, was it the old coaching support staff, is it the new management setup or was it the old management setup.

Whatever happens, there is a very tangible change in the headspace that augers well for the latte lovers.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 8:35pm
TheContrarian

“Till then I’ll stick with the conventional view.”

Yes, the conventional view is that laws and ethics pre-date Christianity by some 100’s if not 1000’s of years and that laws and ethics of Christianity are just a continuation for what has existed, in some guise of another, since ancient Sumeria.

Glad you agree.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 8:51pm
TheContrarian

Should also mention that laws and ethics sprung up in Japan, China and the Americas long before Christianity reached them.

But since you hold to the conventional view you must already know that.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 8:55pm
cha

I can hear the howls from here.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 9:03pm
krazykiwi

No man is an island

Although Harriet could be likened to Krakatoa.

I quite like Harriets’ posts… but I laughed at that comment Rodders. Well done 🙂
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 9:05pm
James Stephenson

Crusaders were robbed alright (says this ‘canes supporter)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 9:05pm
cha

This ‘canes supporter reckons the TMO overstepped.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 9:17pm
James Stephenson

No cha, TMO powers are expanded this season, he was just flat wrong. Dagg wasn’t held
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 9:19pm
dime

Crusaders – too small, too slow.

The game has passed them by.

Maybe after this season when they fail to make the finals they will finally sack Blackadder.

Im scared to think what the Chiefs will do to them.

As for my boys – im just happy we are playing with heart. its been a long time. Dime has to think back to 2002 when henry was technical adviser to think of when we last played with heart.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 9:20pm
dime

As for that cocksucker “TJ”, great to hear him making excuses for the cantabs “its because they had the bye last week”.

Didnt they play warm up games? the highlanders, blues and chiefs all played well first game up.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 9:21pm
hmmokrightitis

No man is an island?

You put big Gerry in a Speedo and try saying that again…
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 9:28pm
Rodders

krazykiwi – Cheers, mate 🙂
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 9:29pm
wat dabney

“You don’t like it but our culture is based on Christian ethics”

This is why we applaud genocidal racial wars against our neighbours, endorse slavery and happily stone to death disobedient children, women who are not virgins when they marry, and those who do even the slightest amount of work on the Sabbath.

Because if we didn’t do all those Biblical things then our ethics would not be based on Christianity… which they are…so we do.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 9:41pm
krazykiwi

wat – when was the last stoning of someone who did work in the sabbath? In your own time. To the nearest 1000 years is close enough
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 9:44pm
wat dabney

krazy,

“when was the last stoning of someone who did work in the sabbath? In your own time. To the nearest 1000 years is close enough”

Er, you do realise you’re making my point for me?

Apparently you don’t.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 9:54pm
krazykiwi

wat – Not at all. You’re insinuating that because an Old Testament stoning rule existed that modern-day Christians are barbaric. That’s a bit desperate. That’s all.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 9:59pm
Kacang

WineOh 9:28
You forgot: Herald (picture of Whangarei fire engine)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 10:01pm
kowtow

wat ,in his blind hatred, ignores the New Testament.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 10:03pm
wat dabney

krazy,

Quite the reverse.

So-called Christians are not barbaric, and this is shown by the fact that they ignore all the barbaric teachings in the Bible. Thus demonstrating that they don’t draw their ethics and morality from the Bible, subscribing instead to modern humanist notions of freedom and compassion.

The point being that our culture is not based on Christian ethics, if it were then it would look something like Afghanistan under the Taliban.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 10:05pm
TheContrarian

Yeah, the new testament.

Exodus 21:17 is pretty easy going

“The point being that our culture is not based on Christian ethics”

Most of our culture, laws, ethics, language and politics comes down to us from the Greeks. Not Christians.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 10:10pm
krazykiwi

So wat, your vision of modern Christianity is Jesus preaching the sermon on the mount to a receptive Teleban? Seriously, you clearly have no (zero, none, zilch) idea about the teachings of Christ.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 10:12pm
krazykiwi

wat – I’m done for the day, mrs kk has been away all week and I’m, well, ‘sleepy’ 😉

However I’m genuinely interested to know if you believe being a Christian requires following the Levitical food laws (ie no shellfish etc), and other Old Testament directives?
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 10:21pm
TheContrarian

Exodus 21:17 is in the new testament. Do you follow it?

If not, why not?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 10:25pm
wat dabney

“Seriously, you clearly have no (zero, none, zilch) idea about the teachings of Christ.”

In this particular belief system the deity called Yahweh – who has committed an endless litany of cruelties and barbarities – wields a little hippy sock-puppet called “Jesus.”

And you think that the warm’n’fuzzy stuff that the Jesus puppet spouts somehow renders all the atrocities of Yahweh moot?; that if we just focus on Reinhard Heydrich’s undoubted commitment as a husband and loving father that all his sickening butcheries count for nothing?

“However I’m genuinely interested to know if you believe being a Christian requires following the Levitical food laws (ie no shellfish etc), and other Old Testament directives?”

They must, because they are supposed to be moral teachings and not arbitrary laws.

If they were arbitrary – if Yahweh just tossed a coin and decided that those working on the Sabbath should be stoned to death – then every teaching and lesson in the Bible can be dismissed as having no moral basis.
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 10:37pm
kowtow

Contrarian wrong again.

Roots of the English language is Germanic.A huge proportion of words are French and Latin based. Not so much Greek.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 1, 2013 10:52pm
bereal

thedavincimode @ 8.45

What is it that you need, a sliderule or a fukin abacus to work out that Pat Lam was useless.

Maybe even with an abacus, a sliderule, a protractor and a set square it would be beyond you to
figure out the obvious.

Tatoo this on your forehead to help you understand.

“Pat Lam was a useless football coach.”

Second thought, tatoo it on your knob, you may see it more often.
0 2
Log in to Reply
Report
March 2, 2013 12:27am
TheContrarian

Kowtow skips to main point in order to attack a somewhat irrelevant point in an attempt to mask the fact that he is completely wrong about laws and ethics originating from Christianity.

Nice dodge yet somewhat obvious.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 2, 2013 8:23am
krazykiwi

TheContrarian, Exodus is – obviously – in the Old Testament. The verse you refer to – people who curse their parents being put to death – is mentioned in the New Testament. It is quoted by Jesus. Here it is in context, with the religious leaders of the day trying to trap him

Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’

But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
“ ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.’ ”

(Matthew 15:1-9 NIV)

The vast majority of the New Testament is commentary and context, and it’s extraordinarily light on rules, despite some suggesting that it’s nothing other than rules. Those folks probably think (hope?) that the verse “Judas went out and hung himself” is divine instruction for the faithful 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
March 2, 2013 11:54am

More comments:

‹
1
2

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Latest poll

Still husband and wife, not just spouses »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.4K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Links

Woman of the day
Hompaddock
You all understand these gang patch bans will get challenged in Court right?
The Daily Blog
Its A Funny Old Game.
No Minister
Its official: the Royal Society of NZ’s race-based funding is a constitutional requirement.
Point of Order
Band Aid at 40
Utopia
Open mike 23/11/2024
The Standard
Justice in Brazil
No Right Turn
"Seymour is only doing openly what M?ori nationalists and their Pakeha allies have been doing, quietly for the past 50 years."
Not PC
The transgender agenda sunk Kamala
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
What does “reciprocity” mean in New Zealand laws?
Croaking Cassandra
A Day of Reckoning
NZCPR
Media Link: “A View from Afar” on the US elections.
Kiwipolitico
This will not end well
Offsetting Behaviour
Top 14 Predictions for Round 10
Stats Chat
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d