-
@Siam said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial I don't either mate. And nowadays it is a stupid question.
But who made it stupid?What forces at play made such a simple question such a career landmine?
Knickers in a twist, maybe, certainly concerned that people are fearful of their favoured candidate answering a 4 year old's question about the world. What are you scared of?
Quite simply because it isn't a four year old asking the question, it is most likely someone setting up a strawman.
Is it really such a simple question? Maybe your belief of a simple answer is the only reason you think the question is simple?
-
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Siam said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial I don't either mate. And nowadays it is a stupid question.
But who made it stupid?What forces at play made such a simple question such a career landmine?
Knickers in a twist, maybe, certainly concerned that people are fearful of their favoured candidate answering a 4 year old's question about the world. What are you scared of?
Quite simply because it isn't a four year old asking the question, it is most likely someone setting up a strawman.
Is it really such a simple question? Maybe your belief of a simple answer is the only reason you think the question is simple?
It's not a strawman, the answer tells the voters if the politican has common sense or not, and if they hold extreme opinions that most of us disagree with.
-
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Siam said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial I don't either mate. And nowadays it is a stupid question.
But who made it stupid?What forces at play made such a simple question such a career landmine?
Knickers in a twist, maybe, certainly concerned that people are fearful of their favoured candidate answering a 4 year old's question about the world. What are you scared of?
Quite simply because it isn't a four year old asking the question, it is most likely someone setting up a strawman.
Is it really such a simple question? Maybe your belief of a simple answer is the only reason you think the question is simple?
I think you're right about that.
But it'll need to be comprehensively resolved before it forms the basis of laws.
That's the "knickers in a twist" part -
@Kirwan said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Siam said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial I don't either mate. And nowadays it is a stupid question.
But who made it stupid?What forces at play made such a simple question such a career landmine?
Knickers in a twist, maybe, certainly concerned that people are fearful of their favoured candidate answering a 4 year old's question about the world. What are you scared of?
Quite simply because it isn't a four year old asking the question, it is most likely someone setting up a strawman.
Is it really such a simple question? Maybe your belief of a simple answer is the only reason you think the question is simple?
It's not a strawman, the answer tells the voters if the politican has common sense or not, and if they hold extreme opinions that most of us disagree with.
It is a word. How can you decide whether a politician has common sense based on their definition of a word unless you are measuring them by your own defintion?
The question isn't always a strwman but often is. It is used to draw politicians into a much larger gender definition debate.
The alternative to a simple answer is not always an extreme. That is a very bi-polar idea.Out of interest what is the commonsense answer that you are looking for?
-
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
Out of interest what is the commonsense answer that you are looking for?
A vagina, does it for me (yes I know).
A better question might be - "do you believe in a superior being that watches over all of us?"
Then we all form our opinions about the politician. Positive or negative.
-
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Kirwan said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Siam said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial I don't either mate. And nowadays it is a stupid question.
But who made it stupid?What forces at play made such a simple question such a career landmine?
Knickers in a twist, maybe, certainly concerned that people are fearful of their favoured candidate answering a 4 year old's question about the world. What are you scared of?
Quite simply because it isn't a four year old asking the question, it is most likely someone setting up a strawman.
Is it really such a simple question? Maybe your belief of a simple answer is the only reason you think the question is simple?
It's not a strawman, the answer tells the voters if the politican has common sense or not, and if they hold extreme opinions that most of us disagree with.
Out of interest what is the commonsense answer that you are looking for?
The one that forms the basis for subsequent gender laws.
-
Isn't there another thread for this discussion?
But, since it is here, I think very very few interviewers or media outlets are going to allow a politician to be a real person and answer this with the level of humanism that doesn't get edited down to 'X says ___', and since most ppl are getting their news filtered through social media or news commentators (are there any reporters left?) then I can see why politicians want to avoid it.
Woman looks pretty easy: adult human female [female: of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes].
However once we ask that with 'be' [i.e., what is a woman?], things get a bit trickier as 'be' refers to having the state, quality, identity, nature, role, etc., specified.
As a result, some people argue that when we talk about 'woman' we could and should extend the idea beyond 'state' to include 'identify', and in most cases in everyday life that works pretty well. If you've got a dick but live as a woman, I couldn't really give a shit and I don't think many ppl who you'd want to have a beer with actually do.
But, if you've got a dick and want to compete as a woman, then we get into a different discussion, because of the genetical differences between male and female bodies, which make human male bodies much bigger and stronger, with greater bone density etc etc.
With respect to the current discussion, my position is that some ppl who identify as woman, but are not genetically female, have knowingly pushed the boat out too far, creating a situation where ppl have to choose sides on this issue, making them victims as their rights are being infringed upon. That creates a backlash that wasn't required - if people love sport, they'd love sport.
As a result, some institutions, such as the IOC, have jumped ahead of the science (IMO) and made decisions that have big consequences on the participation and rigor of sport for genetic females. That needs changing.
Edit: Governments are in the same boat too, and should use definitions based on the scientific understanding of 'female' (i.e., sex). Of course, then we could get into arguments about being intersex etc etc, which brings us back to the argument that identification is better.
How much have I typed so far? And how much more could I type? And, what news organization won't try to twist that around to suit their needs? I won't even be surprised if a few posters try it too.
-
@Snowy said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
Out of interest what is the commonsense answer that you are looking for?
A vagina, does it for me (yes I know).
A better question might be - "do you believe in a superior being that watches over all of us?"
Then we all form our opinions about the politician. Positive or negative.
I'm more relaxed about what people believe frankly. The issue starts when people start trying to push their ideology on us through law.
As for the 'hate speech' discussion, that really concerns me. There are short term benefits to suppressing speech you don't like, but the issue of defining it on 'offense' is absolutely fraught. I am offended by restriction on speech, so how does that work? Who decides what can be said, and what can't?
The other issue is suppressing speech doesn't kill it, it just drives it underground. The threshold for preventing freedom of expression (no matter how offensive that is) must be very high, and I worry that we're starting to erode that in our society,a nd erode it quickly. Don Brash, no matter your thoughts on his political views, was a mainstream politician who led a party that attracted 39% of the vote (compared to 41% Labour). To have him prevented from presenting at a University campus politics seminar makes my head explode.
We should go down the path of restricting speech very very cautiously. Freedom is easily lost, and hard to win back, and as always, those in charge can change rapidly.
-
@nzzp said in NZ Politics:
I'm more relaxed about what people believe frankly.
I'm pretty open about that sort of thing too - but it will influence my opinion of them was what I was getting at, and other voters response when you are trying to win an election.
-
The universal definition of male and female, across all species, relates to gamete size:
Based on the sole criterion of production of reproductive cells, there are two and only two sexes: the female sex, capable of producing large gametes (ovules), and the male sex, which produces small gametes (spermatozoa).
Stick to those guidelines, which is what scientists use to distinguish what is male or female, and you are 99% of the way there.
-
@Siam said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Kirwan said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Siam said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial I don't either mate. And nowadays it is a stupid question.
But who made it stupid?What forces at play made such a simple question such a career landmine?
Knickers in a twist, maybe, certainly concerned that people are fearful of their favoured candidate answering a 4 year old's question about the world. What are you scared of?
Quite simply because it isn't a four year old asking the question, it is most likely someone setting up a strawman.
Is it really such a simple question? Maybe your belief of a simple answer is the only reason you think the question is simple?
It's not a strawman, the answer tells the voters if the politican has common sense or not, and if they hold extreme opinions that most of us disagree with.
Out of interest what is the commonsense answer that you are looking for?
The one that forms the basis for subsequent gender laws.
Exactly. So the follow up question is 'can you define that please?'
-
@Snowy said in NZ Politics:
@nzzp said in NZ Politics:
I'm more relaxed about what people believe frankly.
I'm pretty open about that sort of thing too
thinking about this more, I will skew my position even further 'out there'. I think it is really healthy to have people challenging our concept of 'normal'. This applies on all sides - it is as good to have Act there articulating libertarian economic freedoms, as it is to have Greens advocating for animals to have the same rights as humans. It's healthy to have dissension and different viewpoints ... you could even call it 'diversity'.
Someone above was making disparaging comments about judging Muller as he believes in sky fairies. I'd note that while that view is now acceptable, it's not acceptable to disparage the Maori animism (and I'd note for balance that we still start Parliament with a prayer to a god - I think a Christian god, but hey).
And the key concern here is 'who decides what is OK and not OK to express'. Because if the answer is 'politicians', I'm deeply troubled.
-
@nzzp said in NZ Politics:
@Snowy said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
Out of interest what is the commonsense answer that you are looking for?
A vagina, does it for me (yes I know).
A better question might be - "do you believe in a superior being that watches over all of us?"
Then we all form our opinions about the politician. Positive or negative.
I'm more relaxed about what people believe frankly. The issue starts when people start trying to push their ideology on us through law.
As for the 'hate speech' discussion, that really concerns me. There are short term benefits to suppressing speech you don't like, but the issue of defining it on 'offense' is absolutely fraught. I am offended by restriction on speech, so how does that work? Who decides what can be said, and what can't?
The other issue is suppressing speech doesn't kill it, it just drives it underground. The threshold for preventing freedom of expression (no matter how offensive that is) must be very high, and I worry that we're starting to erode that in our society,a nd erode it quickly. Don Brash, no matter your thoughts on his political views, was a mainstream politician who led a party that attracted 39% of the vote (compared to 41% Labour). To have him prevented from presenting at a University campus politics seminar makes my head explode.
We should go down the path of restricting speech very very cautiously. Freedom is easily lost, and hard to win back, and as always, those in charge can change rapidly.
Replace the word offence with the word harm and the answer changes.
If, for arguments sake, there is statistical evidence that certain hate speech causes mental harm and subsequent societal issues, should we not try and make it unacceptable in society?
I'm not arguing for all and sundry 'offence taken' type statements or speech to be banned but the difficulty is in finding the correct boundary (knowing that the boundary line will also move over time).
To me the answer isn't 'let's just not have a boundary' because that means that you are ignoring the rights of those hurt just as much as the opposite is ignoring the 'rights' of freedom.
As I said before, I don't see how anyone can realistically claim to be supportive of mental health issues and at the same time refuse someone else's non harmful identity.
So apart from sports, I ask again why it matters what a person identifies themselves as?
The whole sports argument is simply semantics. The problem seems to be the definition of a word when the answer is for govt and sports bodies to allow a 'XX' or 'XY' definition in their categorisation of competitors. -
@nzzp said in NZ Politics:
@Snowy said in NZ Politics:
@nzzp said in NZ Politics:
I'm more relaxed about what people believe frankly.
I'm pretty open about that sort of thing too
thinking about this more, I will skew my position even further 'out there'. I think it is really healthy to have people challenging our concept of 'normal'. This applies on all sides - it is as good to have Act there articulating libertarian economic freedoms, as it is to have Greens advocating for animals to have the same rights as humans. It's healthy to have dissension and different viewpoints ... you could even call it 'diversity'.
Someone above was making disparaging comments about judging Muller as he believes in sky fairies. I'd note that while that view is now acceptable, it's not acceptable to disparage the Maori animism (and I'd note for balance that we still start Parliament with a prayer to a god - I think a Christian god, but hey).
And the key concern here is 'who decides what is OK and not OK to express'. Because if the answer is 'politicians', I'm deeply troubled.
I judge Muller (and others) based on being part of a cult that preaches certain ideals simply because I know that will affect his decision making in certain matters that I may hold different views on.
He is totally free to be a member of that cult though and I respect that freedom. It is acceptable for me to criticise him because of his views but illegal for me to directly discriminate against him. (Although you could make a convoluted argument that not voting for him because of his religion is discrimination?)Then there is the position where I struggle to understand why anyone can claim intelligence but also believe in a 'sky fairy'. I guess that in the interests of freedom of thought I can come to terms with that.
-
@Snowy said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
Out of interest what is the commonsense answer that you are looking for?
A vagina, does it for me (yes I know).
A better question might be - "do you believe in a superior being that watches over all of us?"
Then we all form our opinions about the politician. Positive or negative.
You talking about the Mods?
-
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Siam said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Kirwan said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Siam said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial I don't either mate. And nowadays it is a stupid question.
But who made it stupid?What forces at play made such a simple question such a career landmine?
Knickers in a twist, maybe, certainly concerned that people are fearful of their favoured candidate answering a 4 year old's question about the world. What are you scared of?
Quite simply because it isn't a four year old asking the question, it is most likely someone setting up a strawman.
Is it really such a simple question? Maybe your belief of a simple answer is the only reason you think the question is simple?
It's not a strawman, the answer tells the voters if the politican has common sense or not, and if they hold extreme opinions that most of us disagree with.
Out of interest what is the commonsense answer that you are looking for?
The one that forms the basis for subsequent gender laws.
Exactly. So the follow up question is 'can you define that please?'
No, can Adern and Muller please define it. Voting decision to follow
-
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
Replace the word offence with the word harm and the answer changes.
at the risk of going down a rabbit hole, it doens't change the way that you propose that it does.
Catholicism (and Christianity, and Mormonism, and Islam, and religions in general) have demonstrably harmed a large proportion of society. We know Catholics who were excommunicated. Should Catholicism be banned as a result?
The principle in law at the moment seems to be set quite high. I don't think it's in the wrong place frankly, and it's not triggered by 'offense'. These don't exist in a vacuum - by imposing restrictions on speech, you limit people's rights. There is a balance, and the question is where the balance should be reached. I'm opposed to widespread restriction on speech, particularly on the basis of offense.
Harm is a whole other discussion, because the question has to start being asked 'who is harmed, and how'? This is the whole Folau thing again - do people have the right to believe in their sky fairies, and in teachings that are interpeted differently by different groups? If not, who decides which are 'ok' to preach, and which are not. Note that we're not necessarily talking about employment consequences here either - the argument is that this is 'hate speech' and therefore getting to a level where the State (police) get involved.
in other good fun, I'll also note that blasphemous libel only became illegal in NZ last year.
NZ Politics