//last I checked, that still meant "obvious", and it is hard to see how something about which there is a lot of disagreement could be "obvious".
Okay. Patently obvious to anyone who has done research, and isn't holding an overpowering bias against the US
//"reforge alliances" implies that more than one alliance has been broken. I can think of one. What are the others? I also fail to see how choosing not to reforge these alliances is cowardly,
The alliance is more than what is contracted in a piece of paper. I'm confident that, despite your radical views, you would accept this point. By convention, we would support our allies, the Americans and the Australians. It is ludicrous and reckless ideas (mostly aimed just to get political support), such as preventing US ships from entering new zealand, and refusing to go to war, that undermine these alliances. Of course, it is far too soon for the paper to be scrapped, so your argument is simply ridiculous.
//Rufiox, you make some pretty sweeping calls sometimes.
There is a little bit of truth here. I said that 'everyone' is anti-american, when in fact it is probably only around 80-90 percent.
Good call bluetree. It is an absolute disgrace that New Zealand has not participated in the coalition of the willing. Everyone in this forum who opposes the war, actually opposes the US. War isn't the issue because they wouldn't raise an eyelid on other wars where the US hasn't been involved. Further, these wars were PATENTLY ILLEGAL. This war is equivocal on legality, but it is PATENTLY MORAL.
Its funny how all the supposed "peace nicks" never cared about UN sanctioning, untill now. In fact, the UN has only ever sanctioned 4 wars.
Just realise, not all New Zealanders are against you. Some want to reforge alliances with America. Others are too cowardly to do so.
I didn't respond to this initially because it wasn't particularly relevant. I was arguing something else, and the point you were contesting was, at best, a secondary hypothetical, which I don't sincerely believe in any case
My posts were, in general, regarding races... I do not believe in valid and complete transcience between ethnic groups. One of my references to "ethnics" was a general term for non-white people.
If I define my argument in terms of lineage, then I think it becomes clearer... People are born into a particular lineage or racial group, which is then exposed to social influences. Thereby, lineage can be seen as causative.
Not a very strong argument, but it shows causation can be used in a broader sense
//Everytime someone actually combats his points he stops posting in that forum.
HUH????
What thread is this? If I remember correctly, you were the first to leave the "position on Iraq" thread.
Oh.. ethnic... social debate.
Good post Soldierboy. You are quite right.
Saddam has squandered the aid, in order to suite his own purposes. Were they to give more aid, it would just advance Saddam's personal agenda at a faster rate, rather than benefit the starving.
Taking this into account, the deaths are a product of Saddam's actions, not the Americans or the UN.
If we have a war, aid will go to where it is necessary, so these deaths actually support the case for war.
I am a big Beastie Boys fan, but I don't agree with them on this.
Is anyone else starting to become annoyed with non-political public figures trying to make a moral stand on issues which many of them don't fully understand? While I'm privy to how informed the Beastie Boys are, George Michael's foray into the press was an embarassment, although it was highly amusing to watch him being interrogated on BBC.
All celebrity events seem to be orgies of moral vanity, where people express outrage against the war, while failing to contribute any real substance to the debate. Maybe some are cashing in on easy support from fans. Then again, maybe I'm just being cynical.
//I think regardless of what top 100 you put forward in whatever magazine, there are a lot of NZ artists that would fit quite comfortably in there, given the marketing and distribution.
Um. Thats where I disagree. Given this fundamental difference, I can't foresee any prospect of agreement, so this discussion is largely redundant.
At least you got my argument, after my second attempt at wording it... My first attempt was rather "high handed", to quote myself from another forum. I didn't mean to piss anybody off, but to press a point.
//Err - no, just exercising our right to freely discuss how we're sick of these topics.
Yes. If you accept that you are "freely" discussing things, then you should let other people do the same.
//Is this your personal opinion, or are you talking on behalf of truly talented musicians?
The former.
I particularly liked this message.
Name: ILoveDisorderlyWithMyPeePee (Homepage)
Country: Date: Wed Mar 12 22:37:00 2003
Comment: I was at your last show and it was awesome. I was like, "FUCKING SHIT!" And my friend was like, "FUCK!" Then I got all pumped up and shit and punch an old lady! It was sweet and fucking awesome and sweet. After the show I started my own band to be like you guys. Its called "I Love Disorderly With My PeePee" or I.L.D.W.M.P.P. It's like FUCK! I play guitar and I'm like DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN and my friend who sing goes MUTHAFUCKIN SHIT!!! and then growls... it fucking rocks. I love you with
If you don't like them, don't read them.
It is awefully high-handed to abuse people who might enjoy such topics. You seem to be claiming that you ought to have, by right, some kind of monopoly/censorship on what other users want to talk about...
Again, that isn't at all what I'm arguing.
I'm not arguing that New Zealand music isn't up to standard based on the quantity-quality ratio of New Zealand music as compared to other countries. I was attacking the claim that New Zealand music is equal to that of any other country, which I have heard stated on countless occassions.
This claim would necessarily involve a tier of New Zealand music that could rival that of any other country. My claim is that we don't yet have this tier, and that any arguments on the pretense that we do, could therefore be interpreted as a derogatory comment on those countries that do.
//To say that there is a quantifiiable standard for quality is unfounded. What are the units? What is the
//method of measurement?
This is the obvious objection... There are lots of arguments available to me here. I could argue for an elite tier of musicians to be judged on objective criteria, and I think that I could maintain it. Another position would be to take a subjective account of the quality of music, which would result in an identical conclusion so I see no issues either way.
Thanks abbey.... You are right, that WAS what I was intending. Hey, you didn't post that email. I wanted to get some dialogue going with that old emailer.
lol.
People interpreted me as mounting a criticism of New Zealand music. I think New Zealand music is excellent, but to hold it as the equal of any music out there is unfounded.
//for your information, katy kate is a very nice person.
She does seem very nice. No doubts there.
// i don't think it's particularly kind of you to criticise how people speak.
Its more of a comment against me, than a criticism of them. I just find it annoying to listen to.
//There is more bullshit, average music coming out of England, America, Australia etc. than compared to New Zealand at the moment.
I would agree with that. But because those countries (excluding Australia) are a haven for fantastic musicians, there is obviously more of a viable market for fringe talents. Also, the money taints the music, if you buy into that argument.
//What I'm trying to say is that ethnic groups are not based on genetic similarity.
Perhaps I didn't understand this argument, but I don't think that it matters. Genetics 100% determine membership to an ethnic group.... Certain DNA codings etc. The fact that there can be differences of Genetic makeup, overall, within that group, and overlap with other groups, is utterly irrelevant.
//That is disputable. Caffeine does have withdrawal symptoms, but it doesn't have the physical or psychological dependency of other 'drugs'.
That is true I guess... I think you are right that it gets immersed into a social routine of drinking.
This post pretty much summed everything up, so I will respond here.
//$75 dvd from planet jack that was meant to have 2 discs, and i only got 1....
They ripped me off once too. Go complain.
// (speaking of the beatles)... how do i put it, sucked. Jimi was excellent, but does that mean nzmusic is bad?
My point was that there is un upper elite tier of musicians, of which I named a few. New Zealand hasn't produced anyone who comes close to that level.
//You seem to be measuring 'quality' as justified by 'recognition'. For starters, some wonderful wonderful music maybe unknown and therefore regarded as not as good as that that gets all the accoldaes.
No. I am judging musical quality on its own merits. I'm not confusing talent with marketting, which is important to a certain point. You are right that New Zealand groups don't enjoy the same access to marketting as do groups from other countries. This limits there ability to get "recognised". But neither is marketting shared equally within those countries in which some do receive it. There are many groups that have made it big, without an initial media campaign, and it is a sad indictment on NZ Music that this has not been emulated here.
When I started the thread, I wasn't intending to argue "NZ music is shit", because it quite clearly isn't. What I was meaning to say, and I assure that I wasn't meaning to sound condescending in doing so, is that to call NZ music "equal" to all international music is a slight against the elite tier of international musicians.
NZ music is good, but it hasn't yet broken into this elite tier. Recognition, viewed skeptically, can give some rough indication of this. That's not to say it won't, and I hope it will soon.
//At least we aint producing utter bullshit, like britney or avril.
Amen. One of the good things about having little access to marketting dollars, is that musicians aren't totally manufactured, and don't just "sell out". I suppose that's NZ Music's edge.
This may not be the appropriate setting to air this question, but oh well. People seem to be saying at the moment that NZ music is good. Often, that it is equally is good as other international music.
NO WAY HOSAY. On the behalf of truly talented musicians, I find this kind of comment insulting. Sure, there are a handfull of average (internationally speaking) bands, who have somewhat of a cult following internationally, but NZ music industry hasn't produced anyone of serious note.
Who are our rivals of John Lennon, Paul McKartney or Jimmi Hendrix? The Finns?
I think people ought to give credit where credit is due. The unfortunate fact is that people are giving it when it probably isn't.
Opinions please.
//So even if there was a genetic disposition to crime, social influences could almost completely negate
//the effect in modern society.
//Another key weakness is that ethnic groups are poorly defined by genetics. It is quite plausible that a
//norwegian and a fijian could have a greater overlap in coding DNA than two fijians.
I agree.
However, I suppose its a matter of opinion whether genetics is causative. Genetics and ethnicity largely define membership to a cultural group. Each cultural group has particular socialization patterns unique to the wider run of socio-economic influences. Even though it is not strictly causative in the sense of a DNA makeup physically determining behaviour, it can determine just which social influences one is exposed to, and therefore affect behaviour.
About the coffee... Coffee is highly addictive, so that explains the overlap with smokers. I suppose it also relates to hypertension and insomnia.
Could they really have taken so long to come up with a website as lame as that?