Posts by kmont
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Grant,
Not ignoring the issue at all, I am largely with Deborah as far as that goes but arguing it with you would be pointless because your view is set and not open to scientific reasoning. I am willing to engage on other aspects of this issue and with other voices.....
-
Fortunately I do have a high tolerance for conversations about personhood and whatnot (otherwise I wouldn't still be reading would I) but there are other strands to this conversation that are worth pursuing.
It would be good to open a wider conversation and the fact that women are the ones that all of the wonderful potential personhood forming occurs within is not entirely irrelevant.
Not saying that the mens should shut up, just pointing out that owning potential person growing equiptment effects my daily life.
-
Of course you were ;-)
Sorry if that wasn't clear. I was addressing the general "reading but not commenting" types at that point.
-
Indeed Islander, but remember many people read but few comment. There may be juice left in this thread yet. The discussion could go any direction, it could even go offline if soapbox is not your style.....fruitful thought and discussion could be happening right now in people's homes all over the country for all we know ;-)
How about this list of beautiful things:
Children created deliberately and loved
Children that are happy accidents
Children bought into being in novel ways (and into non-traditional family structures) because the desire to care for and love them is so strong
Woman who choose to bring children into the world in the circumstances listed above.
Woman in NZ now have a choice to only bring life into the world when they can and want to make the sacrifices necessary to raise a child.
In a non-technical sense a fetus is a potential human life and as such is an awesome thing not to be taken lightly. However care for the human life that already exists (women, existing children and men) defines my morality and I am deeply grateful to be living in the 1st world in the 21st century where I am not a complete slave to circumstance, biology and (deep breaths now) patriarchy.
If your religious views compel you to reject abortion for yourself I can and do respect that. However it is unreasonable to have access to all the historical knowledge that we have about what happens when you restrict women's access to abortion and still support the rolling back of what was fought for by previous generations. My body, my choice.
-
Very grateful.
-
Facilitated his viewpoint
Tee hee, whatever the truth of the matter is, it is indeed managementspeak.
My father, bless him, prints out web pages, sticks them in an envelope and posts them to me.
This is the cutest thing I have read all week.
Back to reading the abortion thread </sigh>
-
I am a bit late to this party but LOL! Kim Hill ending the interview with "well it was very interesting talking to you Dr....." with the unstated but clearly implied "YOU PILLOCK".
Priceless.
What is with the meaningless twaddle about the Beatles and long walks on the beach.....
I can't believe this man is employed by a university.
-
Di, Sophie and all of the people intimately connected to Finn, I want to offer my sincere condolences. I was hesitant to post anything here because I was not sure if it would strike a strange note for those who knew Finn to have strangers posting about their loved one in a public space. So to Finns mum Di thanks for coming and writing such personal things here and I hope you can sense the respect we have for your son. Love to you and yours.
-
Hey Shep, could you expand? I am kind of following you but not sure what you mean.
-
I noticed around the corner from my place last night, that some zany marketing agency for Telecom have put cheeky little stencil arts of that new Okta branding (the swanky avatar/paper-cutout people things) amongst work from Component etc.
Clearly we need to amend the Telecom separation legislation to include anti-tagging provisions.(Unless some cad put it up with a deeper anti-establishment message that I entirely missed)
Now that just really pisses me off, I am glad I am not in Auckland to see it.
I can't remember the magazine, but ages ago I saw a spread in a NZ magazine of some graffiti artists "bombing" a large billboard for Coke somewhere in central Auckland. On the one hand, it is good to see talented people having the time and funds to execute something on a large scale where everyone can see it (gainfully employed and all that). On the other hand, it is a shame that it has to be for Coke. I guess I have adbuster tenancies because I love a good culture jam. That doesn't mean that I am some hipster who only appreciates "proper graffiti" a la banksy and separates off tagging into an entirely separate category; I don't think this is actually possible.I think it is more of artistic interest than merit. I like it because it's disruptive. It's like natures way of saying somethings wrong.
That is absolutely my opinion too, in fact NZ had a graffiti magazine called "Disrupt" (now defunct) which was really good.
I'm also fond of the accidental art caused by buffs (that's the name for when the council man paints over graffiti).
Me too, I have collection of photos from places I have travelled. I can see that from the perspective of the small business owner who spends his or her hard earned dosh removing tagging there is nothing beautiful about the mismatched paint and the stubborn traces of smudged marker pen but I would never want to live in a city completely devoid of tagging.
My local dairy owner has spent a lot of money painting over tagging in the last month, he no doubt does not share my "industrial aesthetic". Tagging is antisocial and disruptive which is why a different kind of societal attention should be paid to it. Knee-jerk reactions such as banning spray cans are just never going to eliminate angry/disruptive/antisocial/artistic/anti-corporate/whimsical/fame-whoring/ugly/beautiful/accidentally beautiful/juvenile/ironic/territorial/playful/drunken public markings.