Posts by Finn Higgins
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Finn, your argument can be extended to say that noone should live in NZ.
I don't think teenagers needs are irrelevant at all. They are exactly as relevant as yours, probably more so because they have to live here longer.
I don't think any of that stands unless you put words in my mouth in order to argue it. If you can manage that with the first assertion I'd be very surprised.
I'm arguing that people will make their lives function based on what they have to work with: if cars are available to fifteen-year-olds then some families with kids that age will arrange their affairs such that the option is taken up by necessity.
An argument over the merits of fifteen-year-old kids driving cars is just that - it doesn't need to discuss whether or not there are some kids in the country who currently need one, it's just about whether they should be allowed. If the option is to be taken away it's because there's a good argument against it being available, not because nobody is using it.
But as for the "12 is young enough"... how much time do you really spend around teenagers, Ben? They're interesting. In some ways they do a great job of imitating adults, you can talk to them as equals etc etc. But they're not adults, and if you leave them on their own to make decisions then they'll quite often make some pretty stupid ones. The argument over age isn't about physical capability or control, it's about mental ability to make decisions and limiting the damage that making the wrong ones can do.
At the moment we set legal limits on a bunch of activities at a range of ages, with driving arguably one of the lowest. Yet it's also probably the most dangerous of the lot. What's the rationale?
-
Being able to get around isn't really a panacea. It's kind of basic.
Right, but that's something you factor into a decision to move to a particular place. As in, I don't live in Wanaka. Not because I have any dislike of the place or because I think Wellington is more scenic, but because I can't really afford or justify the helicopter and private jet I would need to be able to get to the stuff I want to do in a convenient manner.
The question here is whether teenagers, collectively, are responsible enough to be in charge of extremely heavy pieces of metal flying around the place at astonishing speeds. If you can argue that they are, then sure - give them cars. But trying to argue that, safety and good sense be damned, they just need them... well, that seems rather irrelevant. The only reason they need them is because they're living in a place that assumes they're going to be available.
-
Finn...the thing is, as Russell implied too, these critics in this case were as integral to the punk explosion as any musician was.
I'm well aware of that, and in all honesty that's more something that makes me a bit distrustful of the punk explosion than trusting of over-excitable criticism. Invective is almost invariably entertaining, but it's also lazy as fuck: it's very easy to claim that The Right Motown Songs and The Right Punk Songs are the only recordings you need ever own, but actually very hard to back up that statement with a solid argument if you know much about music.
Unfortunately the audience for those kinds of statements frequently doesn't know much about music, so I'd tend to see it as more than a little irresponsible.
I'm not that not being a musician excludes one from having any passion about music. I don't mind somebody telling me something may well be crap. Viva le critics I say, including the snarly ones.....
I can live with critics, snarly ones included. Sometimes I get a good laugh out of reading them. But what I dislike is the air of authority that criticism lends itself, the idea that the ability to produce interesting prose on the topic of music somehow translates to having opinions that are actually worth considering.
I value punk on a musical level because it did a fantastic job of removing English rock music's head from its own arse. But I dislike it because it instead inserted it nice and hard up the arse of a bunch of critics and media outlets instead, which I'm not sure is an improvement. Which is the worse example of musical arrogance: A bunch of nobs writing hour-long concept pieces while wearing capes, or a bunch of musically-illiterate snot-noses claiming that everything that has come before them isn't even worthy of the ink in their pens?
-
(Don't stop though Russ. Each to their own. To me the roar and PSCHH of a passing ricer is music. Bad music, sometimes. But sometimes it's pure art.)
I can't argue with that, but only because I've been known to listen to stuff that most people would consider a lot more obnoxious. That said, I don't tend to play it so loud in public, that would just be being a dick...
Heh, I guess I don't get your point since I don't think P should be banned, or that South Auckland is intolerable, or that Taranaki is a shit place to be a teenager (damn good surf). Kidding around aside, just as the entire country's policy shouldn't revolve around country people, nor should it revolve around city people.
To some degree I'm just being facetious, I've actually lived a couple of years in South Auckland and apart from the burglaries it was kind of alright. But my point was that if you can't tolerate living in a place without a panacea - in this case, the ability to drive at an age when the odds are that you're really not developed enough to handle a car sensibly - then you should probably leave. That's true enough for anywhere.
I do think Taranaki is a shit place to be a teenager though, my criteria being basically that a "good" place is one that gives you some actual options for what you want to get into the habit of doing with your life and a "bad" one is one that gives you not much besides surf and some great scenery.
-
I used to love the dramatic overstatement....Julie Burchill: The only records worth owning are the first three Sex Pistols singles and everything ever released on Tamla Motown
I love reading that stuff from musicians, but I hate it from critics. For a musician a strong, defined standpoint on music and some passion is a good thing - it informs actually doing something. But criticism? No thanks.
-
Finn, perhaps it's on par with liking NZ music? Heh, I kill me.
I'm not sure if that was a diss on NZ music or on me for dissing general standards of NZ musicianship! Be more specific in your insults, man!
(Assuming the latter, I'll say one thing: NZ does produce better musicians than it does drivers)
And sorry man, you are being a snob. Bad enough to be stuck in Taranaki, but to have some dorklander ban your wheelz? The bitterness.
Fuck that, there's two possible reasons you're living in Taranaki: You moved there, or your family did at some point. If it's a shitty place to be a teenager then you can leave or your family can leave. Not wanting to ban teenagers in cars because it makes a shitty place slightly less shitty for them is a bit like not wanting to ban P because it makes living in South Auckland slightly more tolerable.
-
I'm with Russell on the appeal of driving. Don't get it as a form of entertainment, to me it seems about on par with train spotting. Transport! Phwoaar...
But with that said, in NZ it does seem to be something that you need, at least in most areas of the country. That's unfortunate, but population density really is the issue. Not much of an excuse in Auckland though, it was a deliberate choice after all...
That said, I'm all in favour of banning teenagers from driving entirely. A driving age of 19-20 seems about right. Kids in Taranaki? Fuck 'em, it'd be good for them to get out while they can and this just provides another illustration for parents as to why trying to raise teenagers in rural or semi-rural areas is a bad idea in the first place. Maybe having to drive their kids to and from all their social functions would help outline why it'd be an idea to move into a decent-sized town. And this is coming from somebody who substantially grew up in Hawkes Bay and small-town Yorkshire, so I don't think I'm being snobbish on the topic.
-
Stephen, you asked what the difference was and I told you a difference. It was a rather obvious one.
Now, rather than acknowledging that your initial question was a little silly, you seem to be seeking to change the subject, and in all honesty I'm not sure I've got the time or the energy to follow the topic wherever you feel the urge to take it in the interests of a good debate. Not that I'm opposed to such things, but 48 Hours kicks off tonight and I'm a touch busy with the old fixing, cleaning and checking gear routine right now..
-
What's the difference between MEMRI cherry-picking exteme statements, and sonic cherry-picking Hitchens?
... I guess the difference would be that one is cherry-picking one person, another an entire culture. If one person says enough silly things consistently then cherry-picking is - while a bit harsh - still a fairly valid approach because it's engaging with a single person and their views. Nobody is going to think the worse of anybody but Hitchens as a result of it, and he does get to choose what he says. But cherry-picking extremism to represent a culture, nation, ethnicity or religion is another matter, because it draws completely innocent parties into the affair. How would you feel about foreigners making their decisions about engagement with New Zealand based on the collected works of dad4justice and Ian Wishart?
-
An important point Hadyn.
Get it right! It's spelled Haydon ;)