Posts by Clarke
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
As a Wellingtonian, it's interesting listening to the Stadium/Te Papa comparison. As a few people have pointed out, Te Papa may not be the best possible building that could have been constructed on the site - and in the opinion of some, has all the charm of a maximum-security prison - but the development of Waitangi Park and the surrounding areas are beginning to give the whole precinct a degree of coherence.
In my view, the stadium should be on the waterfront ... but don't let the debate stop there. Auckland should then figure out what the surrounding urban landscape looks like, so that the stadium has some context. It's the coherence of the entire area that will eventually decide whether it's a successful development or not.
-
In my view both the theist and the atheist are making claims they need to prove, rather than simply assert. Both views have implications for the real world.
As Dawkins points out, he's not saying that god doesn't exist ... he's just saying that based on the evidence we see in the real world it's incredibly unlikely that god exists. And the chance that a putative "god" looks anything like the Jewish or Christian god is even lower.
The problem with the theist approach is that god has to be completely binary in their worldview - he/she/it simply has to exist, otherwise the whole philosophic house ofcards collapses. Imagine the Lord's Prayer if there was any doubt about god's existence:
"Our Father, who may or may not be in heaven (we're not 100% sure on this one and the evidence is getting a bit thin), hallowed be thy name ..."
Religions use the existence of god as the first principle from which all else is derived. ("In the beginning was the Word ...") There is simply no room for uncertainty. This is why the burden of proof rests with the theists - because if you're 100% certain that something exists, you'd better be able to pony up the evidence.
-
I'm not sure that the absence of something needs to be proved. Surely the responsibility is on the person asserting the presence of soemthing which there is no measure for?
From memory, this is one of Dawkin's points. By saying there is a god, believers are positing a hypothesis which has implications in the real world. It's generally up to the person proposing the theory to gather proof, rather than simply putting it out there and expecting everyone else to disprove it.
This is the thing about science - it generally has no problem saying "there's lots of stuff we don't know, and some of the stuff we do know may well turn out to be wrong once we learn some more." The alarming thing about many religions is that they claim "everything can be explained by reading this holy book, and everything in the book is 100% true." This just seems ... I dunno ... perverse.
-
As it turns out, most religions makes claims about their beleif being the right one. So you can't just shrug your shoulders, and say, "Each to their own", or "Doesn't everyone have their own set of beliefs and we should respect that."
Deborah's point is well made. The problem with religion is not that there are enormous logical holes in its view of the world, it's the claim that despite these, it's still right.
I'd be quite happy if religions weren't so absolutist. I could look at the Satanists or the Harvey Krishnas or the Misogynists (oops, sorry, I meant Catholics) and think "each to their own." Of course, I'd probably mark them down about 30 points in IQ, but there you go.
It's when they show up at my front door and claim - despite all the evidence to the contrary - that their particular brand of interpretation of some bronze-age creation myths is completely and utterly correct. Just bizarre.
Religions are fine. But absolutism of any kind - nazism, totalitariansim, religious fundamentalism - should be treated as the mental illness it so clearly is.
-
The thing I find most entertaining - and which quite surprises me, in truth - is that I'm struggling to find anyone in little old Welly who is opposed to the stadium - in either location.
For once, there seems to be broad agreement that (a) a new/improved stadium is A Good Idea, and (b) that we (in that collective taxpayer sense) should all help pay for it. I've yet to meet anyone who is a complete naysayer. Not to say they don't exist, of course ...
And the spectacle of Auckland trying to make a decision within a couple of weeks .... hey, it's better than any plot twist a Shortland Street scriptwriter could dream up.
So whatever you lot decide, I suspect the rest of the country will be happy to write out the cheque.
-
Scene opens: Two people are standing outside the local dairy - UNCLE TREVOR, a bespectacled middle-aged man with a big roll of unmarked $20 bills in his sweaty hand, and AUCKLAND, a six year old child wearing a stained t-shirt with the words "It's All About Me!" printed on it.
UNCLE TREVOR: "So, Auckland, how about we go get a special little treat. Would you like an Eden Park iceblock, or one of those fancy new Waterfront icecreams shaped like a haemoroid cushion?"
AUCKLAND: "Don't know" (twists foot backwards and forwards)
UNCLE TREVOR: "C'mon, your choice. You can have either one, and I'm paying!" (looks around furtively in case he is overheard by a lurking taxpayer)
AUCKLAND: "Don't know. What would Granny Herald want me to do?"
UNCLE TREVOR: (Rolls eyes) "Who cares? Either way you're getting a lovely free treat, and you don't have to pay for it! Won't that be nice?"
AUCKLAND: "Spose so. Waterfront icecream, I guess."
UNCLE TREVOR: "Don't sound so happy about it. Let's go get one, then."
AUCKLAND: "No, wait ... Eden Park iceblock. 75% of me doesn't want a Waterfront icecream after all ..."
UNCLE TREVOR: "Make up your mind - if you can't decide, I'll have to give the treat to that red-headed step-child, Christchurch."
AUCKLAND: "Noooo! Christurch is cold and horrible and up herself! I want a Waterfront icecream!!"
UNCLE TREVOR: "I thought you wanted an Eden Park iceblock ..."
AUCKLAND: "Noooooo! You never listen or consult with me! I want a Waterfront Eden Park ice-block-cream!!"
UNCLE TREVOR: (bemused look on face) "?"
AUCKLAND: "See, you're not listening!! If Granny Herald or Second Cousin Dick Hubbard were here they'd know what I really want!"
UNCLE TREVOR: "Look, Auckland, it's a really simple choice ... do you want the Eden Park iceblock or the Waterfront icecream? We don't have all day - the shop closes in 2011."
AUCKLAND: "I want ... I want ... Carlaw Park lollies!!"
UNCLE TREVOR: "Carlaw Park lollies? But the Carlaw Park confectionary company went out of business years ago when Roger Douglas stopped its subsidies ..."
AUCKLAND: "Doesn't matter! I want Carlaw Park lollies! Now!
UNCLE TREVOR: (with patient look on face) "But the dairy doesn't sell Carlaw Park lollies any more. You have to have the iceblock or the ice cream ..."
AUCKLAND: "Noooooooooo! Lollies!!!!!!!"AUCKLAND bursts into tears, runs off down the road crying "you never consult with me!"
UNCLE TREVOR looks folornly at his roll of $20 notes. "Bugger it. Better give that slapper Christchurch a call ... and Auckland can get stuffed if he thinks he's getting a light rail train-set or a second harbour bridge for Christmas."
SCENE FADES to the sound of Fletcher Construction executives saying "Shit, that was close" from offstage ...
-
The problem with the Herald site was, of course, the banner ads being run by the muppets in advertising. Pick a page with a banner ad and you had a 30-second wait (on my 7Mbit connection). Pick a page with no banner - such as the generic Contact page - and it loads in 3-4 seconds.
They seem to have more-or-less fixed the problem by reverting to the old style of banner ads, but if experience is anything to go by, things will be up and down as the aforementioned muppets use their customers as beta testers for more dumb ideas.
-
And as a slight aside, I just love Rumsfeld's attempted gloss on his departure (from the Sydney Morning Herald):
In brief remarks, Rumsfeld described the Iraq conflict as a "little understood, unfamiliar war" that is "complex for people to comprehend".
I guess the words "I got us into this stupid war, I have no idea how to get us out, and I totally screwed the pooch" just stuck in his throat!
-
Alistair,
Or alternatively the reason is that "freedom hating" Al Qaeda hasn't bothered attacking America because America seems to be perfectly capable of tearing apart its freedoms without any assistance required.
You're probably right. Alternatively, perhaps Osama should take the long-term view and simply invest in all those delightful US food companies that think putting high-fructose corn syrup in every food type is A Good Idea.
No suicide bombers required - America will voluntarily eat its way to health-care bankruptcy and premature death!
-
James,
Occam's Razor suggests that the simple explanations tend to be the correct ones. And surely the real reason America hasn't suffered a wave of Al Qaeda attacks after 9/11 is because Al Qaeda no longer has the capability.
It takes a lot of resourcing and planning to execute anything on the scale of 9/11, and since then Al Qaeda have lost their Afghanistan training camps, most of their senior leadership, considerable Muslim support and therefore their financial base. All this occurred within 12 months of the original attacks, primarily due to military action and old-fashioned international police work.
If the NSA wiretaps and Swift programmes are so essential, how come there was not a series of attacks between 9/11 and when these programmes started? The simple answer is likely to be correct: because Al Qaeda simply doesn't have the capability any more.
Which leads to the conclusion that the johnny-come-lately Big Brother approach espoused by the NSA is simply egregarious over-reach by the security agencies, and is not needed for actual security.