1. Clearly incest is bad because it is bad for the gene pool.
   However, what is wrong with two gay brothers or sisters getting it on?

   Jamie Whyte is a philosopher so tends to look at questions like this, I presume.

   Other than prejudice and social conditioning, I can’t come up with a good answer to this problem

   • If it is a genetic issue then should the State deny people with good chances of passing on chronic genetic diseases the ability to marry?

     • Some people would argue that, yes.

       Not me though.

   • The problem with legalising incest is the same as legalising polygamy. The frequency of harmful relationships and power imbalances is much higher in such relationships. The most efficient way of preventing those harms is an outright ban. The rationale is finding the most effective place to pitch the law.

     The bored suburban liberals who engage in polyamory can’t see that not everyone is like them, especially the 16 year old girls in fundamentalist Mormon communities who would be the big losers if polygamy was legalised.

     • Polygamy is not a necessity for polyamory. Polyamory doesn’t create the same kind of problems as incest or polygamy, as not all, or not many, polyamorous relationships will likely result in procreation, polygamy usually does.

   • The more considered answer is that liberalism is insane if taken to it’s logical conclusion.

     Try to imagine every conceivable society that adheres to the rule of allowing consensual adults to do whatever they like as long as it doesn’t “harm” other people. Then say hello to voluntary cannibalism, gladiatorial combat, incestuous family orgies at Christmas, public displays of extremely obscene materials, etc. In short, it isn’t hard to imagine a society that follows the rule that is so horrible you couldn’t stand living in it.

     Liberalism doesn’t really have any way of accommodating the moral category of depravity, preferring to conceptualise it as individuals finding things “yucky” (as if that were adequate to express society’s repulsion at people who want to eat each other). Thinking that homosexual marriage is on a moral par with voluntary cannibalism is to treat gay people the same as moral degenerates.

     It’s one of the reasons that virtue ethics is a superior moral theory to liberal moral theories. It actually provides a positive reason for accepting homosexual marriage in that loving commitment is conducive to eudaimonia.

     • We still should always question things even if we keep coming up with the same answers, maybe especially if we keep coming up with the same answers. At least that way, we will do what we do with reason and intelligence not just dogma and superstition

   • There are strong power dynamics in families. That’s a big problem, especially when children sexually abused by a famliy member gets old enough to “consent”. It is also a big issue when a family member’s vulnerability can be used against them as an adult (eg private information used as a threat, psychological state, etc). The sense of threat and overwhelming powerlessness over their abuser are often still in play regardless of the victims age.

     It needs to be remembered that “consent” is not clear cut theory. There are always mitigating circumstances that come into play.

     IMHO the most likely outcome is that sex abusers would find better ways to rape family members if the law was changed and we would see the consent defence rolled out against victims of this abuse.

     Think back to the case of the woman who adopted out her son. He met her later in life and guilt-tripped/threatened her as he stayed with her and raped her again and again. Jamie Whyte would make this “consentual”, but how could any decent human being see this case that way?

     • Whyte did not say he wanted to make rape consentual. Your argument has much in common with those which argue that legalizing homosexuality is tantamount to legalizing homosexual pedophilia.

   • Can’t see the problem with incest as long as it does not result in reproduction.

     What’s wrong with a bit of harmless fun?

2. I’m not sure what is your problem here with Mr Whyte’s comments. He is not espousing ACT party policy nor even suggesting he personally approves of incestuous relationships. All he stated was he is opposed to the state having a large involvement controlling consensual relationships between adults. Do you think the state should take an interest in them?

   • The state should have an interest in protecting the vulnerable.

     Sexual abuse causes alcohol and drug issues, social problems, personality issues, missed work, isolation, family problems, and increases time on welfare. Therefore it makes sense to not make the situation worse by promoting half baked policies which Bert Potter will wank to for the sake of media coverage for a dying party.

     Contrary to what you may think it is difficult to obtain treatment due to widespread funding issues and ACC’s brutal system for sex abuse victims which saves the corporation money at the expense of recovery.

     [I am aware that ACC is changing it’s system so at least people can get a decent shot at treatment. Right now you can get up to 10 sessions which is failing the victims. This is about to increase even if cover is not accepted. Research shows the earlier you get treatment for sexual abuse the better the lifelong outcomes are]

     • Ummmm… not sure why you brought up sexual abuse in relation to this topic. Mr Whyte never really touched upon that subject at all.

3. Some gay members of parliament (at least one anyway) voted against the marriage amendment bill.

   Does that make them afraid of themselves? (i.e a Gay Homophobe)

4. Good work Frank.

   • Thanks, Neil.

     (PS: Looking forward to your blogging again? 😉 )

5. ….and I wonder who Jamie Whyte thinks should ‘look after’ the intellectually, physically and emotionally messed-up offspring that are produced as a result of incest??? Any answer for this one Jamie???
   Honestly, with all these nut-bars suddenly seemingly multiplying and thrusting themselves with gay abandon (sorry about the g word Colin, sorry) onto our political stage I’m really hoping we can return to FPP asap 😉

   • Are you arguing that if a couple have a high degree of probability of having a child with intellectual and emotional issues then those people should be stopped from marrying and having children?

     • Well, you could have the argument, but you would have to understand that this is the path to eugenics, and one thing I have heard about that is how insurance companies might have an effect on who does and doesn’t get born. Corporate eugenics – shudder

6. “ I do believe that the regulatory framework around labour and health and safety in New Zealand should be liberalised, and I think there’ll be many advantages to workers in liberalising them. I’m not sure that we’re going to campaign hard on that, but I certainly believe that.” – Jamie Whyte, 3 February 2014

   – because 29 men killed at Pike River Mine, and dozens killed in the foresty industry, is not a sufficient sacrifice on the alter of Libertarianist ideology.

   You fail to understand the problem of the current model. As it stands workers aren’t encouraged to actively think about their health and safety conditions because there is a law that deals with it. The problem with laws is that they are inflexible so as long as the employer meets the law they are legally ok but in their particular set of circumstances they may not be adequately addressing worker safety.

   By taking a libertarian view employers will have to work with their workers on issues such as health and safety. If employers don’t they will lose their best workers elsewhere. Thus workforce engages in the whole health/safety process. The outcomes will be far superior to simply ticking boxes to ensure a law has been followed.

   • Except it almost never works that way, you get one boss who puts the screws on, profits from it, becomes more “competitive” and hello you are on the slippery slope to Pike Rivers and a death a month in forestry. Sadly human nature always seems to take that path, so indeed we do need to put rules and regulations around our own behaviour

   • By taking a libertarian view employers will have to work with their workers on issues such as health and safety. If employers don’t they will lose their best workers elsewhere. Thus workforce engages in the whole health/safety process.

     What a nice, simple, easy to understand theory.

     What a shame it’s bollicks.

     To have such a system work, you’d need two things, TR Matthew;

     1. Near 100% full employment (which the capitalist system would never countenance!)

     2. Near 100% full education of the workforce (unlikely, given all humans have different capacities for levels of learning attainment)

     Quite simply, even if the employers ” lose their best workers “, they will simply employ others who will replace them. This is common practice these days and the POAL tried precisely that tactic during the maritime dispute in Auckland. In times of high unemployment this is easy to accomplish and standard practice.

     In times of industrial dispute, that is called scab labour.

     A mining environment would be even more dangerous if a boss lost his/her most skilled mining staff and replaced them with cheaper, less-experienced workers.

     Less experienced staff might not necessarily realise the inherent dangers they faced, and would be prepared to work in an unsafe environment.

     When jobs are scarce, unemployed, desperate men and women will taken almost any job to earn a wage.

     As well, ” employers will have to work with their workers on issues such as health and safety” assumes workers acting collectively, with workers appointing a representative to negotiate safety conditions with their employer.

     That’s called unionism. The Right do not like unionism.

     This is not a “what if” scenario. This has already happened. The H&S Act is de-regulation in action, leaving safety up to each employer. The result was 29 men losing their lives.

     So as you see, your Libertarian scenario simply would not work outside of an Ayn Rand fairy tale.

   • Like China?

7. I think that Whyte’s comments show that he is a poor fit for ACT. ACT, the Advocacy for Corporate Tax-evasion, is in essence a criminal conspiracy. Whyte is merely a fool, not a criminal, he rushes in where angels fear to tread. He would probably be more comfortable with Colin Craig’s Conservatives.

   • Oh yes, I can see Colin Craig right now, sitting in a rocking chair on his front porch, banjo on his knee. Dingading ding ding ding ding ding ding

8. A throughly entertaining review of the right-wing freak show.

9. To be fair, Whyte is coming from the point of being a philosopher. Philosophers tend to turn rocks over and see what is on the other side. To put forward a philosophical point of view is not to say that this is your opinion, it is merely a way to look at things.
   Libertarians still have an argument with themselves as far as slavery goes, it is something like this. If you are free to sell your labour at a certain rate for a certain time why can’t you sell yourself into slavery and having done so, why the person who purchased you not be free to sell you on. It is not suggesting that slavery should be re-introduced, what it does is ask you to think about this stuff, work out for yourself how we make and apply rules and how do we come to the point where the rule applies.
   For incest, it is really quite easy in the end. Even in the animal kingdom, nature itself uses strategies to lessen the chance of inbreeding, so you can quite realistically say that incest is probably counter evolutionary.
   Philosophy differs by being worlds apart from superstitions, conspiracy theories and the like that the Colin Craig’s of the world.
   I love the idea of a libertarian society, however the spoilsport in me knows that it would work for a very short time only, unless human nature is removed from the equation.
   There was a series on TV7 when we had it, I can’t remember the American lecturers names but essentlally it was the philosophers version of that age old questoin of children, “Why?”
   Something being distasteful should not mean you cannot examine it

   • “so you can quite realistically say that incest is probably counter evolutionary. ”

     You could say the same of homosexuality as well, surely?

     • No, not really, you see you are not going to run the risk of defective progeny with homosexuality, are you, and that is the important thing to nature. And what about asexuality, when you aren’t really into anything, and don’t do it at all, that would be the same with your notion, you think maybe we should rule against that as well?

     • IV – live and let live, as long as it does not hurt or involves committing a crime, aye? What is your position on that, thanks?

     • No Intrinsicvalue, there are many instances of homosexuality among animals other than humans. Actually, for Bonobos monkeys it is almost mandatory, mind you, they are ‘into’ everything it seems so long as it involves sex. Quite interesting to watch a video of Bonobos daily life. Well, I enjoyed it anyway and life is extremely short after all. I imagine if Colin watched it he’d want Bonobos ‘banned’ from the planet. 😉

       • Bonobo CHIMPANZEES, Lee, they’re Chimps, not monkeys, there’s a difference.

     • IV, Homosexuality is found in many, many species, and some might argue this is an evolutionary mechanism to regulate population levels. Homosexuals also do not procreate, unless of course they have help. Incestuous couples can procreate, which might affect the gene pool. Quite simple really.

10. In NO way am I condoning incest but I don’t think there is much difference between it and homosexual acts. They are both disgusting and not natural and yet a lot of people run around acting like being gay is the best thing to happen since sliced bread. Like I say, no difference.

    • Seeing as homosexuals are born then how can you argue that it is not natural, just because you find it abhorrent does not mean it gives you the right to stop someone else.
      Again, nature adopts strategies to avoid inbreeding, but has not done the same where homosexuality is concerned, in fact, you might even be able to argue that nature could be using homosexuality to counter human OVERpopulation of the planet. You just never know, do you?

    • Homosexual acts are only disgusting if not done properly, Brian of Mt Wellington. You should hire an instructional video and try again.

      And Frank, unfortunately belief in chemtrails is not a right wing thing. It’s a stupid infection of madness that seems to afflict people all over the political spectrum. In the end, I’d say the belief serves the right wing, because it has people spending part of their activist budget chasing shadows.

    • @ Brian of Mt Wellington…

      Something you want to share with us, Brian? 😉

    • If homosexuality is not natural, then you are saying that people who engage in homosexual acts are choosing to do so. Tell me, at what point did you choose to be attracted to people of the opposite sex? Because I don’t remember choosing to be aroused by the female form, it just happened.

      Homosexuality occurs in many, many species. Ours is the only one that treats those who are homosexual or bisexual like they’re doing something wrong.

11. On this one, Frank, I dare to disagree with your approach!

    I was appalled by the comments by Jamie Whyte. I think he “lost’ it there somewhere, but as a philosopher and scientist I can follow what he was meaning. He was trying to decriminalise the mentality of people about admittedly “mentally ill” people.. And that is what THIS is about. There are tiny cases of a few “incestuous” relationships, where the involved even wanted to marry, but strangely the UK seems to be a place where that was an issue not long ago.

    Maybe that is why JW thought what he thought, and he did not consider the narrow minded, bigoted, idiot “Kiwis” there are, that he thought he needs to campaign amongst. So yes, he “fucked” up, he is gone, so is ACT, and good riddance. But get your fucking shit here together too, thanks, as you are risking to run a right wing minded shit moral campaign on a totally irrelevant mental health issue here, that makes me fucking SICK.

    It tells me, that after all efforts to expose how crap MSD and contracted persons try to sell us out, and to force mentally ill into whatever jobs, here we go again, where issues of evidently mental health calibre are being “exploited” for electioneering purposes. This is unacceptable! Are you different to Dr Bratt? I am going to rethink my posting and commenting here. I am NOT in favour or supportive of what J. Whyte said or what incest stands for, but I expected in this forum some damned REASON and common sense approach. Obviously I am disappointed. So I am not sure whether I will bother coming back to TDB.

    Best wishes, M!

    • Phew!!
      The issue of consenting adults who happen to be closely related has arisen because of split families, half brothers and sisters who never know each other, and children of sperm/egg donors who meet up later in life and are subject to sexual attraction without knowing they are related. We do after all, tend to be attracted to people who are somewhat similar to us in looks.
      There have been some sad cases where people have found out that they are related after they have become committed to each other.
      I think it only fair for us to have this discussion, and me personally, even though it is still a bit abhorrent, especially if it is a parent and child, have to wonder if so long as there is to be no issue from the relationship, what right we have to say, you can’t do this.

    • Marc
      You’d be more interesting and come across as a helluva lot more intelligent if you resorted to bad language a little less. Here and there gives emphasis but overuse is just boring and kind of immature I think. :O

    • Marc – there may be times you agree with me and times you don’t. I don’t expect anyone to agree with me 100% of the time – that would be kinda unusual.

      (Heck, there are times I find myself disagreeing with my own beliefs ten years later…)

      One thing I would ask you is not to confuse The Daily Blog with me. We are two quite distinct entities and I’m one of only several dozen guests who have been invited to contribute (which is an honour, believe me, to be lined up with real writers such as Chris Trotter, Burnt Out Teacher, Jesse Hume, Marama Davidson, Mike Treen, Morgan Godfery, Martyn Bradbury,et al).

      So please don’t ‘ditch’ TDB simply because of one person’s views. Instead, present your own. Hell, you may give me cause to re-think my views – just as Morgan did on a certain issue, a wee while ago.

      We all have our views on issues. Let’s test them in passionate, good-natured debate and see what comes out of it?

      Cheers!

      • Quote:
        “Meanwhile, new ACT leader, Jamie Whyte took a walk on the Very Wild Side on incestuous relationships,

        “I don’t think the state should intervene in consensual adult sex or marriage, but there are two very important elements here – consensual and adult. I wonder who does believe the state should intervene in consensual adult acts? I find it very distasteful I don’t know why anybody would do it but it’s a question of principle about whether or not people ought to interfere with actions that do no harm to third parties just because they personally wouldn’t do it. The probability of having some problem with the children is greater when the mother is over the age of 35 but I’ve never heard anyone suggest that anyone over the age of 35 shouldn’t be allowed to have sex.”

        Hi Frank, sorry for upsetting you, but the above quote and what you made out of it got me worked up, in a bad way. We all know how thoughtless Jamie Whyte can be, and it has to do with his personal “libertarian” views on various topics or matters. I do not like what comes from him in many ways. But what your post looked like was going further than your usually appreciated good quality analysis and posting, and get “personal” about politicians you do not like. That is a dangerous way to address issues, and I have also criticised Russel Norman for his rather simplistic comments about Colin Craig.

        The left would do better by addressing issues, and not turn arguments into something that smells a bit too “personal” an argument.

        I accept that you are just one blogger here, and I usually appreciate most you write and comment about. This time I feel it was going close to a bit “under the beltline”.

        I should not have used bad language, I accept, and I apologise for that.

        I would like to encourage you to return to your usual style of blogging and posting, that is targeted at real facts and issues, and you are great with figures, statistics and what lies behind much talk. That is your valued strength.

        So I will continue reading here, and at times commenting. Let us move on, please, it was an overly sensitive reaction by me, I admit.

        Best wishes, M.

        • Hi Marc,

          Just noticed your post. No, not upset at all, though I’d be mortified if a fellow left-winger decided to boycott TDB for anything I said!

          Hmmm, was I getting “personal” about politicians I “don’t like”? Or reporting on statements that right-wing politicians utter, and which gives us a glimpse into their beliefs and world-view?

          Which raises the question; do we take their comments at face value, and address them, or ignore them until they enact right-wing policies? (By which time it might be too late to draw attention to their views.)

          I understand that my “style” is usually along the lines of what you stated,

          “… that is targeted at real facts and issues, and you are great with figures, statistics and what lies behind much talk. “

          Every so often, though, I like to take a look at the people behind the facts and issues; their views; their utterances; and suss where they may be taking us, based on what they say in public. (Eg; my “That was then, This is Now” “That was then, This is Now” series of memes.)

          However, I take your point in keeping it above the “beltline”. The last thing I want is to develop a reputation as a left-wing version of Cameron Slater. Point noted.

          • My Whyte’s views are not so different from yours. Unless you believe the State should have a major say in what goes on in the bedrooms of consenting adults. Do you think that Frank?

      • Now come and realise that Jamie Whyte was ambushed on a philosophical issue and this is a non story.

        Nothing to see here, move right along.

        As others have pointed out, discussions on the RMA are much more interesting

        • Now come and realise that Jamie Whyte was ambushed on a philosophical issue and this is a non story.

          How on Earth was he “ambushed” when he volunteered the responses? It was a little known blog (I hadn’t heard of it!) by a blogger – not a well-seasoned journo hungry for headlines.

          If Whyte was “ambushed by an utter amateur – god help him when he comes up hard against the likes of John Campbell or Mary Wilson.

12. John Key and National’s virtual silence on Jamie Whyte’s incest comments, is deafening! Key did mention it very briefly, then swept it away as though it was of little consequence. Then tried to make a joke of it during another speech, only to have it fall flat on his audience!

    However, should the same comments had been uttered by Labour or the Greens, then Key and the Nats would be screaming hell, fire and brimstone, calling for blood in the name of all that is good and decent!

    Bunch of immoral self serving hypocrites!

13. Okay folks, time to forget about this little diversionary tactic of Jamie Whyte’s and get to worrying about what really matters, like how he would like to see the RMA dumped altogether so that anyone can do anything they like with their property. You know how it goes, neighbour to the north of you builds 4 stories high, you no longer have any sun, neighbour can do anything that may endanger your life or property.
    Now, we are looking at the real nuttiness of ACT. RMA might need a bit of tinkering but allowing people carte blanche regardless of how it affects or endangers anyone else, is just mad.

    • Raegun – You hit the nail on its head, and that is what we must focus on, the REAL dangers coming from Whyte and ACT!

14. I cannot see why this quote from Colin Craig is labeled “offensive”:

    “Why should, say, a 70-year-old who’s had one partner all their life be paying for a young woman to sleep around? We are the country with the most promiscuous young women in the world. This does nothing to help us at all.”- Colin Craig, 9 May 2012

    Craig was arguing that tax-payers shouldn’t fund contraception for welfare beneficiaries. This may be an idiotic example of ideologically rationalized selfishness, but it is hardly “offensive”.

    Perhaps it was meant that it is “offensive” to assert that New Zealand women were more promiscuous than others. In this case, would it still be offensive if it were true?

    Unlike John Key who, in the article Craig’s quote is lifted from, say that he has seen no evidence that Craig’s assertion is true, I have seen some evidence that it may be.

    I don’t know how credible the Durex Sexual Wellbeing Global Survey is (Durex claim that it conformed to standard parameters conducive to reliability), but in 2008 it questioned more than 26,000 people in 26 countries and found that Kiwi women had an average of 20.4 sexual partners, thrice the global average of 7.3, and double compared to British or Australian women. It also found that found that New Zealand women have more sex partners than New Zealand men, unique amongst the countries surveyed.

    But true or no, taking offense at the assertion that NZ women are more promiscuous than elsewhere is predicated on the notion that sex, or, at least, promiscuity, is somehow wrong or dirty or bad in itself, a view that I can see no valid justification to hold.

    The label “offensive” is increasingly being used weapon against people who say things we don’t like. It is being used to imply that the labeled offender is unclean in some way, a morally reprehensible degenerate of some sort. And it is being used to refute arguments sans evidence, without addressing whether or not the argument has valid justification. In short, it is being used to refute arguments based on the accuser’s moral outrage.

    The problem is that offense is hugely subjective, and anybody can claim to be offended at anything.

    Using he label “offensive” is at best intellectually lazy, an easy substitute for argument. It is also, as we have seen, underhanded. But worse than that, it is dangerous: it has been used down through the ages as a justification for censorship and persecution, most often of those who have progressive or liberal or radical views.

    Those engaged in public debate should, on these grounds, not only avoid the use of the label “offensive” but should question it whenever possible – even when it is being used by those you otherwise agree with.

    “What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist”
    Salman Rushdie

    • Is he right or is he left??

      You said, “Craig was arguing that tax-payers shouldn’t fund contraception for welfare beneficiaries”.

      The thing is that if contraception isn’t funded, you can bet that the welfare bill is going to increase. Remember we don’t yet have legal abortion in this country for economic reasons but we should because financial penalties are already in place for women who have a second child whilst on a benefit.

      Back to whether the original comment was offensive “Why should, say, a 70-year-old who’s had one partner all their life be paying for a young woman to sleep around? We are the country with the most promiscuous young women in the world. This does nothing to help us at all.”

      My points:

      – actually sex is very helpful. These promiscuous sluts actually lower the stress levels in the men/women they have sex with. You know the damage stress is attributed to right? I bet they have saved their DHB’s thousands.

      – technically the 70 year old in the example isn’t paying for anyone to sleep around. They are paying for contraception to stop unwanted pregnancies. If I didn’t know better I might assume CC would prefer lesbian sex to contraceptives. Perhaps he does.

      – the example could be reversed, why should young whores fund some 70 year old who is taking a larger and larger percentage of the pie as they age?

      – but the most offensive part of the statement is the presupposition that if the government didn’t fund contraception then women would stop having sex. That is a false and misleading conclusion.

      – there is nothing to suggest that promiscuity is damaging or indeed unnatural. It is OFFENSIVE to push religious beliefs onto the rest of the population just because you are rich enough to fund your own fringe religious political party.

      – and I think there is something creepy about a man attempting to dictate any level of control over reproductive choices of the population. Creepy and offensive.

      • In telling me reasons why contraception for beneficiaries should be funded by the state, you are preaching to the choir: I agree completely that it should be funded. Indeed, I would go further and suggest that contraception should be free for all low-income people. Note that I said Craig’s argument was “an idiotic example of ideologically rationalized selfishness”.

        I also agree that “there is nothing to suggest that promiscuity is damaging or indeed unnatural” Note that I said “taking offense at the assertion that NZ women are more promiscuous than elsewhere is predicated on the notion that sex, or, at least, promiscuity, is somehow wrong or dirty or bad in itself, a view that I can see no valid justification to hold.”

        I agree that it is ridiculous to suppose that women will stop having sex if they can’t get subsidized contraception.

        I also agree that “the 70 year old in the example isn’t paying for anyone to sleep around. They are paying for contraception to stop unwanted pregnancies”.

        What I disagree with is the notion that Craig’s statement is offensive. I won’t reiterate the reasons here, but suggest you actually read my original comment if you want to know what they are.

        By the way, your assertion that “sex is helpful” and promiscuous people ” actually lower the stress levels in the men/women they have sex with” is debatable, to say the least. Whether or not sex reduces or causes stress depends very much on a host of other circumstances.

        • What I disagree with is the notion that Craig’s statement is offensive.

          No, Darryl, it’s not offensive to you.

          But women – to whom the statement is directed at – may hold a completely different view.

          Perhaps you should try looking at it from their perspective instead of minimising something simply you don’t happen to be the targetted demographic?

          • Of course some people find Craig’s remarks offensive That much is clear from the fact that you and “Z’ have found them so. It is also clear that the offended need not even belong to the “targeted demographic”.

            My point, Frank, is threefold:

            1. Anybody can claim to be offended at anything

            2. The label “offensive” used as a weapon to undermine an assertion and discredit its author

            3. Labeling an assertion “offensive” is a lazy and underhand tactic because it does not rely on rational argument

            Your accusation that I am “minimizing something simply [because I] don’t happen to be the targeted demographic” shows that you have not read or, at least, have not tried to understand my argument. It also shows (again) that you are not above using character assassination to make your point.

            I assure you that I belong to a demographic that has often been the butt of much ill-informed, narrow-minded, bigoted rhetoric and yet I remain unoffended by it.

        • One would assume that for every “promiscuous” woman, there is a whole bunch of, well, “studs” PHWOAR!!

      • Z –
        “My points: – actually sex is very helpful. These promiscuous sluts actually lower the stress levels in the men/women they have sex with. You know the damage stress is attributed to right? I bet they have saved their DHB’s thousands. ”

        While I get your point, this can also be seen as a distraction. Sex, like eating, drinking or other “pleasures” may be beneficial to a degree and if done in moderation, but it can also be “replacement behaviour”, like seeking ways to deal with any forms of “distress”, by rather seeking the assistance of hormones, to make up for bad feelings and the likes.

        Some people over-eat, abuse alcohol or drugs, and do other things, that are not really healthy, but they think it is justified because it makes them feel good or better, at least for the moment.

        I would rather have people engage in pleasure activities, after having honestly and seriously addressed issues they may have. Otherwise you simply encourage “pleasure seeking”, as a “medicine”, so to say, which in extreme forms is dodging responsibilities and honesty, and can lead to addiction.

        Maybe give that some thought. Perhaps many NZ women, same like men, are not prepared and mature enough to engage in “relationships”, hence they mistake sex for “relationship” and whatever else?

        Indeed I have witnessed much poor behaviour and decision making by so many, it seems to be a real problem in much of NZ, because people have not learned to live responsibly, decide well and live a healthy life.

15. Of course some people find Craig’s remarks offensive. That much is clear from the fact that you and ‘Z’ have found them so. It is also clear that the offended need not belong to the “targeted demographic”.

    My point, Frank, is threefold:

    1. Anybody can claim to be offended at anything

    2. The label “offensive” used used as a weapon to undermine an assertion and discredit its author

    3. Labeling an assertion “offensive” is a lazy and underhand tactic because it does not rely on rational argument

    Your accusation that I am “minimizing something simply [because I] don’t happen to be the targeted demographic” shows that you have not read or, at least, have not tried to understand my argument. It also shows (again) that you are not above using character assassination to make your point.

    I assure you that I belong to a demographic that has often been the butt of much ill-informed, narrow-minded, bigoted rhetoric and yet I remain unoffended by it.

Comments are closed.