Politics

[KW]

I did one awhile ago.  The questions were very vague and non-defined.  Like "should criminals go to jail for minor offences?".  Well, that begs the question of what is considered a "minor offence" doesnt it?  My definition of a minor offence is shoplifting a pack of chips.  Someone else (but not me) might think that shoplifting a thousand dollars worth of meat from a supermarket every other day is a minor offence.  I dont think any form of violent crime (from domestic abuse to beating a guy at the bus station) is a minor offence, but it would seem the courts disagree with me when they hand out 6 months HD to serial rapists and those involved in barbaric murders.  

Another one was "do you think people should be able to get welfare benefits".  Well the answer to that is of course, but not forever, and they should be forced to go off the benefit as soon as possible.  But there is no follow up question as to how long you think benefits should be available for.  

[Waltzing]

WLL BP i havnt had time to take any notice of anything except a headline..
 
But the Tax payer union has some fun posts and podcasts...

sometimes country's just want change...

https://www.taxpayers.org.nz/taxpayer_update_230923

[BlackPeter]

VoteNZ is dodgy from the start. Always be cautious  of political experts form universities.

And look at warped questions such as number 3. "People who identify as women but were assigned male at birth should be allowed to compete in women's sports leagues."

No one is assigned something at birth. People are either the male or the female of the human species (bar a very small number in the population.

A better question would be "Should Trans Women Be allowed to compete in women's sports leagues"

Actually - I found the exercise really useful - and hey, nobody is required to follow their analysis. They don't tell you which party to vote for, they just show you which of the parties align most with your views. It is just another data point to help you to do your own research.

I am always weary of people who run around with a closed mind because they are afraid to learn something which might be inconsistent with the preaching in their rabbit hole.

Always learning ....

And not that it matters, but when the registry office issued your birth certificate they assigned your gender. Sure- for most people it is just a confirmation of the biological gender and straight forward, but for some it is not (like for hermaphrodites). So, the question might be awkward, but it is correctly asked. Registry office used to assign the gender if there were doubts. I don't think they still do that, but they used to.

[Hectorplains]

Even in the US assault rifles barely register in gun crime - the majority is committed with hand guns.
https://www.criminalattorneycolumbus.com/which-weapons-are-most-commonly-used-for-homicides/

You might also be interested to know that in New York State only 1.7% of shooters were white. 
https://www.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/year-end-2021-enforcement-report.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3ojf17tvEC3HHHldn3b3KkBmtbDrdRBHZys61i8BDPkMqnfAv7yQq6Weo

So the vast majority of gun owners are law abiding, non murdering, non weirdos.  Like NZ with Maori gangs committing most of the gun crime here, the US gun crime is mostly gang related and committed by blacks and hispanics, and making more guns illegal does nothing to change their access to them because the legal market simply becomes an illegal black market and gives gangs another source of income alongside their drug activity.  So if you have access to a gang member, you have access to a gun.

As for the sickos who want to kill people, they will still find a way.  Simply driving a truck through a mall can do more damage than a gun - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack (86 dead, 434 injured).  Do we ban trucks?

While I dont own a gun, I know people who do.  None of which are weirdos.  They do like to hunt however, and in the event of a zombie apocalypse or alien invasion, I know exactly who I will be moving in with.  The rest of you can fend for yourselves lol

 

Putting it plainly, more restrictive firearms law reduces the risks of firearms injury and deaths, especially mass shootings deaths.  130 studies in 10 countries evidence this.  Never mind the USA, next door, in Australia, there were 13 fatal mass shootings from 1979-1996. After the gun law reforms in 1996 there were none until 2018.

I agree most NZ gun owners are, "law abiding, non murdering, non weirdos." You'd expect that with quarter of a million gun license holders.  The streets would be rivers of blood otherwise.  Why would any of the owners have need for a military style assault rifle?

No hunter in their right mind uses a military style semi automatic or a military assault weapon.  Anyway, with a gun license you can still, with a firearms license, buy semi-automatics - that are suitable for hunting and pest control purposes but limit the number of rounds.

I don't know where you get your stat that Māori gangs are, "committing most of the gun crime here."  That aside, of all NZ gun homicides from 2004-2019 64% of victims were shot with a .22 calibre rifle or a shotgun. Hand guns (pistols and revolvers) may dominate in US crime but that is not the case here.
 
Finally; the strawman truck argument. No, there is no need to ban trucks.  We have laws that restrict truck use.  This is to prevent harm.  Gun control does the same.  Our gun control laws remain very liberal - much more liberal than Australia.  The NZ gun lobby's desire to reverse what restrictions we do have is concerning.  It is concerning that this voice is prominent in ACT and in their promise to bring back military style assault rifles to NZ.

[Minimoke]

Actually - I found the exercise really useful - and hey, nobody is required to follow their analysis. They don't tell you which party to vote for, they just show you which of the parties align most with your views. It is just another data point to help you to do your own research.

I am always weary of people who run around with a closed mind because they are afraid to learn something which might be inconsistent with the preaching in their rabbit hole.

Always learning ....

And not that it matters, but when the registry office issued your birth certificate they assigned your gender. Sure- for most people it is just a confirmation of the biological gender and straight forward, but for some it is not (like for hermaphrodites). So, the question might be awkward, but it is correctly asked. Registry office used to assign the gender if there were doubts. I don't think they still do that, but they used to.

I did the vote thing and ended up pretty much on the spectrum where I expected - which is just a bit to right of center. Which I find very odd because today many of my views are considered extreme right wing.

Now, I wasn't there at the time. I was just a bit little and I couldn't hold a pen. So I am assuming the process is roughly the same today as it was back then. Which is my parents completed the birth registration forms. And on those forms they would have ticked the box of my "sex" (even today there is no room for a gender to be specified). It was pretty obvious for me because they could see the genetalia. Which is exactly the same for approx 50% of the new born population. The other approx 50% being the opposite sex. Now if I had been one of those exceptionally rare newborns where the doctor or midwife couldn't determine my sex there is a box "indeterminate" to tick.

I'm pretty confident this was the process when I was born. Because that was before Dr Money started with his perverted research and then launched the modern social construct now better known as "gender"

You cannot view this attachment.

[Hectorplains]

I did the vote thing and ended up pretty much on the spectrum where I expected - which is just a bit to right of center. Which I find very odd because today many of my views are considered extreme right wing.

Now, I wasn't there at the time. I was just a bit little and I couldn't hold a pen. So I am assuming the process is roughly the same today as it was back then. Which is my parents completed the birth registration forms. And on those forms they would have ticked the box of my "sex" (even today there is no room for a gender to be specified). It was pretty obvious for me because they could see the genetalia. Which is exactly the same for approx 50% of the new born population. The other approx 50% being the opposite sex. Now if I had been one of those exceptionally rare newborns where the doctor or midwife couldn't determine my sex there is a box "indeterminate" to tick.

I'm pretty confident this was the process when I was born. Because that was before Dr Money started with his perverted research and then launched the modern social construct now better known as "gender"

You cannot view this attachment.

You might enjoy this

[KW]

Gender is a social construct.  Sex is biological.  You either have an XX chromosome or an XY one, and that is immutable.  It doesnt matter if you cut off your genitalia or not, you cannot alter your DNA.  

[BlackPeter]

I did the vote thing and ended up pretty much on the spectrum where I expected - which is just a bit to right of center. Which I find very odd because today many of my views are considered extreme right wing.

Now, I wasn't there at the time. I was just a bit little and I couldn't hold a pen. So I am assuming the process is roughly the same today as it was back then. Which is my parents completed the birth registration forms. And on those forms they would have ticked the box of my "sex" (even today there is no room for a gender to be specified). It was pretty obvious for me because they could see the genetalia. Which is exactly the same for approx 50% of the new born population. The other approx 50% being the opposite sex. Now if I had been one of those exceptionally rare newborns where the doctor or midwife couldn't determine my sex there is a box "indeterminate" to tick.

I'm pretty confident this was the process when I was born. Because that was before Dr Money started with his perverted research and then launched the modern social construct now better known as "gender"

You cannot view this attachment.

Assuming that NZ used to be similar to other countries, than they didn't had 50 or 60 years ago this third box. And if the parents didn't made a tick, the registry officer decided for them (e.g. assigned the gender).

[BlackPeter]

Gender is a social construct.  Sex is biological.  You either have an XX chromosome or an XY one, and that is immutable.  It doesnt matter if you cut off your genitalia or not, you cannot alter your DNA. 

Wise words. However - how did they determine the chromosomes of a baby before say the 1970'ies?

On top of that - the chromosomes sometimes disagree with the genitalia ... and both of them sometimes disagree with how a person feels about herself inside.

Who are you to determine who of these three is right?

Not sure, though what all of this has to do with politics ...

[KW]

So far, Walmart, Whole Foods, and Target have closed stores in the Democrat run hellholes of New York, San Francisco, Chicago, Portland and Seattle.  It should be clear by now that "defunding" the police and allowing criminals to remain free to continue committing crimes instead of jailing them, is not working. 


https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/26/target-says-it-will-close-nine-stores-citing-violence-and-theft-.html

How long before stores in NZ start shutting down for the same reason?  All the do-gooders out there fail to realise that it is them, and all of us, who pay for these crimes.  The cost of theft just gets added to the price of goods that law abiding citizens pay for.  Its one of the reasons why grocery prices are still going up. 

[Onemootpoint]

Earlier this year:

Ram raids: Michael Hill forced to close 'exposed' Takapuna store due to repeat robberies

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/why-michael-hill-had-to-close-one-of-its-flagship-stores/MY2PP6RJJBFVJKRI754SMLXVRM/

[Minimoke]

Assuming that NZ used to be similar to other countries, than they didn't had 50 or 60 years ago this third box. And if the parents didn't made a tick, the registry officer decided for them (e.g. assigned the gender).

We didn't have "gender" 60 years ago. It is a reasonably modern social construct with one of the main developers being Dr Money.

The registry officer may have made a decision on what box to tick (I have no idea  but its your argument so burden falls on you to prove it) but if he did he would have ticked a "sex" box. And would have got it right for pretty much 100% of the new born population.

Heres a 1940 birth cert. No mention of sex. Or gender
https://stocktalk.co.nz/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=1139;type=preview

Or howabout this in 1960. Its the NZ Stats report on our population. It only talks and reports on 2 "sex's" - not one single mention of "gender"

https://www3.stats.govt.nz/New_Zealand_Official_Yearbooks/1960/NZOYB_%201960.html#idsect1_1_18461

[Untamed]

Which is precisely why the surgery some transgender people choose to have to complete their transition, is referred to as "gender reassignment surgery.

Nobody is claiming it is possible to change one's biology. But it is possible for someone to modify their gender to more closely align with the gender they identify with. I, personally don't like the "identify with" tag as it doesn't accurately reflect the reality of being trans and is more about non-trans people needing a label because they struggle to understand what it means to be transgender.

Gender is a social construct.  Sex is biological.  You either have an XX chromosome or an XY one, and that is immutable.  It doesnt matter if you cut off your genitalia or not, you cannot alter your DNA. 

[Minimoke]

Which is precisely why the surgery some transgender people choose to have to complete their transition, is referred to as "gender reassignment surgery.

Nobody is claiming it is possible to change one's biology. But it is possible for someone to modify their gender to more closely align with the gender they identify with. I, personally don't like the "identify with" tag as it doesn't accurately reflect the reality of being trans and is more about non-trans people needing a label because they struggle to understand what it means to be transgender.

"gender reassignment" is fascinating. How is that we have got to the point that we think a person is defined by their reproductive organs and we are prepared to support the physical changes to those organs so a person can feel better aligned with the gender they choose to assign themselves.

I wonder if we would find it acceptable if we supported Race Reassignment Surgery, because race also is a social construct and some people may feel they are born to the wrong race.

And I'm not sure there are many people out there who would support the removal of limbs from those people suffering from Body Integrity Dysphoria.

And how odd this has become such a political football.

[Hectorplains]

What odds on a hung parliament?  ACT has got a wee bit of the wobbles - down to 8.8% on the latest poll.  They do themselves no favours when the push the nice but dim, Karen Chhour into the media.