Disqus - Latest Comments for Iain_Hall

Re: Iranian weapons in Afghanistan

Iain_Hall — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 00:23:49 -0000

Well if that was what you wanted to say then why was it absent from your post?

Re: Boycott

Iain_Hall — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:36:58 -0000

something to agree with from you this time PKD
;)

Re: Iranian weapons in Afghanistan

Iain_Hall — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:34:09 -0000

what is the point of this post?

Re: Queenslander wins Queensland election

Iain_Hall — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 17:10:43 -0000

the one ray of sunshine is that Ronan Lee failed to keep his seat...

Re: Site News - Grrr

Iain_Hall — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 03:53:04 -0000

Good luck, and please feel free to drop me a line if you get stuck on anything :o)
Cheers

Re: Site News - Grrr

Iain_Hall — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:01:47 -0000

Tobias is right Jeremy, you can certainly ban people very effectively with WordPress and as for the template, if you are willing to pay about $20 US a year for the Upgrade you can customise the template to your heart's content although there are plenty of good free templates available with a customisable header and side bar widgets. You can even migrate all of your posts (and comments on the blogger system) to WP at the click of a few buttons. You already have a WP blog with just a keeper page so why don't you migrate the existing posts and play around with it a bit to see if you can get the blog looking the way you want it to be, You really will not regret it once you make the move .

The WP commenting system has this feature that requires the first comment to be approved after which some one can freely comment this is perfect for troll control because you get to vet each new name as it appears,and as Tobias suggests there is a permanent moderation list and a separate banned list which can also be tripped by particular words.

Re: If you have sex outside marriage, you deserve to die

Iain_Hall — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 02:52:46 -0000

Jeremy
I am more than happy to agree to disagree about your attitude to Catholicism which formed only a small part of my last comment. So how about you address the rest of my argument which is precisely on topic and about the argument that you are putting here.

Boom Boom Baby
feel free to drop over to mine for some debate if you so wish, as long as it is civil I welcome differing opinions.
Cheers

Re: If you have sex outside marriage, you deserve to die

Iain_Hall — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 02:07:43 -0000

Jeremy

"Apart from wearing your usual anti-Catholic prejudice here"

Fuck off. And I was being critical of the Roman Catholic Church, not catholic Christians in general.
(Anyway, how prejudiced can I be against Roman Catholics if I'm dating one?)

Ok, last point first: you are living with a woman who is by her own admission a lapsed Catholic and that is hardly the same as some one who is truly devout now is it? When was the last time she went to mass on a Sunday?
Your opening gambit is flawed, firstly because any church is the people and not just the organisation or its hierarchy and the only time you make the distinction is when someone calls you on it.

"you are being incredibly naive to think that Condoms were ever going to make any kind of difference in the fight against HIV/ Aids in Africa."

Of course! Why would a device that in most cases prevents the transmission of AIDS not make any difference in the fight against AIDS? How silly of me.

It is all about critical mass in terms of the pandemic and once you get to the level of infection that is sadly so evident in many parts of Africa even if every one used a condom for all types of recreational fucking the best that would result is a marginal slowing in the rate of infection the population is still going to totally crash within our lifetime. Why you may ask? well when you have say 60 or 70% infection rates the chances are that at least one member of any breeding couple will be infected, so even if they practice "safe sex" the moment they try to conceive the chances are that both they and their child will be infected as well condoms or no condoms.

"But the Pontiff is absolutely right that a change in the sexual behaviour is the only thing that will make a difference."

And if they're not prepared to do what the Roman Catholic Church instructs them, well, they deserve to die?

Any church will be seeking to guide its followers and there is sound medical and social reasons to advocate fidelity and restraint when it comes to sex why is that such an anathema to you?

Mondo

You are sounding like a prize tool her with your racist ranting about "damned Blackies" the problematic behaviour is promiscuity and when you are dealing with a disease that is transmitted by sexual activity only an idiot would suggest that we ignore social behavior when trying to address the problem.

Re: If you have sex outside marriage, you deserve to die

Iain_Hall — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:22:13 -0000

Apart from wearing your usual anti-Catholic prejudice here you are being incredibly naive to think that Condoms were ever going to make any kind of difference in the fight against HIV/ Aids in Africa. The rate of infection has reached the sort of critical mass that makes very large scale depopulation almost inevitable we are already seeing whole generations dying out in some countries.
There is also no doubt that the vector for the rapid spread of this disease is promiscuity and the general disdain for any notion of restraint in the number of sexual partners. Now you could blanket the continent from end to end with condoms and it would not alter the fact that they would just not be used with anything like enough cultural change to make any difference.
But the Pontiff is absolutely right that a change in the sexual behaviour is the only thing that will make a difference.
Reducing the number of sexual partners that any person has, preferably to one (by encouraging faithful monogamy) would make a huge difference but because so many of you minions of the left are still in love with the notion that freedom equals promiscuity you think that facilitating that sort of behaviour with contraception and Condoms is a good thing; you just can't see the trees for the wood in your pants.

Re: When you grow up you'll agree with me

Iain_Hall — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 03:31:26 -0000

Mondo

It hardly needs saying that your ridiculous assertion that "the left" endorses extended adolescence is utterly baseless. You state it as a pillar upon which your defence of Bolt is built, presumably hoping that no-one will notcie(sic) that it is entirely devoid of reason, logic or factual basis.

Oh come off it! You are in total denial. just look at the way that so many of your fellow minions continue to dress well into their third decade...

Come on - don't be a coward - tell us what other names you've used when commenting here.

Now there is a turn up for the books the number of times that you have berated me for seeking the identity of various commentators are almost beyond counting and here you are doing precisely that now.

Re: When you grow up you'll agree with me

Iain_Hall — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 02:46:59 -0000

Jeremy

See, this is the sort of patronising crap that I'm talking about:

"having to make a living and a place in the world soon teaches you that a lot of socialist ideas just don't work."

It is neither patronising nor is it Crap Jeremy. It is a statement of fact. Now I was born and raised in a working class household , My dad was an active member of the ALP, heck the newspaper (that I still have) that my dad bought on the day we left England was the Guardian I was weaned on notions of solidarity with the workers ect ect, and I still managed to see the light.

The problem with your argument is that you seem to think that being a leftist is the only way to be a good and moral human being. Well I think that you are wrong about that.

Iain, I have to work to make a living. I understand that for a lot of conservatives their "leftism" at university didn't involve thinking about the consequences of those policies - like paying tax as you earn an income - and those fairweather lefties do turn away when that hits home. But so what? That doesn't mean they're right.

What on earth are you on about? the suggestion that someone becomes a conservative as they mature has nothing to do with universities. But i do agree that a lot of middle class kiddies do dabble with the leftist faith at university , but many people go through strange religious phases in their younger years and then wince at the thought of their youthful follies when they are all grown up.

As for affirmative action - and I'm NOT going to allow this thread to be derailed into a discussion about that - the point is that it should only be implemented where it's necessary to counter discrimination: ie, to force a level playing field where one does not, for historical reasons, exist. When opportunities are genuinely equal, no-one in their right mind would support affirmative action.

Well that is very sad indeed because if there is any better example leftist inspired inequality than Affirmative Action I am yet to find it.

Re: When you grow up you'll agree with me

Iain_Hall — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 01:57:03 -0000

I'm surprised that this post is here rather than elsewhere. ;)

That said i think that you misunderstand the dynamics that encourage some people to abandon leftism as they grow up. having to make a living and a place in the world soon teaches you that a lot of socialist ideas just don't work. You sarcastically cite "equal opportunity" but ignore the fact that under leftist ideology the opportunities are anything but equal (think nonsense like "affirmative action") and if you have a brain you start to see that idealism and high minded principles are just not enough, there has to be things that work in the real world.
Your contention that maturity is defined by conservatives as agreeing with us is just bunkum. I have met lefties who are mature and willing to listen to a contrary opinion who are very worthy of respect I have also met righties who are just as nutty as any number of leftards that you could name. Maturity has nothing to do with a person's politics.
But the point that Andrew does seem to be making is the extended period of adolescence that is so endorsed by the left is not necessarily a good thing and the difference in the behaviour of a former rock star like Garrett shows at least that there is something to be said for leaving behind the childish things and acting like a grown-up instead.

Re: Moved on

Iain_Hall — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 03:19:34 -0000

Jeremy

I'm astounded that you could then say something as heartlessly ridiculous as:

"And I am sure if they were being honest many homeless would admit that some times being locked up for the night is preferable to spending a night in the cold."

As if prisons are a pastoral housing alternative for the homeless.

Well I am stunned that you should try to avoid responding to my last comment this way Jeremy

Jules
You make some interesting observations some of which I agree with

Do dickheads in koala suits ever get busted for begging?

I wish they would! but I would not be surprised if this statute has not been used to bust "charity collectors" who can be more annoying than those who are begging for their own sustenance.

No one wants to beg. Give them the option and most people would prefer to keep their dignity. Not develop obligations to strangers that they will never be able to repay.

Some truth in that so perhaps "normalising" Begging would not be doing anyone a favour in the long run.
.

Re: Moved on

Iain_Hall — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 19:10:44 -0000

Firstly you ask a very personal question

Just out of interest, Iain, have you ever been in a jail cell? Had the doors clunk shut behind you? Knowing that there's no way out unless the prison guards let you out?

Which I really should ignore but I will tell you that when I was but a "slip of a lad" I once got drunk enough to spend a night in the Brisbane Watch house (for being drunk in a public place) and I found it a most sobering experience (pun intended) So there is the answer to your question. I do know what it is like to be locked up. and your own admission (above) shows clearly that you do not.
Now I know how much you lefties love George Orwell but my guess is that most of you have never got beyond reading "Animal farm" or "1984" But one of his books that goes right to this issue is very illuminating on just what it is like to live on the fringes, I am of course referring to Down and Out in Paris and London which you really should read if you want to understand the mindset of those who are down and out. Now I know that your retort will be that this is talking about living rough from a long time ago but much of what Orwell discovered then still holds true today.

The fact is this: you might not like beggars. You might wish they'd go away. But their conduct is not in any way deserving of being called a crime, let alone one punishable by imprisonment.

This isn't Dickensian London.

I do not dislike Beggars, and the fact is I wish that they were better and more functional human beings, but I am a realist and I know that there will always be the broken people and the fuck-ups who end up eeking out an existence on the fringes of society. Every time I meet such people I am moved to think "there but for the grace of God go I", but I won't romanticise them the way that you do either..

Re: Moved on

Iain_Hall — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 02:22:14 -0000

He's entirely right, Iain - explain why you say my reasoning in the post is not correct (with argument, not contradiction), or fuck off.

Are you having a bad day or something Jeremy? But I have to ask did you not read my comment made a couple of hours ago? there I said

Of course I've read Jeremy's post Mondo, the essence of his argument is that he thinks that begging should not be a crime. and on one level I would agree. But what sort of society would we have if the police were unable to legally respond to pests who bother people going about their business in the streets of our cities? what would our cites be like then?
As it stands the threat of being charged makes those who beg on our streets are generally circumspect about it and they try not to provoke anyone enough that they will be arrested. a reasonable compromise as far as I can see.

Now I think that directly addresses the argument that you make here, it also acknowledges the point of principle that you enunciate and offers a rationale for retaining the status quo.

We're using prisons to house the homeless now, are we? The ultimate punishment in our criminal justice system, and you're suggesting we should use it as a housing solution for the homeless.

You really have no clue, do you?

Surely you jest by calling prison in this country an "ultimate" punishment but I am not advocating prison or the watch house as a solution for the homeless at all, I am just recognising the reality out there in the real world. I think that I have more of a clue than you do on this sort of thing.
Cheers

Re: Moved on

Iain_Hall — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 23:52:58 -0000

Pardon me Mondo, but when did this become your blog?
You may not like what I say but you will have to live with it for as long as Jeremy welcomes my comments here.
Cheers Comrade

Re: Moved on

Iain_Hall — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 23:25:01 -0000

Of course I've read Jeremy's post Mondo, the essence of his argument is that he thinks that begging should not be a crime. and on one level I would agree. But what sort of society would we have if the police were unable to legally respond to pests who bother people going about their business in the streets of our cities? what would our cites be like then?
As it stands the threat of being charged makes those who beg on our streets are generally circumspect about it and they try not to provoke anyone enough that they will be arrested. a reasonable compromise as far as I can see.

Re: Moved on

Iain_Hall — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 22:30:06 -0000

Luli
The point I am making is not that this sort of law is just or unjust but that there are times that such laws are both necessary and efficacious. The police hate dealing with vagrants and junkies and as long as they don't bother ordinary people too much there are a million other things that they would rather do than arrest and charge people for begging. But if the beggars are being a public pest then a law like this one has some value.

Re: Moved on

Iain_Hall — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 21:37:49 -0000

All that I can suggest is that there is a very important function for such statutes and that is to give the police an adequate legal instrument to move on or remove troublemakers from the streets when the need arises. And I am sure if they were being honest many homeless would admit that some times being locked up for the night is preferable to spending a night in the cold.
If every time that a beggar was seen plying their trade they were being busted I think that you would have a point Jeremy but clearly that is not the case at all now is it?

Re: I can't deal with Lara again

Iain_Hall — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 18:35:05 -0000

They are all terrible and I understand your frustration with those automated answer systems they are all crap and very annoying indeed!

Re: Take that, nature

Iain_Hall — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 05:47:32 -0000

Zoot
I have been reading Jeremy's blog for years and while I can't cite you a quote about something I see as a theme in his writing what does it matter?
What I said is BTW no sort of accusation at all.
Mondo
I called it exactly as I saw it and you are welcome to take it or leave It.

Re: Take that, nature

Iain_Hall — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 01:15:20 -0000

Hi Rob
On more than one occasion Jeremy has mocked any expression of nationalism and I suppose that is because he is essentially an internationalist. and when it comes to the sort of mindless jingoism that is so common in the USA I would tend to agree But the thing is here in OZ I think that we have a good balance between indifference and mad "punch you out if you dis the flag" nationalism. Now that he has explained himself in the comments it is clear that his intention was to mock that aspect of the message the problem is that without his later clarification what he wrote can very easily be read as I suggested which is mocking the survivors.

Re: Take that, nature

Iain_Hall — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:55:07 -0000

Miss Lallybroach

Grow up you can't spend your entire life wrapped in the cotton wool of lefty group-think!

Re: Take that, nature

Iain_Hall — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:51:44 -0000

You don't give a source for the picture but I assume it is from somewhere ravaged by the fires so it must have been put up by a survivor to express their defiance at their plight and you mock it, ergo you mock the survivors of the disaster. QED.

Re: Take that, nature

Iain_Hall — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:49:40 -0000

Why on earth are you mocking the survivors of the worst fires in living memory Jeremy?
A great sentiment in that sign and a great example of Aussies being proud of their resilience in the face of great adversity or hardship.