Marriage equality, retribution and moral progress

Durer_Revelation_Four_Riders_2

Retribution?
The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” by Dürer

Colin Craig, leader of New Zealand’s Conservative party, is upset at last night’s parliamentary vote supporting marriage equality. On twitter (@ColinCraigNZ) he warned “The day of reckoning is still to come.” Some Catholic Bishops in Auckland issued a similar warning.

The religious connotations are obvious – war, pestilence, etc. But Craig’s press release hints at electoral consequences for parliament ignoring the expressed will of the people. He said: “Last night was not a vote of the people of New Zealand. If it had been, the answer would have been no.” (sic). And went on to claim: “Next year’s election will be the opportunity for New Zealanders to finally have their say. . . . . we expect our support to continue to increase.”

The Catholic Bishops also implied that the next election might see loss of support for those MPs who supported the law as an angry electorate took vengeance.

Craig and those bishops should get out more. Polling has shown majority support in New Zealand for marriage equality. And comments in the twitter stormduring the parliamentary debate last night indicated people were considering electorally supporting good speakers even though they represented political parties they hated.

The overwhelming assessment of the parliamentary debate on this legislation was that it was a high quality, reasoned and non-partisan approach made possible by the conscience vote. Bloody hell, the parliament TV channel must have had a huge following – patrons in bars and at parties were watching the debate. On this issue parliament TV was the best viewing of the night.

Watch Maurice Williamson’s speech on the legislation

Human rights the issue

The legislation was passed by an overwhelming majority (77 to 44). Members of parliament supporting the legislation impressed in their speeches because they were arguing in favour of human rights, and removal of discrimination. That resonated with viewers – and will do those speakers no harm in the next elections.

The few MPs speaking against the legislation instead argued for “tradition,” “authority” and conservative religious, even supernatural, morality.

I think this illustrates a clear difference in foundational values some moral psychologists describe as underlying human morality. I have written about this in reviewing Jonathan Haidt’s book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (see Morality and the “worship” of reason and Human morality is evolving).

Haidt lists six foundational values in human morality:

  1. Care/Harm
  2. Fairness/Cheating
  3. Loyalty/Betrayal
  4. Authority/Subversion
  5. Sanctity/Degradation
  6. Liberty/Oppression

I think this is a useful hypothesis (although I don’t agree with his conclusions about political values and the way he treats each foundational value as equal). We all have underlying intuitions and values driven by these sort of instincts.  However, I just don’t treat all these “foundational values” as equal. Or the resulting moral outlooks as always valid.

While these instincts evolved in humans, and some other animals, some, to me, seem more valid in today’s society. For example, foundational values related to survival, harm and care seem fundamental, arising naturally from the inherent biological value of survival. But those related to purity, sanctity authority, etc., while often relying on instincts developed for survival (eg purity of food), are actually hijacked to emotionally justify features of society and religion.

Foundational values of purity are important in considering unusual food, authority and loyalty in times of war, natural catastrophe, etc. But purity in considering beliefs, social arrangements like marriage and sexual relations? Authority and loyalty when considering behaviour in a democratic and pluralist, multi-belief and secular society? I think in the latter situations these foundational values are being misused and the moral conclusions are unjustified. They are relying on the hijacking of human instincts to give emotional support for outmoded social relations.

The moral drift?

Many people have commented that the marriage equality legislation is long overdue – others have commented  that “it is time.” Clearly it’s passing is possible now, and not 5 or 10 years ago, because of the change in our moral outlook. Conservatives may lament that – they may see this moral change as a decay or degradation. Others (the majority in this case) see it as progress.

But in terms of Haidt’s “foundational values” I see it as society giving more credence to foundational values related to survival, care, harm, fairness, liberty and human rights. And giving less credence to foundational values related to loyalty, authority, purity, sanctity and sacredness in human relations.

I think that is progress.

Similar articles

About these ads

74 responses to “Marriage equality, retribution and moral progress

  1. T

    Like

  2. What a magnificent speech. I have no idea who he is and I don’t care. What a simply glorious speech. The homophobes born of religious fear and loathing have nothing in comparison.

    Like

  3. What about the gay MP(s) who voted against the bill?

    Like

  4. What about them Phil?

    What relevance is your question to my article?

    Like

  5. Pingback: The Daily Blog Watch Thursday 18 April « The Daily Blog

  6. Great speech from Maurice Williamson. My opinion of parliament is at an all time high this week.

    Like

  7. Williamson is possibly amazed at the international response to his speech – apparently it is getting a large number of views and comments. It’s being used as a sort of proof that NZ is some sort of Utopia!

    It was an excellent speech (and I did tweet him congratulations – unusual for me) but other speeches were also good, if not a humorous.

    It’s good that they have been available on YouTube for anyone to see.

    Like

  8. Chris Findlayson voted against the bill. he is gay. does this make him a fundamentalist homophobe?

    Just a thought

    Like

  9. I saw some very negative publicity about this speech. It suggested that the NZ politician. Was taking the piss out if the bills opponents and that NZ is. Very intolerant society. I guess that might be true, judging by this Williamson guy

    Like

  10. So Phil, your criteria for labelling a person a “fundamentalist homophobe” is their vote on Wednesday night?

    That’s rather bigoted, isn’t it? Especially as speakers from both sides of the debate commented on how well it had been carried out. Each side seemed to have an appreciation of the other side. Winston was the only person to introduce a judgemental approach – and we expect that of him.

    The good nature and openness of the debate impressed a lot of viewers.

    Like

  11. Phil, you claim: “I saw some very negative publicity about this speech.” Want to share a link with us? And explain why a specific cherry picked view is of any value?

    What is your view of Williamson’s speech?

    Like

  12. Phil’s just trying to think real hard. Just one tiny, painfully slow thought at a time.
    Go easy on him.
    JAQ’ing off in public is his sole contribution to the internet.

    JAQing off is the act of spouting accusations while hiding behind the claim that one is “Just Asking Questions”. The strategy is to keep asking leading questions in an attempt to influence listeners’ views; the term is derived from the frequent claim by the questioner that they are “just asking questions,” albeit in a manner much the same as political push polls.
    The term was coined by “VespaGuy” on the JREF forums, after they had dealt with one too many 9/11 truthers:
    JAQing off – 1. the act of spouting accusations while cowardly hiding behind the claim of “just asking questions”. 2. asking questions and ignoring the answers.
    “He said he was going to present evidence, but instead he was just JAQing off.”
    It is related to Betteridge’s law of headlines.
    Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word “no.” The reason why journalists use that style of headline is that they know the story is probably bollocks, and don’t actually have the sources and facts to back it up, but still want to run it.

    Famous JAQers:Loose Change is a great example of JAQing. Replete with semi-truths and highly questionable leaps of logic, this documentary purports to show that the US government was behind the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001.
    Glenn Beck is one of the most prolific JAQers. His technique of raising issues without actively accusing anyone was parodied on the Did Glenn Beck Rape and Murder a Young Girl in 1990 website, which Beck tried and failed to shut down in 2009 by filing a dispute over the domain name. Equally notorious is Neil Cavuto, who has been known to JAQ off with lines like “Have the Democrats Forgotten the Lessons of 9/11?” or “Is the Liberal Media Helping to Fuel Terror?”. Jon Stewart gave a name not to the concept of JAQing off but to what might elsewhere be known as a question mark: the “Cavuto Mark.”Stewart subsequently “just asked” if Cavuto’s mother was a whore. Not that he meant anything by it. Obviously.
    Fox News — as in “Up next, is Obama really a fascist, socialist, gay, Muslim, atheist Kenyan?”
    The Socratic method can be a legitimate means of stimulating critical thinking. Obviously not all questioning is done from a position of cowardice; in some cases, a person may simply not feel confident enough in their position to make an assertion, so they instead ask a question in order to gather more information or elicit others’ thoughts before making up their mind about a particular stance.

    JAQing takes over when the answers are already well known, where the question embodies a point refuted a thousand times, or where the questioner exhibits wilful ignorance.
    See also:Concern troll
    Gish Gallop
    Question! Evolution!! (so far, no acknowledgement of Answers! from Evolution!!)
    RationalWiki

    Like

  13. “we do not seek to humiliate or defeat the opponent but to win his friendship” – Martin Luther King.

    Like

  14. So, Phil, when you said: “I saw some very negative publicity about this speech. It suggested that the NZ politician. Was taking the piss out if the bills opponents and that NZ is. Very intolerant society.” you were lying.

    You couldn’t link or reference that claim at all.

    How pathetic. To have to lie for Jesus like that.

    Like

  15. I saw some comments about NZ. Sorry I don’t have a link. Does that make me a liar?
    They were comments in a thread somewhere. it was late when i saw it.

    I guess that Kiwis don’t trust anyone, as well as being authoritarian and intolerant.

    Like

  16. Phil, if true that is the ultimate cherry picking – to pass on one comment out of thousands you just happened to see!

    But I think the best interpretation is that you lied. At the vey least you are trying to misinform.

    Like

  17. I believe Maurice was taking the piss out of the bill’s opponents.
    And rightly so as their opposition to the bill represents intolerance.
    Phil, it’s strange that you, or those that you cannot cite, interpret Maurice’s speech as representing the intolerant parties.

    Like

  18. He was taking the piss out of religion. This is extremely disrespectful of a senior politician in a country where many of the electorate go to church.

    And gay National MP Chris Finlayson has finally decided.

    “You register unions and you leave marriage to the church, temples, mosques,” says Mr Finlayson. “I’m voting against it for those reasons.”

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Gay-marriage-support-gaining-momentum/tabid/1607/articleID/267289/Default.aspx#ixzz2QtjDlGjO

    Like

  19. So it’s about religion, Phil. Actually Williamson took the piss out of the extremely irrationally critics of the legislation – people who were blaming it for the drought, etc. Not religion. In fact many, if not most, NZ Christians support the legislation.

    I guess you are quoting Finlayson because you agree wi him. Do you honestly believe that the many, I or most, NZers who marry without the help or blessing of a temple, church or mosque are not married?

    In fact the state does register marriages (and divorces) irrespective of religion.

    Like

  20. Yes I agree with Findlayson. The bill had to redefine marriage for the 99% of people that are not affected by the bill.

    it is not about “human rights”. What “right” does a person or a couple have to get a piece of paper from the State recognising their love?

    Is it a human right to be allowed to get a drivers licence?

    Such unthinking sheep in NZ.

    By the way, I am not anti gay. i have gay friends and most of them are anti gay marriage

    Like

  21. I saw some comments about NZ.

    On the internet? How wonderful for you. How amusing for the rest of us.

    Does that make me a liar?

    Oh Phil. Spare us your feelings. None of us care.

    They were comments in a thread somewhere. it was late when i saw it.

    Yes, somewhere. On some thread or other. So very late and all.
    Oh dear.

    I guess that Kiwis don’t…

    Phil, Phil, Phil.
    You are ignorant. No one cares what you “guess”.

    This is extremely disrespectful of a senior politician in a country where many of the electorate go to church.

    Heavens to Betsy! What will the neighbours say?
    Clutch those pearls, Phil. Clutch those pearls.

    Like

  22. By the way, I am not anti gay. i have gay friends.

    But of course you do Phil. Why some of your best friends are gay etc, etc, etc.
    Sure.
    You probably know some Jewish people and you just love those black entertainers on TV and you’ve even dined in a Chinese restaurant or two.
    Sure. We believe you.
    It’s not like you are a bigot or anything on the wrong side of history.
    Perish the thought.

    Like

  23. You are away with the birds, Phil. The law has passed. Has any married couple noticed any difference? Will they? No.

    You obviously are one of those small number of ultra conservative religious who want to deny human rights to others. Well, you lost – just as those religious people who wished to deny rights to people of other race, to mixed marriages, etc., lost.

    Humanity is making progress. You are being left behind.

    Like

  24. Cedric completely sums up my views about bigotry.

    Such an intolerant person, clearly. No respect for anyone else’s views, and making claims about me that are untrue.

    Is Chris Findlayson a bigot Cedric? He is gay and voted against the bill because of his religious persuasion

    Just a question for you to ponder over.

    Like

  25. He was taking the piss out of religion.

    Was he? So what?
    Why should everybody have to respect religion, Phil?

    Like

  26. Because he is a senior politician in NZ. Did you not read my quote from Martin Luther King?

    Clearly, this is not about “human rights”, it is about attacking the fabric of society with anti-religious bigots.

    Do you think that a senior politician should make a speech that mocks ginger haired people?

    Like

  27. No respect for anyone else’s views, and making claims about me that are untrue.

    No, Phil. Bad Phil. Stupid Phil.
    Read English.

    He is gay and voted against the bill because of his religious persuasion

    I pity him. Stockholm syndrome and all that.

    Just a question…

    Been there. Done that. You are just JAQingoff again. Get new material.
    (shrug)

    Like

  28. Do you think that a senior politician should make a speech that mocks ginger haired people?

    Do you think that a senior politician should make a speech that mocks people that warn of a magical day of reckoning filled with oogity boogity?
    It’s just begging to be mocked.
    It’s a target rich environment.
    Stupidity is often funny.

    Like

  29. You pity Chris Findlayson?

    He is the Attorney General of NZ. Email him and tell him you pity him and that he is a narrow minded bigot.

    Why not? What have you got to lose? Why stick with the blog format?

    Like

  30. You can ring or phone him. Email is discouraged

    http://www.chrisfinlayson.co.nz/contact.html

    Like

  31. What about the gay MP(s) who voted against the bill? Chris Findlayson voted against the bill. he is gay. does this make him a fundamentalist homophobe?Just a thought. Does that make me a liar?
    What “right” does a person or a couple have to get a piece of paper from the State recognising their love?Is it a human right to be allowed to get a drivers licence?Is Chris Findlayson a bigot Cedric? He is gay and voted against the bill because of his religious persuasion.Just a question for you to ponder over.Did you not read my quote from Martin Luther King?Do you think that a senior politician should make a speech that mocks ginger haired people?You pity Chris Findlayson?Why not? What have you got to lose? Why stick with the blog format?

    So many questions and all from just one thread.
    How confused you are, Phil. You just keep JAQing off.

    “JAQing off is the act of spouting accusations while hiding behind the claim that one is “Just Asking Questions”. The strategy is to keep asking leading questions in an attempt to influence listeners’ views; the term is derived from the frequent claim by the questioner that they are “just asking questions,” albeit in a manner much the same as political push polls.
    The term was coined by “VespaGuy” on the JREF forums, after they had dealt with one too many 9/11 truthers:
    JAQing off – 1. the act of spouting accusations while cowardly hiding behind the claim of “just asking questions”. 2. asking questions and ignoring the answers.
    “He said he was going to present evidence, but instead he was just JAQing off.”
    It is related to Betteridge’s law of headlines.
    Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word “no.” The reason why journalists use that style of headline is that they know the story is probably bollocks, and don’t actually have the sources and facts to back it up, but still want to run it.

    Famous JAQers:Loose Change is a great example of JAQing. Replete with semi-truths and highly questionable leaps of logic, this documentary purports to show that the US government was behind the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001.
    Glenn Beck is one of the most prolific JAQers. His technique of raising issues without actively accusing anyone was parodied on the Did Glenn Beck Rape and Murder a Young Girl in 1990 website, which Beck tried and failed to shut down in 2009 by filing a dispute over the domain name. Equally notorious is Neil Cavuto, who has been known to JAQ off with lines like “Have the Democrats Forgotten the Lessons of 9/11?” or “Is the Liberal Media Helping to Fuel Terror?”. Jon Stewart gave a name not to the concept of JAQing off but to what might elsewhere be known as a question mark: the “Cavuto Mark.”Stewart subsequently “just asked” if Cavuto’s mother was a whore. Not that he meant anything by it. Obviously.
    Fox News — as in “Up next, is Obama really a fascist, socialist, gay, Muslim, atheist Kenyan?”
    The Socratic method can be a legitimate means of stimulating critical thinking. Obviously not all questioning is done from a position of cowardice; in some cases, a person may simply not feel confident enough in their position to make an assertion, so they instead ask a question in order to gather more information or elicit others’ thoughts before making up their mind about a particular stance.

    JAQing takes over when the answers are already well known, where the question embodies a point refuted a thousand times, or where the questioner exhibits wilful ignorance.
    See also:Concern troll
    Gish Gallop
    Question! Evolution!! (so far, no acknowledgement of Answers! from Evolution!!)”

    Like

  32. Red hair is a genetic trait, so is homosexuality.

    Have a thought about that, Phil, about how it affects your argument..

    Like

  33. Do you think the answer is already well known? Do you know why CF voted against the bill?
    Is it because of his religious faith?
    is he a bigot?
    Are the only non-bigots the ones who support the bill?

    Are these all questions with well-known answers?

    Which questions do not have well-known answers?
    Can you give a canonical question that does not have a well-known answer?
    What is the genre of this question?

    Like

  34. Idiots who make idiotic claims – such as the legislation being the cause of the drought – actually do not have a get home free card which says they can’t be criticised. Religion does not give anyone the right to freedom from criticism, or even ridicule, when they make such idiotic claims.

    Grow up Phil – we are well past such undemocratic ideas.

    It’s silliness like this which is causing people to turn away from religion in their droves.

    Like

  35. Is it because of his religious faith?
    is he a bigot?

    OED :
    Bigot : person obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a creed, opinion or ritual

    I have to chuckle at the “wedded” part

    Like

  36. Phil (the Just Asking Questions Troll)
    First JAQ-off was on March 7th ,2013.
    In the space of only 42 days, this much JAQ’ing off spam was created:

    Do you know who the black guy is?Do you have any suggestions?Know what I mean? What do you mean, “I slipped up last round”? Huh?Climate deniers like me? Huh? You are a bit of a cheeky darky eh klem? Funny, what has this got to do with intelligent design research?I just thought of that, sorry. How do you know this Ken? Ken – would you agree that using a single drought as evidence of climate change is cherry picking? Did you stand outside and ask them their opinions? Did you get them to fill in a questionnaire?Did you phone them up?Did you email them? So how will you point out that Monckton is not a credible voice in the debate?Will you stand up and say in a loud voice “You are not a credible person in the debate”.Or will you try to debate him on one of his points? Do you guys have anything other than links to videos? Where are the key points, please? Do you intend to stand up and make an announcement? Clearly dishonest.But then, we have come to expect this from the dishonest system we call climate scienceDishonest scientists trying to make a name for themselves exploiting a dishonest system, with a dishonest media reporting their dishonest work with equal dishonesty.Do I care about minor accusations of dishonesty from Monckton when much larger dishonesty is happening in the dishonest echo chamber of dishonest climate science?This is clearly dishonest. I am an idiot, and I am proud of my idiot heritage. I demand equality for idiots! Maybe you should try this in future? How about the honest people of Cyprus getting their money taken by dishonest bankers Ken? Or how about the honest British pensioners who have their personal possessions taken from them by dishonest government bailiffs who dishonestly impose fines?How about the dishonest judge who fined the Greenpeace protestors $650 each for illegally boarding a Shell drilling ship? Why were these dishonest and law breaking people only fined $650 yet an honest member of society who prepares an honest court case gets fined thousands by a judge? Is the judge dishonestly covering up the dishonesty of NIWA or is he just a dishonest puppet of a dishonest government? You seem very keen to call me a liar and dishonest based on no evidence at all. Clearly dishonest. So, Ken, where did lie and “tell porkies”? It is true. What evidence do you have that I am lying? Clearly dishonest. Such dishonesty I find hard to stomach. Would you agree that this is dishonest? Maybe not, I;d like your opinion.It matters to me. I have a truckload of weight loss pills I need to fob off to a gullible public, but I don’t like to be dishonest. Is this a valid scientific technique, or it is dishonest? Did you read Bernie’s comment? I admire honest people like Bernie and Steve Mac who are prepared to stand up to the dishonest scientists.Of course, dishonest people might try to distort my quip and claim that I am a drug pusher. It was a joke, geddit, I am not dishonest, unlike some people. No I don’t understand Ken. I am an idiot
    As I said, i am proud of it. So why is this part of the denial echo chamber Ken? What about the gay MP(s) who voted against the bill? Chris Findlayson voted against the bill. he is gay. does this make him a fundamentalist homophobe?Just a thought. Does that make me a liar?
    What “right” does a person or a couple have to get a piece of paper from the State recognising their love?Is it a human right to be allowed to get a drivers licence?Is Chris Findlayson a bigot Cedric? He is gay and voted against the bill because of his religious persuasion.Just a question for you to ponder over.Did you not read my quote from Martin Luther King?Do you think that a senior politician should make a speech that mocks ginger haired people?You pity Chris Findlayson?Why not? What have you got to lose? Why stick with the blog format? Do you think the answer is already well known? Do you know why CF voted against the bill?Is it because of his religious faith?is he a bigot?Are the only non-bigots the ones who support the bill?Are these all questions with well-known answers? Which questions do not have well-known answers?Can you give a canonical question that does not have a well-known answer?What is the genre of this question?

    Like

  37. Richard Christie, so you agree that Chris Findlayson is a bigoted homophobe, that is gay himself?

    (* giggles *)

    Like

  38. All this JAQing off makes you blind, or so my teacher told me

    Like

  39. Funny Cedric, you claim that my comments are “spam” and collect every comment I have made into one long comment.
    Do you not think that your comment is spam rather than mine?

    Like

  40. Phil (the Just Asking Questions Troll)
    First JAQ-off was on March 7th ,2013.
    In the space of only 42 days, this much JAQ’ing off spam was created:
    Do you know who the black guy is?Do you have any suggestions?Know what I mean? What do you mean, “I slipped up last round”? Huh?Climate deniers like me? Huh? You are a bit of a cheeky darky eh klem? Funny, what has this got to do with intelligent design research?I just thought of that, sorry. How do you know this Ken? Ken – would you agree that using a single drought as evidence of climate change is cherry picking? Did you stand outside and ask them their opinions? Did you get them to fill in a questionnaire?Did you phone them up?Did you email them? So how will you point out that Monckton is not a credible voice in the debate?Will you stand up and say in a loud voice “You are not a credible person in the debate”.Or will you try to debate him on one of his points? Do you guys have anything other than links to videos? Where are the key points, please? Do you intend to stand up and make an announcement? Clearly dishonest.But then, we have come to expect this from the dishonest system we call climate scienceDishonest scientists trying to make a name for themselves exploiting a dishonest system, with a dishonest media reporting their dishonest work with equal dishonesty.Do I care about minor accusations of dishonesty from Monckton when much larger dishonesty is happening in the dishonest echo chamber of dishonest climate science?This is clearly dishonest. I am an idiot, and I am proud of my idiot heritage. I demand equality for idiots! Maybe you should try this in future? How about the honest people of Cyprus getting their money taken by dishonest bankers Ken? Or how about the honest British pensioners who have their personal possessions taken from them by dishonest government bailiffs who dishonestly impose fines?How about the dishonest judge who fined the Greenpeace protestors $650 each for illegally boarding a Shell drilling ship? Why were these dishonest and law breaking people only fined $650 yet an honest member of society who prepares an honest court case gets fined thousands by a judge? Is the judge dishonestly covering up the dishonesty of NIWA or is he just a dishonest puppet of a dishonest government? You seem very keen to call me a liar and dishonest based on no evidence at all. Clearly dishonest. So, Ken, where did lie and “tell porkies”? It is true. What evidence do you have that I am lying? Clearly dishonest. Such dishonesty I find hard to stomach. Would you agree that this is dishonest? Maybe not, I;d like your opinion.It matters to me. I have a truckload of weight loss pills I need to fob off to a gullible public, but I don’t like to be dishonest. Is this a valid scientific technique, or it is dishonest? Did you read Bernie’s comment? I admire honest people like Bernie and Steve Mac who are prepared to stand up to the dishonest scientists.Of course, dishonest people might try to distort my quip and claim that I am a drug pusher. It was a joke, geddit, I am not dishonest, unlike some people. No I don’t understand Ken. I am an idiot
    As I said, i am proud of it. So why is this part of the denial echo chamber Ken? What about the gay MP(s) who voted against the bill? Chris Findlayson voted against the bill. he is gay. does this make him a fundamentalist homophobe?Just a thought. Does that make me a liar?
    What “right” does a person or a couple have to get a piece of paper from the State recognising their love?Is it a human right to be allowed to get a drivers licence?Is Chris Findlayson a bigot Cedric? He is gay and voted against the bill because of his religious persuasion.Just a question for you to ponder over.Did you not read my quote from Martin Luther King?Do you think that a senior politician should make a speech that mocks ginger haired people?You pity Chris Findlayson?Why not? What have you got to lose? Why stick with the blog format? Do you think the answer is already well known? Do you know why CF voted against the bill?Is it because of his religious faith?is he a bigot?Are the only non-bigots the ones who support the bill?Are these all questions with well-known answers? Which questions do not have well-known answers?Can you give a canonical question that does not have a well-known answer?What is the genre of this question? All this JAQing off makes you blind, or so my teacher told me. Funny Cedric, you claim that my comments are “spam” and collect every comment I have made into one long comment.
    Do you not think that your comment is spam rather than mine?

    Like

  41. Richard Christie, so you agree that Chris Findlayson is a bigoted homophobe, that is gay himself?

    Not a homophobe, you but since you ascribe his stand to his religious beliefs, and so I invite you to reread the Oxford definition of bigot.

    Like

  42. The grammar police rang

    “Not a homophobe, you but since you ascribe his stand to his religious beliefs I invite you to reread the Oxford definition of bigot.”

    Like

  43. OK, so Chris Findlayson is a bigot.
    Is this your final say on the topic?

    Is anyone opposed to gay marriage for whatever reason a bigot?

    (* Cedric attaches last question to his JAQing off collection and posts below *)

    Like

  44. OK, so Chris Findlayson is a bigot.
    Is this your final say on the topic?

    Is anyone opposed to gay marriage for whatever reason a bigot?

    (* Cedric attaches last question to his JAQing off collection and posts below *)
    OK, so Chris Findlayson is a bigot.
    Is this your final say on the topic?

    Is anyone opposed to gay marriage for whatever reason a bigot?

    (* Cedric attaches last question to his JAQing off collection and posts below *)

    Like

  45. Is anyone opposed to gay marriage for whatever reason a bigot?

    Not necessarily, examples: they could have not thought through the issue, or have other reasons unconnected to a creed, ritual or an a priori opinion. Or they could just be garden variety arseholes.

    Like

  46. So you don’t think that there are any valid reasons to oppose Gay Marriage?
    You are either (a) a bigot (b) an arsehole (c) didn’t think it through?

    Would you apply the same logic to someone who proposed polygamous marriage? If you don’t agree with my position to allow 3,4 or 5 people to marry you are an arsehole?

    Perhaps if you disagree with any of my opinions you are an arsehole?

    (* memo to Cedric: attach to JAQing off list *)

    How does being “gay married” make anyone happier anyway?
    Surely if you are “gay”, you are happy already. That’s what the word means, or used to.

    Like

  47. Monty Python Registry Office sketch

    Clearly dishonest bigoted “humour”

    Like

  48. So you don’t think that there are any valid reasons to oppose Gay Marriage?You are either (a) a bigot (b) an arsehole (c) didn’t think it through?Would you apply the same logic to someone who proposed polygamous marriage? If you don’t agree with my position to allow 3,4 or 5 people to marry you are an arsehole?Perhaps if you disagree with any of my opinions you are an arsehole?(* memo to Cedric: attach to JAQing off list *)How does being “gay married” make anyone happier anyway?
    Surely if you are “gay”, you are happy already. That’s what the word means, or used to.So you don’t think that there are any valid reasons to oppose Gay Marriage?You are either (a) a bigot (b) an arsehole (c) didn’t think it through?Would you apply the same logic to someone who proposed polygamous marriage? If you don’t agree with my position to allow 3,4 or 5 people to marry you are an arsehole?Perhaps if you disagree with any of my opinions you are an arsehole?(* memo to Cedric: attach to JAQing off list *)How does being “gay married” make anyone happier anyway?
    Surely if you are “gay”, you are happy already. That’s what the word means, or used to.

    Like

  49. Lindsay Perigo (another Gay man against the bill)

    “Gay Marriage is for suckers”

    http://www.solopassion.com/node/9249

    Like

  50. for example, like this:


    Phil (the Just Asking Questions Troll)
    First JAQ-off was on March 7th ,2013.
    In the space of only 42 days, this much JAQ’ing off spam was created:
    Do you know who the black guy is?Do you have any suggestions?Know what I mean? What do you mean, “I slipped up last round”? Huh?Climate deniers like me? Huh? You are a bit of a cheeky darky eh klem? Funny, what has this got to do with intelligent design research?I just thought of that, sorry. How do you know this Ken? Ken – would you agree that using a single drought as evidence of climate change is cherry picking? Did you stand outside and ask them their opinions? Did you get them to fill in a questionnaire?Did you phone them up?Did you email them? So how will you point out that Monckton is not a credible voice in the debate?Will you stand up and say in a loud voice “You are not a credible person in the debate”.Or will you try to debate him on one of his points? Do you guys have anything other than links to videos? Where are the key points, please? Do you intend to stand up and make an announcement? Clearly dishonest.But then, we have come to expect this from the dishonest system we call climate scienceDishonest scientists trying to make a name for themselves exploiting a dishonest system, with a dishonest media reporting their dishonest work with equal dishonesty.Do I care about minor accusations of dishonesty from Monckton when much larger dishonesty is happening in the dishonest echo chamber of dishonest climate science?This is clearly dishonest. I am an idiot, and I am proud of my idiot heritage. I demand equality for idiots! Maybe you should try this in future? How about the honest people of Cyprus getting their money taken by dishonest bankers Ken? Or how about the honest British pensioners who have their personal possessions taken from them by dishonest government bailiffs who dishonestly impose fines?How about the dishonest judge who fined the Greenpeace protestors $650 each for illegally boarding a Shell drilling ship? Why were these dishonest and law breaking people only fined $650 yet an honest member of society who prepares an honest court case gets fined thousands by a judge? Is the judge dishonestly covering up the dishonesty of NIWA or is he just a dishonest puppet of a dishonest government? You seem very keen to call me a liar and dishonest based on no evidence at all. Clearly dishonest. So, Ken, where did lie and “tell porkies”? It is true. What evidence do you have that I am lying? Clearly dishonest. Such dishonesty I find hard to stomach. Would you agree that this is dishonest? Maybe not, I;d like your opinion.It matters to me. I have a truckload of weight loss pills I need to fob off to a gullible public, but I don’t like to be dishonest. Is this a valid scientific technique, or it is dishonest? Did you read Bernie’s comment? I admire honest people like Bernie and Steve Mac who are prepared to stand up to the dishonest scientists.Of course, dishonest people might try to distort my quip and claim that I am a drug pusher. It was a joke, geddit, I am not dishonest, unlike some people. No I don’t understand Ken. I am an idiot
    As I said, i am proud of it. So why is this part of the denial echo chamber Ken? What about the gay MP(s) who voted against the bill? Chris Findlayson voted against the bill. he is gay. does this make him a fundamentalist homophobe?Just a thought. Does that make me a liar?
    What “right” does a person or a couple have to get a piece of paper from the State recognising their love?Is it a human right to be allowed to get a drivers licence?Is Chris Findlayson a bigot Cedric? He is gay and voted against the bill because of his religious persuasion.Just a question for you to ponder over.Did you not read my quote from Martin Luther King?Do you think that a senior politician should make a speech that mocks ginger haired people?You pity Chris Findlayson?Why not? What have you got to lose? Why stick with the blog format? Do you think the answer is already well known? Do you know why CF voted against the bill?Is it because of his religious faith?is he a bigot?Are the only non-bigots the ones who support the bill?Are these all questions with well-known answers? Which questions do not have well-known answers?Can you give a canonical question that does not have a well-known answer?What is the genre of this question? All this JAQing off makes you blind, or so my teacher told me. Funny Cedric, you claim that my comments are “spam” and collect every comment I have made into one long comment.
    Do you not think that your comment is spam rather than mine?

    Yes I have lots of questions. Does JAQing off make you blind?Should people who frequently JAQ off be allowed to marry themselves?Just some questions for you to cut and paste and attach to the other ones.Yes I have lots of questions. Does JAQing off make you blind?Should people who frequently JAQ off be allowed to marry themselves?Just some questions for you to cut and paste and attach to the other ones

    Do you think that this adds to the discussion?
    What are your thoughts?
    (assuming you have any)

    Like

  51. You both fail the Turing test.

    Like

  52. I agree Rob – “You both fail the Turing test'”

    What a mess. I am going to have to go through and clean out most of those comments – such childish tit-for-tat inhibits decent discussion and just drives people away.

    Like

  53. Phil is just another Mickwho was in turn just another Andy. No doubt there will be a Dave and then a Jeff or a Doug. JAQ’ing off in public is their sole contribution to the internet..

    Like

  54. Cedric, creating an atmosphere of such tit for tat absurdity, hoping to lower the tone of the blog post, is the raison d’être of the Phils, Andys etc of the blogosphere.

    Don’t feed the trolls! ;0)

    Like

  55. I have tried to delete all the tit-for-tat stuff. Hopefully future discussion will be more productive and not turn others away.

    Like

  56. I have tried to delete all the tit-for-tat stuff.

    Sorry for the trouble, Ken.

    Like

  57. Phil, stop it. I have deleted your comment and will continue to do so for such childish behaviour. Sensible discussion is of course welcome.

    Like

  58. Phil, stop it. I have deleted your comment and will continue to do so for such childish behaviour. Sensible discussion is of course welcome

    I was trying to have a discussion until your friend Cedric started trolling by just copying all my comments in duplicate.

    Of course, you don’t want to have a discussion, so you?

    Like

  59. Phil, last warning. Grow up and get past that childish exchange behaviour. If you continue I will organise for all your comments to go straight to spam.

    I am fed up with trolls using these tactics to close down genuine discussion.

    Like

  60. I was trying to have a discussion until your friend Cedric started trolling by just copying all my comments in duplicate.

    No, you weren’t. Implicit in your constant stream of questions was a straw-man position you constantly ascribe to your opponent. Essentially a series of cheap shots.

    I suggest you modify your approach or accept the epithet Cedric applied, i.e of JAQing-off.

    Like

  61. What would be a better approach than jacking off?

    Any suggestions?

    Like

  62. That’s up to you Phil, but for the sake of decency please do it in private.

    I think discussion on this post is surely completed.

    The legislation is past. It’s history. No-one else is upset by it. Just learn to accept reality – you can’t change it.

    Like

  63. The legislation is past. It’s history.

    No it’s not. It is current. If it was just history, no one would be interested in it.

    Which they aren’t.
    Funny that, eh?

    Like

  64. I agree – they aren’t. We are moving on.

    Like

  65. Bloody hell, the parliament TV channel must have had a huge following

    The term “bloody” is a bastardization of the term “by our lady”, which is a blasphemous expression about the Virgin Mary

    Not a lot of people know that.

    Like

  66. So that’s the origin if the Bloody Mary cocktail? Did it originate in the Vatican?

    Like

  67. No one is interested because no one wants to get Gay Married (apart from a few attention seeking Gays)
    The whole thing was a waste of time

    Like

  68. No, the bloody Mary cocktail is not related


    The name “Bloody Mary” is associated with a number of historical figures — particularly Queen Mary I of England, who was nicknamed as such in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs for attempting to re-establish the Catholic Church in Britain — and fictional women from folklore. Some drink aficionados believe the inspiration for the name was Hollywood star Mary Pickford.[6] Others trace the name to a waitress named Mary who worked at a Chicago bar called the Bucket of Blood

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Mary_%28cocktail%29

    Like

  69. You are flogging a dead horse, Phil. The Christian extremists have pulled their heads in after realising how damaging their inhumane stand was and would rather everyone forgot.

    They probably would not appreciate your attempts to stir such an old pot.

    Like

  70. Sorry which inhumane stand are we talking about? The Bloody Mary or the Bloody Hell?

    Like

  71. Whatever, I just use it as a normal swear word along the lines Steven Pinker has analysed such words.

    Don’t give a stuff about origins, just as long as it functions as a swear word. Jesus H. Christ is another swear word worth considering.

    Like

  72. Who the fuck is Steven Pinker?

    Like

  73. (* did you get the irony in my last comment ? *)

    Like

  74. Jesus H. Christ is another swear word worth considering

    Jesus H Christ is not a swear word

    It is what we might call a profanity , or such like. However, it is not a swear word (actually, it is two words separated by H, which presumably stands for Holy)

    The word “Holy” is used quite a lot in the English language
    For example, the word “holiday” actually comes from “Holy Day”.
    Examples of a “Holy Day” include Easter and Christmas,

    I hope that makes sense.

    Does Steven Pinker have anything to say about this?

    Like

Leave a Reply - please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s