27 August 2009

Anger management?

Idiot Savant

First he claims the referendum on smacking was about legalising punching your kids.

Now a man who often proclaims how important democracy is, has a hissy fit when it doesn’t go his way.

Let's all just say "fuck you" when we don't get our own way. It shines with reason.

He describes those who support legalised smacking as monsters, how the old law was legal cover for extreme violence and gets progressively more agree. He accuses those who organised the referendum as “hard core child beaters”, which is potentially defamatory (not that he’s stereotyping mind you), calls them believers in “faeries or devils”, but never commented on this case. He calls on the state to protect the children of the referendum holders, and then says “there's an awful lot of you monsters out there. Fortunately, you're dying out. And our country will be a much better place for children when you are gone”.

Do you think he has some issues with anger that he loses perspective?

I've made my distaste about corporal punishment clear, I don't like it, but I don't think very mild use of force should be criminal. That isn't a matter for the state.

By no means do I think most people who voted "no" are monsters. I think they are largely reasonable parents who fear the state taking their kids off them for using mild force that isn't about punching, kicking or thrashing their kids. When the primary argument you have against those you disagree with is abuse and vile accusations with no substance behind them, then you've done nothing for your case - it just looks like sour grapes. Particularly when someone who vents often about civil rights demands the state effectively take the children of the referendum organisers off them.

You can see how liberal he really is. On the bright side, maybe he will learn that democracy isn't a totem to worship - particularly when you think the majority vote for the immoral. Because when you worship democracy and it goes against you, you can either say those who voted "incorrectly" were stupid and "bought" in some way, or say "fuck you".


StephenR said...

Yep he's pretty much lost it on that front.

Peter said...

Fortunately, you're dying out. And our country will be a much better place for children when you are gone.

Going by current demographic trends it is secular left-leaning types such as NRT who are dying out. The only people in NZ whose fertility is above replacement level are Polynesians and strongly religious communities - both least likely to have voted Yes in the referendum (IIRC over 97% of the votes in one of the Maori electorates were No votes).

He's mentioned this fantasy several times that his political opponents are going to "die out" but since he turned comments off I can't point out that demographics are actually working against him.

StephenR said...

email him

Anonymous said...

Scott - your last para can also apply to most of the public address commentators in the recent post by the Leagle beagle on compulsory student membership at UNI's being a breach of human rights (was tempted to add a comment about CMS and regulatory rent seeking/public choice theory, but the human rights angle was more than well argued by leagle beagle and provides a good liberal, ethical and logical lens to view the argument).

Essentially the commentators at PA came across as not being liberals - mostly would be philosopher-kings and liberals only when the result suits there preconceptions.

Anonymous said...

We've got the fucking guns.

And we're quite happy to help all those liberals die out - the sooner the better.

scrubone said...

You're not the only one to comment, I wrote a post that was broadly simmiliar... yet looking at his, no "links to this post".

Funny that.

Of course, it was after a similarly stupid rant that he decided to cut off comments.