That explains why he anti-alcohol – he’d also have to avoid beans and curry I guess.
]]>Guy’s got a good press agent though – he can barely break wind without it being on the National Radio hourly news update.
]]>Excellent, thanks 🙂
“Highly restrictive “nanny state” families are prone to producing emotionally stunted children with no initiative, but laissez-fair “ninny state” families with no clear rules or regulations often produce out-of-control children. The answer, of course, lies in the middle ground”
What I love about that is the fact that it seems to imply that the state is the primary determinant of our personalities – I like to think a bit more of my personality was inherent tbh.
“And I do love the Raoul Duke at the Police Convention scene”
It is f’ing brilliant 😀
]]>Which state – “ninny” or “nanny” – is likely to encourage individual responsibility? The answer is neither. Highly restrictive “nanny state” families are prone to producing emotionally stunted children with no initiative, but laissez-fair “ninny state” families with no clear rules or regulations often produce out-of-control children. The answer, of course, lies in the middle ground.
There. You’ve been flamed.
And I do love the Raoul Duke at the Police Convention scene….
]]>Adolf got flamed because someone doesn’t understand probabilities and wanted to blame him and the ACT party.
We are supposed to attempt to get flamed, which is why I’m disappointed with the lack of anger from my article. Hell, even my mum agreed with it 😛
]]>Glad to see you agree 🙂
I agree that the facts make it seem that way. But I think many of these people don’t see the facts, they have some prior belief where people taking a drug are turning around raping and murdering everyone (such as the description given by the anti-drug people in Fear and Loathing in Los Vegas).
In essence, it is because attitudes and popular information drive that – I believe it is Will Wilkinson saying that we should all come out and try to normalise drugs, as a way to get them treated right.
However, the sheer focus on harm minimisation implies that even normalisation won’t be enough. Harm minimisation as a policy really implies that no-one should do anything – so if you apply it to any single product you are going to recommend excessive controls. *Sigh*
]]>goonix :
You don’t want to get flamed in the letters to the editor like your co-worker, that’s for sure. 
Who got flamed and for saying what? Exciting:)
]]>I do want to get flamed – but I know paternalists are only being so protective because they care, not because they are stupid or evil. And so I don’t see the point of being a bully, the goal should instead be to make them think about what they are saying and what is really best for everyone out there.
As I’ve said before (http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com/2010/05/gilbert-and-sullivan-on-politics-of.html#comments ) – its like the song father and son. Paternalists see it as saying that the issue is with the old guy not getting his message through, more liberal (UK sense) people see the problem as the old guy not giving the young guy an opportunity to experience and learn and live.
]]>