Andrew,
your contribution to this discussion is a bit hard to grasp as it has
quite some fundamental (also logical) flaws.
1)
I would like to move that by default prirates communicate in a
respectful manner with each another.
Bad example:
You talk about fringe people (that's me). While I have been using the
term 'fringe' for subjects from the perspective of PPNZ core policies,
you use the term on whole persons, stigmatising them as being on thre
fringe of human society due to not being accessible by rational arguments.
In doing so, you destroy our ability to talk sanely with each another
and exchange arguments and knowledge aiming at better understanding and
motions. this sounds a bit paradox to me as you (and I) wish our party
to be one 'of reason and openminds'.
Better example:
You could have called me being misinformed, becasue you think that I am
refereing to outdated scientific discussions, for example. In this case
it would be quite naural for me to ask you for your sources. This way we
would just make a good example of academic disputation, learn a lot and
make the mailing list a better place to be.
Unfortunately we have to waiste our time now to do some meta discussion
first, to re-establish that. Please write better mails in the future.
You are the President of the Wellington Chapter. Behave.
Reason for the above motion:
We are lacking > 400 people joining. We are marketing our party by
pointing out how open minded and ratinal, pragmatic and creative, we
are, how much we embrace open culture, et al. Our communication is the
first and only proof that we adhere to those principals. Our
communication style is not important; it is the most importatnt thing.
2)
Funny that you discribe me like that, in response to my proposal to not
simply fire a motion in reaction of a 5 minute sensational TV feature,
but instead to embed the message in a package that explicitly aims at
supporting proper science and making the results public.
3)
> However, I agree with pervach ...
No, you don't. You are actually opposing him (and so do I).
Pervach has never dismissed a person as being fringe. He has been
suggesting that we should suspend working on non-core issues as long as
our core positions are not 'stable' if I way say so.
YOU have announced a naive move to support scientific studies working on
Ibogaine, which is obviously a non-core (fringe) subject.
I have then made a proposal to bind this issue back to our core
policies. It is my believe that our core aspects can build out roots
into nearly every aspect of public concerns. And I think it would be
smart to show that with everything we touch. This is one aspect why I
oppose Pervach here, because I think we can plant the pirate's core
nearly everywhere and it will blossom.
4)
I agree with you that luddities should not the parties face.
Pervach has already pointed ut that due to the need of voting for
motions, this will not happen. I have already mentioned liquid feedback
earlier, which will help us to ease the process of finding out what the
party is actually willing to support.
I would like to add: Mana plays a role as well.
@Andrew: I am looking forward to hear your opinion regarding the above.
Cheers
On 18/06/12 1:17 PM, Andrew McPherson wrote:
> This is where the first policy committee had its problems with
> rehashing everything for nz. I would like to move that by default we
> adopt policy that works for other pirate parties and fill in the blanks.
> However, I agree with pervach if we have a few fringe people
> contributing to policy, we get the chance of non scientific nonsense
> such as autism caused by antibiotics or mercury (which has been
> disproved).
> We do not under any circumstance want to become as hopeless with
> science and technology as the greens.
> By this I mean that there should never be a pirate party which has
> luddites shaping our policy into ideological smegma, we should always
> be the party of reason and openminds.
