It's not a platform for leftist tripe.
For those who encouraged the suicide I suggest that the police take them into custody for murder. That would put an end to that.
For the radio idiots, I suggest that a couple of well placed calls to the station, followed by a boycott of their sponsors would solve that problem. If this was done in the US, they would find themselves out of work very fast.
Great post KG, you have perfectly summed up how I am feeling about our country at the moment. I heard the beginning of that radio segment and changed the channel in Disgust.
I am only 42 and sounding like an old fogey, it saddens me that current social mores make me feel old.
Thanks BB and Katie. Those two items made me feel very old and very bloody angry.
I couldn't agree more. There seems to be a disturbing trend that to have fun you need to do it at the expense of other people. There is an awful lot of cruel humour out there now. I sometimes wonder if it has been brought on by the "reality" TV shows where in many cases "judges" are able to get away with some outrageous comments.
Or have we through computers, texting and other modern communications methods bred a generation who do not see or feel emotions of others?
I blame leftism, socialism (is there a difference?) and the general moral breakdown in the west, when you have a culture of anything goes and no one can judge or criticize, the boundaries become blurred and eventually there are none.
I forget who, but some bright person -- possibly Bertrand de Jouvenel -- said that civilization depends upon an uninterrupted chain of transmission from each generation to the next. If that chain were interrupted for a single generation, we would revert to the starkest depths of savagery.
This appears to have taken place, at least in parts of the West.
Keith, I plan to write about this myself. Hope you don't mind.
Mind Francis? I'd love to read what you think about it all because I'm struggling to put into words the rising sense of foreboding--horror even--that this kind of behaviour produces.
A long and interesting life hasn't prepared me at all for this.
"Or have we through computers, texting and other modern communications methods bred a generation who do not see or feel emotions of others?"
Now there's a thought...
and maybe they can no longer distinguish the differences between what it means to be human--and humane--and the false reality of computer games and so-called media entertainment.
KG, I want to know the name of the radio station, please; also the date & approx time.
If they're online, I want to check the audio archive for myself.
If necessary, I'll write to the bastards & create a bit of fuss. May I suggest that you do the same.
Katie's right. There are methods to employ.
KG...very disturbing indeed! And it is no wonder that the NSW Police Academy is having trouble with young recruits who are not passing their ethics exams!
I'll probably get shouted down here, but I have always believed that the easiest and best method of delivering societies morals and ethics to young minds is through religion. One scripture lesson a week in every state school would do wonders for every up and coming generation. After all our civilization is founded on Christiand and Judeo values!
Nemesis is absolutely right. It is through religion and the family that morals are normally passed. And the lack of religion in people's lives corresponds with the rising immorality in our society.
I disagree, Katie. Religion is *not* the only avenue for the teaching of morality, and neither is family necessarily. The latter should be, of course, but what of the no-hoper families around? Bugger all morality to be found within those, sadly.
And as for religion, per se, I find bugger all morality in the religion of Islam. And Christianity drives me nuts when it prattles on about being your brother's keeper. I don't expect, let alone demand, anybody to be my keeper. Christianity is overtly socialist at times.
I personally know many atheists & agnostics - of which I'm neither - who are good, moral individuals leading good, moral lives.
And as for the teaching of scripture in state schools? Two inter-related wrongs there:
1) separation of church & state, and 2) separation of education & state, to allow parents to send their kids to schools that best reflects their values.
Nobody forcing (there's that word again!) their viewpoint upon anybody else.
And no politically correct, crap schools with crap standards churning out no-hopers that we're all forced to pay for. (And usually all their useless lives).
Sus...you have missed the point! Children need moral and ethical guidance in their formative years and the easiest way is via religion at school. I agree that not all families are capable of providing the necessary ethical upbringing for their children and once a week scripture lessons (compulsory) would instil in most, a sense of right and wrong which some kids today have trouble in differentiating.
Our civilization is based on values that have been learned over two thousand years and have served us well until now.
People with the same logic you have just presented decided decades ago to get rid of religious instruction because it was deemed trendy to do so. We are now seeing the results of that very illogical postmodern thinking.
I think it is you that is wrong!
You are entitled to your opinion, Nem. I should like your answers to the following, if you have time.
Q: How do you explain the morality of people with no religious belief?
Q: The kids in state schools from hopeless homes are already kicking & swearing at their teachers during writing, maths & spelling. How precisely is a letter from St Paul to the Romans during scripture lessons going to change that?
Demanding that the state does as you insist is using force/coercion.
Civilisation has "civil" at its root. There is nothing civil in coercion. You are behaving just like the enemy: the statist. "My way, or the highway".
We must address the problem at its *root* - ie, the state. The enemy of free choice.
Everything else is window-dressing.
Oh, and *never* confuse me with the politically correct feminazis, thanks .. "people with the same logic as you".
They are irrational. They espouse force, thus they are immoral.
Nor am I 'trendy'. My principles are that of Thomas Jefferson's. 
Oh again, (sorry!), I never said that families "weren't capable" of bringing their kids up properly.
The truth is that all families in a first-world country like NZ are "capable" of doing right.
The fact is that some *choose* not to. And that taxpayers are *forced* (there we go again!) to pay for no-hopers via state welfare is a further disgrace.
I blame leftism, socialism (is there a difference?)
Matty, you probably blame leftism and socialism when your custard curdles or you can only find odd socks.
This is an appalling story and the people who participated deserve to be condemned - but why do you feel the need to lessen the tragedy by turning into political point-scoring?
Sus, I think this was the station, but I'll check in the morning, to be sure:
http://www.therock.net.nz/
The segment is called "wind up your wife" and this particuar one aired yesterday at about 4pm.
Had a feeling it might have been The Rock ...
Ta, KG.
Sus....In my experience not all families are capable of raising children properly, in fact some so called couples shouldn't have kids.
Regardless of the system or method of education there will always be the child who will not conform. And this lack of conformity can usually be traced back to the parents, or lack of parents, and their attitude to society in general.
I have always believed that religious instruction is a useful basis in forming an individuals outlook for travelling through life and interacting with their fellow man.
What individuals choose to believe after their formal education is entirely up to them. But at least they will have been exposed to a belief system that has given succour to countless millions over the past two millenia and still does today.
Anyone can be a moral person without believing in a supreme being. But is that a case for not allowing children the benefit of religious instruction.
To deny that to them on the basis of their education as a demand on the state is ludicrous. It was after all the state that introduced schooling.
It was "the rock"
I have (IMO) a fairly well developed sense of humour but this one really stepped over the line.
Islam is a religion taught in schools.
Islam is an ideology disguised as religion being taught in muslim schools.
That's a damn long way from teaching Christian values.
I think I'm probably not a Christian. In any case, not religious in the accepted sense.
But I do have a sense of morality.
Now, to argue that I have that sense despite being atheist/agnostic whatever therefore that sense doesn't rely on religion is a bit..um..lacking, somehow.
Since I was raised during a time when society was shaped by Christian values and taboos it's hardly possible that I grew up unaffected by them.
Sure, an atheist living in the West can still be a moral, upstanding compassionate etc etc person...but his/her consciousness was shaped by a society that was based for a thousand years on Judeo-Christian ethics.
Like it or not.
Mother...I see you have snuck in! Islam is a religious/social/political system which is taught in Islamic schools and has no place in our society as it is anathema to all things western!
It's up, Keith. I might have gotten a little carried away, but it's sincere.
Francis, I haven't the words to thank you.
In addition to that wonderful compliment, you went on to express perfectly what so many of us feel.
We really do need to get real - life is not a video.
-----------------------
The much-denigrated (by feminists) Norman Mailer (a product of the good ol' 1950s) said, long ago, and presciently, in two unconnected statements:
1) "let every writer tell his own lies, that's the freedom of the press".
and
2) "America is entertaining itself to death".
Good ol' Norman, he was more on to it than some fashionable critics want to acknowledge.
Without for a moment imagining that I'm in the same league as Norman Mailer, I would now sum up those two separate statements thus:
"You live by the tube, you die by the tube".
Hi guys. I've found the link to the exact transcript:
How to end a marriage. Attempt Number 1
This should get The Rock FM list of practical jokes:
The Rock FM
A couple of things to say:
1. The husband provided all details and permission for the radio show to do this.
2. The wife was truly freaked out.
3. The husband came on at the end and explained to his wife it was a joke, and that they now had $500 for her trouble.
4. The wife professed love for her husband.
5. When asked by the radio hosts if they should not do this segment, she said "its ok because there are bucks at the end of it".
Personally, I think that stunt was not OK. It was disgusting.
Just because the husband "gave permission" doesn't make it OK. The radio hosts don't know the relationship - this could have been revenge. It could have resulted in the women hanging up and committing suicide before they could explain, etc. People handle stress differently and treating people like this is crap.
It seems on the face of it, this women could take the joke on board, but we don't know for sure how much was shock and relief, and what this might do to the relationship.
I did not find it funny, and the lack of empathy from the husband and the radio hosts was appalling. One day, this will backfire, and they will have to face the consequences of their actions.
As I said above:
"Life is not a video. You live by the tube, you die by the tube"
Great work Zen--many thanks for that.
I can't for the life of me see how a husband has some sort of "right" to give people permission to scare his wife. Neither does that permission give people a pass for doing it.
The man's an idiot.
Commenting by HaloScan
