Friday rolled around and I was itching to get free of the books when our teacher intercepted one of those stupid, crude notes that got passed around furtively – something that wouldn’t happen today in an era of cell phones. The teacher demanded to know who started the little chain. No one owned up.
“OK, no sport till I know who wrote the note”. I was devastated. Time wound on and no one put their hand up. With only minutes left before the bell rang, I took a risk and said I wrote the note. I didn’t and hadn’t even seen it, but sport was too important, and a detention wouldn’t take long.
To my horror the teacher dragged me out in front of the class and caned me pretty severely. Pride and backside, were deeply hurt. To make matters worse the teacher announced he knew who wrote the note and that it wasn’t me but preserving truth was more important in his eyes than punishing some silly pen pusher, concocting rubbishy prose.
Sometime later, and a little older, I had the opportunity to ask the teacher why he reacted so to the issue. His comment was salutary then, and still is.
Writing a silly note was childish but relatively harmless. We would grow out of such immaturity he concluded. Not owning up was more serious and deserving of corrective action. He deemed taking responsibility for mistakes and crimes involving others as a vital ingredient of an effectively working civil society. However, playing fast and loose with the truth for short term gain was a major indiscretion in his mind that needed nipping at bud stage with a strong reminder that it was unacceptable. Hence, the pain of the cane.
It was an interesting lesson. Truth is important. It is a critical cornerstone of a successful, chaos-free community and nation. If truth is eroded or, forbid it, is dispensed with, civil society, justice, cohesion of a nation is at risk, may even be terminally at risk.
I was reminded of this today. In correspondence with one of the USA’s most prominent climate scientists he talked of how an increasing number of his fellow researchers were trading truth for financial gain, momentary glory, retaining tenure or simply following a popular trend. He pointed out peer reviewed papers, published in a leading science journal, that contained blatant misuse of data – not opinion differences, but straight out lies. Climate science is sliding into a swamp of data deception, misleading conclusions, leading to misguided public policy making and hopeless confusion. Confusion for us punters. Opens the door for corruption,
Could this blatant deception happen here, in NZ? It already has.
Scientists are misusing data and current science relating to ruminant methane. Ignore parts of the IPCC’s findings, cherry pick which scientific papers to accept, don’t put at risk the hundreds of millions that the Government has allocated for researching ruminant methane, ignore and ostracize any fellow scientist stepping out of line. Avoid current science that raises serious questions about methane’s potency. Trade truth for short term gain.
The mainstream media will expose any such shenanigans, wont they? Yeah, right.
Owen Jennings, a former Member of Parliament and President of Federated Farmers, maintains a keen interest in ensuring agricultural policies are sensible and fit for purpose.
10 comments:
James Shaw just simply was a liar on TV3 Newshub Nation interview with Simon Shepherd on Saturday/ Sunday.
He knows full well that methane has been diminished in severity by IPCC as narrated by Hon Barry Brill former MP and others. James Shaw argued of the severity of Methane and is now anything other than truthful as Climate Minister.
I'm blowed if I can see the validity of the moral reasoning behind that flogging. If that had happened to my son I would have taken legal action.
You mean " That I'm from the government and I'm here to help" is not true??
Simply, Owen lied.
Sorry, Owen but I hate rugby. I think it is brutish and barbarian, yet has turned into a cult in NZ along with the climate cult. More geometry might refine logically thinking, which is related to truth. I do however, agree with you.
I believe morality in general in our society has been trashed.
As Dostoevsky said without God you can do anything. Post truth means relativism reigns and What seems right to you is OK. No absolutes.
Lying is widespread across all of society. Not just the climate alarmists do it but the bio- pharmaceutical industry, the trans gender crowd , those academics writing the history reset for schools as well as the latest science curriculum, the critical race theory advocates and those promoting the Maori language as a means of building up Maori status with no proof whatsoever this will get the desired result.
Erica, WITH a god you can do anything as long as it approves. The tribal deity of the Old Testament condoned genocide and sexual slavery, so that made it all right to those who worshipped it.
The Enlightenment ushered in a new era of ethics and morality not based on any gods. Time to catch up.
With regard to moral absolutes, most people who claim to abide by them actually don't as they make exceptions e.g. taking a human life is 'absolutely' wrong EXCEPT in the case of war or judicial execution. The moment the word 'except' comes into play, the maxim is no longer absolute but relative in the sense of the rightness or wrongness being contextually dependent.
I don't inhabit the Old Testament world. This was a theocratic world view. Maybe superior moral beings like you, Barend, don't need to have a just God who punishes evil but I find it helpful to believe that I will be accountable for my speech and actions. Voltaire and Locke also thought so.
I agree we need to move on from the Enlightenment. Shedding such thinkers from that era, like J.Rousseau who has infiltrated too many of our ideas, for decades, in education and the social sciences.
An awful lot has happened since the 18th century and one of them is the large protestant revivals which some academics, particularly Marxist ones, prefer not to notice, but instead focus on the revolutionary ideas of social and economic transformation.
I read somewhere that 97% of scientists agree with whoever is funding them. The other 3% are banned from social media. Challenges to the greatest lie ever told are coming thick and fast on this platform. It’s so refreshing and may even be read by the odd politician but I’m not holding my breath. Too challenging for their job prospects.
I did laugh when I read your first comment Barend. That was funny of you and you have to have a laugh sometimes. It is said and I believe it too that when we are forced to accept a lie it demoralises us and it does seem that this is the objective too, they do think we are fools.
May I recommend "The Spectator (Aust.)" August 12 for an article on scientists and their research with an alarming number whose main effort seems to be collecting grants and sponsorships for dubious research reinforcing woke attempts to promote dubious theories about climate change and associated lines of "study" that are a cash cow for them but have little relation to reality.
"Science Fiction" by Matt Ridley.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.