![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tcpip| Marriage is love. | |||||
Also, you can sign a petition here: http://www.hrc.org/millionformarriage/index.shtml
Have finished my response to Jared Israel's
claims that Israel is not an apartheid state. It's often a tiring debate, especially when confronted by those (not in this instance, I must admit) who place their religion above universal human rights.
On a strongly related issue, the problem of the US and cultural studies definition of "ethnicity" and "race" has led to a new whites-only scholarship:
. The concept follows through in other places as well. In Singapore, a Judge defends ban on oral sex on grounds that it is contrary to "Asian values".
In the "told you so" department:
Government 'warned' on intelligence. The politicisation of such bodies has
dire consquences. The following is particularly close to home: And a 1999 intelligence report predicted the result of the East Timor referendum and the probable Indonesian reaction, but then "senior policy-making officials refused to believe it because it so starkly contradicted their own opinions and desired policy outcomes".
On a amusing related note, a competition to
Huttonise history.
Two pleasant social occassions over the last few days: Last friday eve was spent with severina_242 at horngirl's birthday drinks at Polly's. Enjoyed seeing many people who I hadn't had the chance to chat in person to for pretty much two years, including lj entities adricongirl, blithespirit, damien_wise, drzero, frou_frou, insinceritylj, seedy_girl, thorfinn and usekh. It was a great night - thanks horngirl!!
Saturday eve was a nice picnic with caseopaya at the Sidney Myer Free Concert. Despite the heat and crowds it was a fairly good performance and a nice opportunity to wander through the gardens after the concert. This things should happen more often.
Whilst on topic of musical things, I'm still working away at the violin. I suspect however this this is just a lead to something that I'm reasonably sure that I'll be better at - composition. A musical instrument is a tool, and I've always been better as a generalist rather than a specialist in technical matters. It's the reason why I am, for example, a systems administrator rather than a C/C++ programmer.
Annoyance section: I was earmarked as a guest speaker - indeed, the guest speaker at the CERES/Timor Leste Permaculture fundraiser this weekend. However the person who left a message on my mobile spoke in a garbled tone and returned calls indicated a complete lack of knowledge of when and where I was supposed to turn up. Face it: Email is superior to voice communication
Once again, for the third time in my life, I'm considering vegetarianism or semi-vegetarianism on a ethical basis. The basis of my moral decisions is not from a book (legal or religious) but rather on intersubjective consensus. To be sure, this has an improbable ideal - the fully informed and complete communication - which also means that they are rational, capable of falsfication and improvement, rather than absolute. But does that mean, to the degree that other species can express their wishes - that moral behaviour means not eating/using animals? And if so, which animals? And does Eating oily fish lower hostility?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-02-18 02:17 am (UTC)Which animals is something I still have a problem with myself.... especially crispy quail type things LOL. As for fish oil and hostility I have no idea, but eating fish lowers triglyceride levels - so maybe that has something to do with it.
PS - Read and reply to your emails ;P
no subject
Date: 2004-02-18 03:22 am (UTC)I call bullshit.
Only if you can't read a persons tone and you don't know how to control yours. Face to face is even better. I can convince almost anyone to see things my way face to face.
Neutral or dominant posture, even tone, lower the pitch, phrasing at around 50BPM, and hold and keep eye contact.
There you go. Communication.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-18 05:10 am (UTC)I cannot EVER express tone or non-verbal cues in email. ;-)
no subject
Date: 2004-02-18 05:29 am (UTC)But, the trick is to make sure your reading and expression of non-verbal cues is conscious while the other parties is unconscious.
...
;)
Re:
Date: 2004-02-18 05:22 am (UTC)I should also reiterate my comment was based on asynchronous voice information rather than synchronous voice communication (which doesn't have to be f2f)...
no subject
Date: 2004-02-18 05:31 am (UTC)Not that I take advantage of said ability to edit often. :P
no subject
Date: 2004-02-18 03:23 am (UTC)Ultimately, any 'line in the sand' is arbitrary to an extent - not eating red meat, eating no meat but still eating eggs and dairy, eating a vegan diet but still wearing wool, living a totally vegan lifestyle.
Do you need to have an intellectual moral line of argument or can you have a visceral belief in what's right? I personally think it's better to live morally, even if that morality is not based on a water-tight logical argument, than logically justify an amoral existence.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-18 03:31 am (UTC)I have a tendancy to agree with you. I don't call myself a vegetarian because of the fact that I still eat chicken, fish, dairy etc not to mention the leather shoes on my feet :) You put it very well
Re:
Date: 2004-02-18 10:05 pm (UTC)If I understand it correctly, Peter Singer's argument is to minimise suffering - so if there are occassional lapses then don't tie yourself into knots over it. Add this to the position of Gary Francoine, who argues that sentience is the only thing that matters in the determination of whether a being a natural right to freedom.
So chicken and fish just ain't that bright (especially the latter). As for shoes... well... you can always use up the one's you're wearing and then go for canvas alternatives later...
Re:
Date: 2004-02-18 10:37 pm (UTC)Most of the time I don't get to worked up about my lapses, even when it is the sentient squid :)
As for the shoes, leather works for me, and well... I just think the cows/sheep etc are being slaughter for food anyway, why not make use of their hide as well?
Re:
Date: 2004-02-18 05:19 am (UTC)I think so. Otherwise one would have to engage in species non-discrimination - the life of a human would be equal to the life of, say, a bacteria.
Ultimately, any 'line in the sand' is arbitrary to an extent
I'm debating whether to draw the line at marsupials....
That line of argument can be followed through to suggest that you could exploit a person so long as they were unaware of their rights, for example.
As a matter of fact we do - for example people in a coma. Relatives and doctors (often in disregard of the law) determine whether a person lives or dies.
Do you need to have an intellectual moral line of argument or can you have a visceral belief in what's right?
Only if one wants to differentiate between deeply held prejudice and deeply considered convictions.
I personally think it's better to live morally, even if that morality is not based on a water-tight logical argument, than logically justify an amoral existence.
Personally, I think it would be extremely difficult to logically justify an amoral existence from a principle of intersubjective agreement.
BTW, I like the questions - you're debating basic principles and that's always a pleasure.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-18 05:37 am (UTC)I think that basic principles are fundamental when determining one's own moral viewpoint. At this point, I must admit a complete ignorance of intersubjective agreement - I'll get back to you when I'm better informed :)
no subject
Date: 2004-02-18 06:38 am (UTC)We can't identify or empathise with bacterium on anything other than a frivolous level.
Cute, furry, stupid, dumb animals with big liquid eyes on the other hand...
Re:
Date: 2004-02-18 10:17 pm (UTC)On the bacteria vis-a-vis human comparison I would suggest:
The bacteria is less able (indeed incapable) of being aware of or understanding pain. Further, the bacteria is incapable of expressing its wishes.
WRT intersubjectivity, I find Alex Honneth's article "Patterns Of Intersubjective Recognition: Love, Rights and Soldarity" well worth a read...
http://home.mira.net/~andy/blackwood/honneth.htm
no subject
Date: 2004-02-18 05:39 am (UTC)What about birds and cephalopods? Or don't they count because they're not cute and furry?...
Personally I draw the line at humans. After all would you kill 10 cute furry bunny rabbits, say for food, to save a human child?
Re:
Date: 2004-02-18 09:45 pm (UTC)Most birds don't strike me as being particularly bright - marginally above a fish. That said the corvid family is off the platter
http://www.pbs.org/lifeofbirds/brain/index.html
I should also mention (and dammit, I have people who will back this up!) that I've been a strong advocate for cephalapod intelligence for almost two decades. So squid and octopus are right off the platter (damn, there goes salted squid). And so is Cthulhu.
There is something deep and creepy about how giant squid and whales both eat other and attack each other on sight. Deep in the ocean there is a war of dominance between the mammal and the cephalapod
This is a very impressive article on cephlapod and other animal intelligence...
http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/project.archive/general.articles/1975/Raw.Power.html
After all would you kill 10 cute furry bunny rabbits, say for food, to save a human child?
Whilst I can't imagine the circustances arising ("kill and eat the rabbits or the kid gets it!") I would certainly engage in the slaughter of the bunnies (whether they were cute or not)....
Besides, I was the one who posted jugged hare and ox-heart seville on aus.culture.gothic recipe poll in 2000 remember?
no subject
Date: 2004-02-18 06:16 am (UTC):-)
Re:
Date: 2004-02-18 10:21 pm (UTC)A good idea. Get back to me in a fortnight's time, once I've finished the final subchapter of that blasted PhD...
Terminology
Date: 2004-02-19 12:19 am (UTC)Discriminatory laws are rife in the Middle East (Jordan bans Jews from being citizens, Saudi Arabia bans Jews from entering without special permission) and wider (e.g. German and Japanese nationality law). Why pick on the democracy?
Re: Terminology
Date: 2004-02-19 01:42 am (UTC)Claiming that they are (or aren't) based on race is tricky because 'race' does not exist on the human species. I have encountered many in the pro-Israel camp (Marxists no less!) who claim the existence of a "Jewish race" or an "Arab race", concepts which I (and geneticists) find ludicrous.
In any case the key component of apartheid is sepration (Afrikaans : Dutch apart, separate (from French à part, apart. See apart) + Dutch -heid, -hood.) of a ethnicity, religion or nationality. The notion of dhimmi, I think is similar in terms of formal law (i.e., religious discrimination/favouritism) but in practise what happens in Israeli territory is closest to (as I mentioned) 'hafrada' - or apartheid.
The following is an interesting comparison between the official UN definition of apartheid and Israel's practice.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article689.shtml
Particularly as Arab citizens of Israel can vote
But they can only be candidates if they accept that Israel must remain a Jewish state forever and they oppose resistance to the occupation. And of course, the millions of Arabs who have lived under Israeli occupation for longer than I've been alive find it next to impossible to become citizens, let alone vote.
Why pick on the democracy?
As I mentioned in the article;
1) To the extent that Israel is a religious exclusive state it the extent that it isn't a democracy. And that is quite an extent.
2) Through trade and the billions in foreign aid it is country that we westerns can influence, whereas the squalid dictatorships in the region are far removed from our potential influence.
3) The region desperately needs a secular democracy "a light unto the nations" where religious difference means no legal difference. Israel, for all my criticisms, remains one of the best possibilities to achieve that goal. The other, I think, may be Egypt.
Re: Terminology
Date: 2004-03-03 03:45 pm (UTC)People have this naive notion that to be democratic, you have to be a liberal democracy.
(Representative) Democracy just means rule by representatives elected by the citizens. Since all adults born in Israel are citizens, and all citizens have the vote, Israel is clearly a democracy.
It has significant illiberal elements, but that's another matter.
Through trade and the billions in foreign aid it is country that we westerns can influence, whereas the squalid dictatorships in the region are far removed from our potential influence.
Which is a long way from justifying concentrating criticism on one side. This is a conflict, with all the dynamics of a conflict. If you concentrate attempting to undermine one side only, you give benefit to the other. If the other are worse (which, in this case, they certainly are), then one is being morally retrograde.
This does not preclude criticism of course, just requires attention to context.
The region desperately needs a secular democracy "a light unto the nations" where religious difference means no legal difference. Israel, for all my criticisms, remains one of the best possibilities to achieve that goal. The other, I think, may be Egypt.
Not Israel's potential role in any sense. Israel is democratic because it is Jewish, in this context, due to the origins of Zionism. There is no way Israelis will agree to a joint state, because they are not suicidal. Nor will they agree not to be a Jewish refuge.
Egypt needs something approaching a revolution, alas (since the potential revolutionaries are not the democratic sort). Turkey doesn't really work as example because they are Turks (hence their allying with Israel). Jordan and Iraq are better bets, really.