Slashdot Mirror
Dying Babies and The Myth of American Freedom
Even as technology systematically liberates the control of ideas from the hoary grip of ideologues, educators, clergymen and dogmatic politicians, the underlying tensions in culture and society grow. We are freer than ever, but we seem to like it less all the time.
In the past few weeks, a series of institutions and public figures have run headlong into America's mythology about itself, particularly the demonstrably absurd idea that this is a free country.
Censorship is a natural, perhaps even a biological instinct. Nobody likes to see himself as a censor but everybody, from school principal to parent to mayor to flamer, seems to feel the call. We almost reflexively want to quiet what disturbs, provokes and offends us.
Check out almost any topic or opinion posted on Slashdot. Even here, there's usually one or more - frequently lots more -- messages declaring that a person or idea doesn't belong here or shouldn't be expressed, assuming that the offending idea hasn't already been moderated into oblivion. And this is one of the freest places in media, new or old.
But technology, as any teenager knows, is a wicked censorship slayer. Almost all information is now available almost everywhere. Memes, ideas, arguments, opinions - none can be universally corralled or suppressed. Heretics and hell-raisers have never thrived so much.
Priests and ministers can't control dogma, lawyers can't monopolize the arcane and expensive language of law, politicians can't impose ideology, publishers can't monopolize editorial content, academics can't keep a lock on research, and journalism can't control the social agenda. Technologies like the Net and the Web have made this so.
But here's the irony. Even as technology makes censorship virtually impossible, people keep trying harder to do it.
The Brooklyn Museum of Art faces the loss of a third of its annual budget, even eviction, because the mayor of New York City finds a painting in an exhibit offensive.
Some leaders of the Reform Party are demanding Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura's ouster because of a Playboy interview in which he said, among other things, that people who support organized religion are weak-minded and needy. (Ventura ran his campaign on the Net, by-passing traditional media and expensive campaign structures). Good thing H.L. Mencken, the legendary columnist who savagely skewered members of the clergy as hypocrites, blowhards and airheads, died a generation ago. He couldn't get a job on any paper in America today.
GOP Presidential Candidate Pat Buchanan has been told - by Senator John McCain among others -- to leave the Republican Party because his book argues that the United States had no pressing self-interest in entering World War II.
And in perhaps the ugliest and most significant of all these conflicts, Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer has been reviled as a mass murderer and attacked by politicians, university contributors and trustees, and advocates for the handicapped.
He's been forced to teach in a guarded, unmarked classroom because he's argued that in certain circumstances, parents ought to have the right to kill a severely disabled newborn in order to prevent or end the child's suffering and preserve the family's happiness and well-being. Euthanasia, he argues, is sometimes a lot more compassionate than the withdrawal of life support systems.
The First Amendment has never been a particularly popular one. Americans have always embraced freedom until somebody says something they don't like. Then they like to fire the offenders, chase them away, close them down.
Technology makes all of these options unworkable. Hundreds of cable channels, faxes and videotape, e-mail and cellphones make the notion of quelling an idea or putting the person who advocates it out of business ridiculous. The Net is inherently uncensorable. There are too many chat forums, messaging systems, mailing lists and websites, and not enough cops.
When New York Mayor Guiliani threatened to shut down the Brooklyn Museum for displaying a painting of a black Madonna with a clump of elephant dung affixed to her chest, singer David Bowie announced he was putting the "offending" exhibit up on his website.
Buchanan regularly takes to talk radio and cable interview broadcasts to explain his philosophies about World War II directly to the public.
New technologies like the Net and the Web have liberated discussions of sexuality which, until a decade or so ago, were dangerous, if not impossible for most Americans.
Earlier this week, Slashdot published a story about Peter Singer in which his actual views - rather than outrageous and simple-minded distortions - were discussed.
The Singer controversy is, in fact, a significant reason to stop and consider the new reality of freedom and technology.
Singer is a complex, brave and brilliant philosopher and teacher. He is an empassioned animal rights activist and has argued for years that affluent people have a responsibility to donate some of their money to the less fortunate (he donates a fifth of his salary to groups that feed the poor).
He is doing precisely what thinkers, academics and critics are supposed to do: raise chillingly complex ethical issues that confront society but are rarely talked about. Princeton futurist Freeman Dyson, for example, has long hailed the idea that genetic engineering will remove the physically ill from the world. Genetic engineering is rapidly pushing us towards the idea of a Master Race - at least for wealthy, techno-centered cultures which can afford it - in which all humans brought into the world are tall, lean, smart, healthy and attractive.
But Dyson's much more politic about the way in which he expresses his ideas. He's never advocated anything as extreme as killing critically-ill newborns - a jarring idea. Some say that clearly is murder. But Singer doesn't advocate genocide or the callous disposal of the disabled. He's arguing that in extreme circumstances, parents should have the right to terminate the life of severely disabled newborns who have no self-consciousness or chance to survive.
Personally, I haven't even begun to formulate what I think about this idea. But I want-need to read, mull and talk about it. The wanton use of terms like "murder" and "genocide" make that impossible, and that means we aren't free either.
Singer is no monster, and the notion that he's an advocate of mass murder seems outrageously simple-minded and hysterical, a club to shut him up rather than a way to support or refute his ideas. The United States is using medical and other technologies that may result in genetic selection to remove physical, even psychological problems like alcoholism that are increasingly being linked to heredity (see Tuesday's story on Slashdot on genetically engineered kids).
Parents using in vitro fertilization and other contemporary fertility treatments routinely participate in disturbing genetic selections. Doctors performing IVF, for example, routinely examine egg and sperm matches for the "healthy ones." Some prospective parents have sought permission to abort fetuses over concerns about gender, even cosmetic issues.
As genetic screening tells prospective parents more and more about the children they're about to bring into the world, parents will inevitably - right or wrong - make complex choices about the children they choose to raise.
Do they want tall or short ones? Boys or girls? And especially, do they want - can they cope with? -- terminally ill or severely disabled ones? Inevitably, parents will argue that they have the right to make these decisions for themselves.
Parents already can avoid bringing children with certain serious diseases into the world through prenatal testing. Do they also, as Singer suggests, have the moral right to withdraw life support, or even approve lethal injections?
This is, after all, a country which wildly celebrates techno- medical "breakthroughs" like multiple births, even though they pose enormous health risks to the children involved and require massive and expensive public and community assistance.
The McCaughey family in Iowa was showered with gifts, from diapers to a new home, for their septuplets. But the country didn't seem to want to consider the fact that the fertility drugs they'd used had created a whole new kind of high-tech welfare family, producing children whose parents couldn't possibly support them financially, and perhaps not emotionally, either. Multiple births of fewer than six or seven aren't even stories any longer, they're so common, even as many pediatricians warn that such children are at high risk for illness and disability. In a world whose population is nearing six billion, the use of medical technologies to breed human offspring - in growing multiples -- transcends religion or philosophy. It may be the 21st century's most urgent social problem, particularly as food production continues to decline.
Patriotism is invoked by blockheads in the United States so often that it's easy to lose sight of the particular genius of the people who hatched the country. Singer exemplifies America's founders prescient convictions - born out of centuries of observing the gruesome interaction between religion and monarchies and free speech -- that it's often the most upsetting ideas that warrant discussion - and need protection. If Singer focuses the country's attention on the impact of ill-considered medical research and genetic engineering, then he's a hero, not a villain.
If you're handicapped, it's easy to fear what Singer seems to be advocating. But he argues that what he's proposing is compassion and the importance of a healthy life, which he sees as much of a right as life itself.
This is as complicated and difficult a technological and philosophical debate as there is. But it's exactly the sort of discussion America needs more of, not less, in an era when supercomputing, artificial intelligence and life, and genetic engineering make the issues raised in Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" seem simple. Genetic engineering is becoming a regular topic on this website, but not in the information spectrum off-line, where it's almost never mentioned.
Sociologists, historians and technologists argue that technology is never autonomous; it only does what we want it to do. But medical technology is, in fact, out of control, outstripping our ability to consider or comprehend it. We ought to thank Singer for having the brains and the heart to make us face these issues while craven journalists, religious leaders and pols hide their heads in the sand.
If America really were a free country, Singer would be able to talk about his ideas in the open, in a classroom without guards. He'd be able to list his classes in the catalogue along with the other profs. The Net, at least, makes it certain that these controversial memes will at least be considered.
And Gov. Ventura ought to be just as free to challenge the structure and function of organized religion, one of the most powerful institutions in American life and also one of the bloodier influences in modern history.
While the Internet has completely altered the context of free speech - online, people can and do find places to discuss anything -- these discussions take place underground, in a sense, at least for now. They're less welcome in the open, in the central institutions and outlets that collectively help set the country's political and social agenda.
Few major newspapers' op-ed pages would host a free-wheeling discussion of the issues Singer raises. No member of Congress would openly debate them or discuss them in campaigns. Few churches or synagogues would talk about them. No network news organization or newsmagazine would ever question organized religion the way Ventura has done.
In such a timid atmosphere, it's hard to know whether any of these ideas have legitimacy and are worth exploring, or whether some deserve to be roundly rejected. The so-called marketplace of ideas can't function effectively. In a country that talks so much about freedom, there isn't nearly as much as we and our elected leaders pretend.
It's ironic amidst all the commercial and patriotic drum-banging about the Millenium underway, that technology is forcing a country deluded with notions of its own self-righteousness to actually be free, rather than simply make the claim.
I don't really see where you're going with this one. America is legally a pretty unencumbered, free country. People can believe whatever they want to believe. Whether or not it's popular is a completely different issue.
:)
Censorship can be bad. Imposing censorship on other people without their knowledge or consent is generally bad. Self-censorship (like slashdot) is also called content-filtering, and it can be very good. I like being able to block ads and spam, turning off extra javascript, and I don't mind spending some time moderating comments because I think it makes slashdot a nicer, more comprehensible, relevant place for everyone.
Natural selection pretty much took care of babies who were too ill or sickly to survive. However, people tend to take care of them now. If they want to do that, it's their business, their money, and their lives. If they want the right to decide whether a baby who wouldn't normally live should be allowed to, I suppose that's their right, but there would need to be some guidelines to prevent abuse. Genetic screening might help too.
I wouldn't trust genetic engineering yet until it is well-proven. Why implement a technology when you know you don't understand its ramifications?
And, finally, do you like posting complicated, controversial articles of dubious relevance on slashdot? You know the kind of response you're going to get. Maybe a little bit more self-censorship might be in order.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
it's funny, he knocks religion for being dogmatic and narrowminded, then signs praises for a bio"ethic"ist. Let's see, most religions abhor murder, and this princeton guy thinks it's a cool idea for terminally ill newborns!
Mr. Katz, what if you'd been the one born like that? Would you be so quick to praise the murder of newborns? Who is to say that this person can't go on to lead a productive life? That medical technology you claim is "outstripping" us can make the persons life easier to live, and be less of a burden on us. God forbid we should actually show some compassion for our fellow man.
Stick to reporting tech issues and leave morality to others.
freedom of choice is what you've got
freedom from choise is what you want
What's Jon Katz trying to say? He seems to be rambling on and on, and I haven't been able to figure out what he's trying to say. In terms of ego, Katz ranks up there with Ken Wilber. Both think they're "the men", but we know better.
Though I believe a person has the right to express an idea, I do not believe they have a right to tax dollars. Food production continues to increase not decrease. It is quite obvious that you do not know what you are talking about.
Aww crap, I had a long paragrah and IE ate it. So I'll start over and try again:
It seems to me that in our country today it is becoming acceptable for everyone to lambast White Male Christians. All other groups have some kind of protected status, but if a White Male Christian does something then it's OK to scream at them about it. It's becoming so that no one can criticise anyone except WMCs. I'd like to know when *I* lost my right to speak out against things I don't believe are right. Since when do I have less of a right to say 'No, that's wrong don't do it.' than anyone else does to say 'Yes, that's a good idea, do it.'?? Our society it moving towards the point where the only thing that is actually WRONG is criticising other people. We are already moving towards this with criminals, absolving them because they are 'genetically predisposed' to violence, calling them victims of society. No one wants to take responsibility for their actions anymore and whenever a WMC speaks up and says that they should everyone flies into a rage. If a WMC speaks out against a subject he is suddenly trying to censor you and is evil. Remember, free speech goes both ways, I have an equal right to tell you I don't like what you are saying as you do to say it.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
There is a wealth of literature exposing American hypocrisy - everything from Chomsky to Gore Vidal to Z Magazine.
Then again, given the pervasive anti-government stance on issues such as encryption, it wouldn't appear that many /. readers bought the myth anyway.
Thank you for writing this article. As much as it's going to be debated as to whether it belongs on Slashdot or not, it makes a lot of points that people don't think about.
America is on of the freest countries in the world. But in absolute terms we still have a long ways to go - it's full of laws that have no real purpose being there, and there are plenty of people wanting to go away from freedom.
It's easy to talk about how wonderful this country is if you're a white wealthy straight christian male. Start moving away from this type of person and watch freedoms decrease, both legal freedoms and social freedoms. You're gay? Sorry, you can't marry who you want even though we can't offer one good reason to make it illegal. You're atheist? Heck, you're not even allowed to take public office in some states, not like people would vote for you anyways.
People should be willing to discuss any idea, no matter how radical. After all, even if the idea itself is bad and useless, it can spawn other discussions and ideas that can be useful.
I'm hoping you're right, that the net will not only prevent censorship, but that it will help encourage the next generation to be willing to listen and discuss the controvercial ideas, not just reject them out of hand. To eliminate the remaining 'taboo' topics and opinions, such as that religion has bad effects.
America, land of bigotry, home of censorship. Where freedom is selectively given out to those that can buy it.
---
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
Mattel, and originally TLC, are trying to silence my complaints of their violating employment laws and common decency.
It is one thing to protect one's trademark. It is entirely another to squelch any commentary, analysis, critism, or satire.
Injured software engineer wins against Mattel!
Parents already can avoid bringing children with certain serious diseases into the world through prenatal testing. Do they also, as Singer suggests, have the moral right to withdraw life support, or even approve lethal injections?
Yes. Absolutely. Just as a woman has the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Just as any person should be able to make a decision/carry out the wishes of an individual's euthenasia. eg. cases of terminal illness. These are huge ethical decisions but should be owned by the people whose lives they most directly effect.
Ultimately the world suffers from chronic overpopulation/suffering and it aint going to go away in a hurry. As society becomes increasingly competitive, humans may have virtually thrown the key out the window on natural selection but artificially we still have a ethical responsibility to our race and the planet not to further weaken the gene pool. At least not to experience guilt and blackmail from society for making a life changing decision. Survival of the fittest is still relevant in a synthetic kingdom.
BLAMMO shaken not stirred
Once again the censorship card is misplayed so lets clear it up right now - free speech does not mean you get to do it for free. The often invoked founders of our country never said or believed that speech was free of costs or consquences. You don't get to make everyone else pay to hear you babble lame or stupid crap; at least not unless we are going to pay equally to hear everyone else's rantings. If Singer wants to spout his eugenics then he can go do it and if Katz wants to underwrite him he is welcome to. I am what most people here would consider a very conservative Christian but for the record I totally oppose school prayer and most of the other Religious Right attempts to force religion into government. We have no more right to have our beliefs paid for than Singer does. Free speech is to promote the exchange of views, right or wrong. But the GOAL of free speech is not relativist - not everything is equal and we cannot all be correct. The GOAL is to find truth. One should expect many people to oppose those things that are not true. The problem today seems to be that everyone has accepted the postmodernist view that we can't ever really know truth, so everyone is right. Then free speech becomes an exercise in extremes - who can shout the loudest, who can promote the newest or most shocking idea. "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free."
I don't know where Jon gets the idea that Guiliani was censoring the offensive art show. He simply said that the taxpayers don't have to pay for it. This illustrates one of the problems with socialism. That problem is forcing people to pay for things that offend them. If we lived in a truly free society, then I wouldn't have to pay for what insults me or otherwise harms me. Democracy is just a way for 51% of the people to oppress 49% of the people.
The internet is only providing a form of free speech for those that can afford it. As ever, the poor are unrepresented.
Take a walk through Mencken's old neighbourhood in South West Baltimore. I guess it would be easy to call it run down. The people there have their problems, but technology isn't solving any of them.
Gosh, you Americans! Until you've had a queen and an empire you'll never understand freedom..... :)
This is an example of using a double standard to try and win an debate. You overlook the possibility that to some of us the idea of killing children is monstrous and evil and anyone that advocates this is an evil monster.
I believe that the entire argument you make about freedoms is a smokescreen to try and reduce my freedom to speak by twisted emotional blackmail.
Noel
Check out the Lance Armstrong Foundation
kayaking
I didnt read the hole article so i dont know if this was included. I not even sure if this is true, but im quite sure that being a nazi is forbidden in the USA. Or atleast nazi organistations are forbidden. In Sweden nazi are ofter forbidden to say what they think in public. That sucks. PS. I didnt read the hole article, i am terribly uninformed and i am stupid. All this may be totaly wrong. But hey, second post. No wait. D'oh. In 5 minuits five people posted comments. DS.
The Net is inherently uncensorable. There are too many chat forums, messaging systems, mailing lists and websites, and not enough cops.
I think it's a common assumption but it's not always true, if we don't care i think we'll learn that technologie is both the best and the worst thing.
Talk to elderer about the begining of radio (even if the comparaison is not fair due to the knowledge requirement to operate a radio) there is similarities. At first everybody was speaking on air (net) and it wasn't possible for governement to censor. But now HAM are really under pressure and can not use radio for something else than talking about radio (at least here in France).
Not enough cops you said, we will have enough sooner than we want.
Interesting. I took it that Katz was praising Peter Singer for talking about the issues that are often 'taboo' to talk about. How many people do you know, would automatically say, "That's shouldn't be done", when asked about terminating serverly handicapped newborns? Do they even think about the issues involved? Probably not. I think Katz's article was more about applauding people that consider these ideas, and how these ideas and the people that discuss them are often viewed in a bad light, then it was about being in favor of terminating newborns.
he's right. Under any normal circumstances, a bunch of elephant dung wouldn't even make it through U.S. Customs; but because some blockhead puts a bad painting on top of it and calls the whole thing the Virgin Mary, it's somehow transformed into an exhibit piece. I'm Jewish, so I couldn't care less about it's offensive value or lack thereof, but it's pretty clear it's derogatory to Catholics. That doesn't mean it has no right to exist, but it does mean public funding shouldn't be used to display it, just like a thousand other things offensive to a thousand other religions. Use some common sense for once. (This doesn't mean Guliani's not a tyrannical blockhead for blowing the whole thing up- but tyrannical blockheads have points, too.) I do agree with the second part of the article...although, FYI, the NY Daily News (the city's major tabloid) ran an editorial by Singer in it's Op-Ed section. It's extremely hard to agree with him, but he gave an example from when he was a surgeon (a baby needing a heart transplant died when a brain-dead infant with a healthy heart was in the same hospital for days) that did make me at least consider what he was talking about.
The mention of the media not printing contraversial views reminded me of other cases of the US doing stuff like that 1) East Temor (sp?) -worse genocide than Cambodia hidden from US public by American news sources 2) Bombing of Laos in the Vietnam war gained Laos the dubious title of most bombed country in the world 3) The push for monlingualism, Since most of the English world's political views are the same the news tends to edit simmilar stuff out The internet provides access to international news and the more sources the better.
Disagree less agressive!
That is really the isue here I think.
People aren't that good at agreeing with each other, that's a fact of life. What bothers me is the truly agressive way in wich some people disagree with each other.
Threatening to kill people or actually killing people has become just another way of telling someone you don't agree with him/her.
Humanity has to keep on talking about every issue that bothers us and killing the debate wether through censorship or through murder does not really help us in any way.
Speaking of challenging assumptions, who says free speech is really such a great thing? After all, the First Amendment to the U.S. constitution stems directly from the ideas of John Locke. Locke had an agenda in his ideas -- he aimed to weaken religion. By preaching tolerance for all religions, he removed religion from the forefront of every day life, and relegated it to something that's part of one's private life.
So really, the First Amendment is just a conspiracy designed by heathens to eliminate God's influence for the world -- of course, it sounds like you're all for that. There. If that doesn't get me moderated back into last week, I don't know what will. Oh, but wait, it shouldn't. I'm challenging popular assumptions, and my ideas should be heard by everyone. While we're at it, I think they should be subsidized with tax money. Oh well. Perhaps if I attach some elephant dung to this post...
Katz seems to be talking about the pressures that society places on the individual to "follow the herd". For a much more consistent treatment of this topic (without all the "net is god" techno-babble) try reading _On Liberty_ by John Stuart Mill.
Salman Rushdie got a fatwa for writing his book Satanic Verses. We all, US included, condemned the fatwa and tried to get Iran to change their minds. "This would never happen in the free world", we think. But wait, it happens!
There's a lot of doctors living under a religious fatwa in US. You just have to do legal abortions and you may loose your head to religious fundamentalists. Fundamentalists, kill while preaching: "You shall not kill."
First you say that those who would use such loaded terms as murder are preventing a rational conversation and then you say, "Patriotism is invoked by blockheads . . ." I guess blockheads is a cool, unemotional, objective term. What this guy proposes IS murder by definition. To call it otherwise is to de-value life until, at some point, silly internet columnists are deemed expendable and promptly done away with.
I usually dislike Guliani, but he's right. Under any normal circumstances, a bunch of elephant dung wouldn't even make it through U.S. Customs; but because some blockhead puts a bad painting on top of it and calls the whole thing the Virgin Mary, it's somehow transformed into an exhibit piece.
I'm Jewish, so I couldn't care less about it's offensive value or lack thereof, but it's pretty clear it's derogatory to Catholics. That doesn't mean it has no right to exist, but it does mean public funding shouldn't be used to display it, just like a thousand other things offensive to a thousand other religions. Use some common sense for once. (This doesn't mean Guliani's not a tyrannical blockhead for blowing the whole thing up- but tyrannical blockheads have points, too.)
I do agree with the second part of the article...although, FYI, the NY Daily News (the city's major tabloid) ran an editorial by Singer in it's Op-Ed section. It's extremely hard to agree with him, but he gave an example from when he was a surgeon (a baby needing a heart transplant died when a brain-dead infant with a healthy heart was in the same hospital for days) that did make me at least consider what he was talking about.
The artwork fiasco, and the New York mayor's response are a case in point. Yes, the art gallery should have the right to show what it likes. On the flip side, the mayor should have the right to say what goes on on property he's responsible for. You can't have one-sided freedom. It's an all or nothing deal. You cannot expect only the side you cheer for to have the right to speak up.
The mayor has not once said the museum of art can't show what it likes, he's only said it can't show this material on Government property, with Government money. Is that really censorship, when nobody is being stopped? All that's happening is that the mayor has set boundaries - something every person does every day, because it is both healthy and necessary.
John Katz' choice of a title has shock-value - something you expect from "The National Enquirer" or "The Sun" (the UK newspaper). What it doesn't have is relevence to the article. There's nothing about babies, dying or otherwise, in the story, either literally or figuratively.
There IS freedom of speech in the USA, but don't expect others not to use it, too, when you say something they don't like. John Katz' arguments are just as much an attempt to censor and muzzle others as they are over censorship of things he doesn't like. So what if this faceless "they" have more power than he does? It's the attitude which matters, and what you do with it.
I do not agree with censorship, deliberate distortion of facts to deceive or manipulate, or any other attempt to pervert reality. I DON'T differentiate between the alleged agressors and the alleged victims. If something is a definite "wrong", then who does it should not matter. As soon as it does, you have a dictatorship, with one side dictating the reality of the other. Plain and simple.
Then, there are other aspects to this. This is not a plain and simple situation. It never is. Take the case of the museum of art, again. That pig that was cut in half - a life was sacrificed for people's viewing pleasure. Is this any better than badger baiting, hare coursing or fox hunting? Yet these are either banned or under review, in many countries, as cruel and barbaric. Not surprising, really. It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out that degrading the value and significance of life is, at best, seriously sick and diseased.
Yet we are to believe that a mayor, who has obligations by law, is being censorus by drawing attention to the fact that he's not going to excuse an exhibit which may be illegal under State and national law. I'm not saying he's "right" - I am wary of the concepts of "right" and "wrong", they are misused so much - but I know damn well that if John Katz ever became President, we'd know censorship like we've never had before.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Mr. Katz, what if you'd been the one born like that? Would you be so quick to praise the murder of newborns?
I don't think he would've been able to contemplate anything or praise anything since his brain wouldn't have had a chance to develop yet. That's the entire point of why infants are inherently different from adults.
not meant to be offensive, just pitiful attempt at toilet humor. "Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has em. Some are bigger than others"
What a bunch of long winded crap. Thank God I didn't waste the $25k a year to go to Princeton... sheesh.
Bottom line: You rights stop where my nose starts. And there are 270 million noses in this country. Why did you waste all that typing to ignore that fact? The only way to truly be free is to be the only human alive within the range of that person's perceptions.
OF COURSE our freedom is limited when people deal with each other. You can't do just anything that you want to do... that's why we spend all those years in grade school learning how to "get along well with others." I can't believe that college types haven't learned lessons that first graders take for granted.
"Freedom" is a term regarding government vs citizens. This completely tangential conversation on how I'm not free because I have to feed my dog everyday is verbal masturbation at best.
Stop wasting our time
someone with the balls to say what needs to be said. alot of you will disagree with this, thats your choice, but these ideas really need to be thought about seriously.
Knowledge is power, therefore it must be controlled. Privacy is a privilege, trying to hide it must be illegal. Preaching Ignorance, our way is the right way. The "Matrix" is here to keep you where you are, to provide the illusion of freedom. And when you can see it, you will realise that there is no freedom unless you make your own rules.
Warning: I'm on a soapbox.
Frankly, any claim of America's moral superiority to some other nation is a highly dubious one. The same applies to cultural superiority (one which I hear a lot of conservatives whip out).
I personally believe that moral superiority is something tangible; that there is a such thing as objective morality, and that the United States has violated it with foreign and domestic policies that are contradictory to the benefit of humankind in general and Americans in particular. We support tinhorn dictators in the name of oil (before, it was "fighting communism"), we let companies put cyanide and other poisons in our water, and we let the government walk all over our civil rights in the name of a drug war. The same can be said of almost any other country, and almost certainly every industrialized nation, over the last 100 years.
Claims of cultural superiority are simply fascist nonsense, since the measuring stick of superiority depends on the culture from which one measures.
The best that we can say about America is not that we are morally superior, or that we are culturally superior; but that the United States generally allows persons to seek their own path, with a minimum of interference in most cases. Whether this is good or bad depends on your yardstick.
Finding God in a Dog
Let's not confuse arguing with someone and saying that they are wrong or that their ideas have deadly (literally) consequences with censoring. How can his ideas be taboo if they are the subject of immense debate? Singer can print any book he wants. America isn't a free country because there are guards in his classroom? Puh-lease. The guards are there for his safety because there are nutcases. When you advocate killing one-year old babies, its worth taking some safety precautions for yourself.
I've been reading /. for several months and I've noticed an overwhelming sentiment in the community that regards John Katz as an ineffectual, boring hack of a writer who has perhaps overstayed his fifteen minutes of fame. I'm not overly familiar with Katz' writings outside of the pieces presented here on /. so I had nothing to measure him against. I wasn't quite sure how he gained the enmity of the majority of the community.
I now understand.
Katz attemtps to gauge America's "freedom" based on three controversial people and the debate that ensued from their controversial actions. He clumsily attempts to equate "blockheaded" debate as infringements upon freedom. I guess in Katz' world we are all free to speak our minds in a utopian vacuum where we sit and either nod or shake our heads in agreement or disagreement. I'd like to be the first to welcome Katz to the real world. Whether America is freer than any other countries is perhaps debatable. If we are to equate freedom with civil debate, then I question whether anyone is truly free.
This commentary from Katz has the feel of a being hastily slapped together and culled from several Junior High School term papers laying around somewhere in Katz' attic. If Katz has free rein to peddle essays of dubious quality he will only furthern harden the community against him.
Hates people who have stupid little sigs
We are not free. You can look at it however you want to, we are "free" in a sence, but us the citizens are not truly free. Being Free means that you have a TRUE choice in a matter, not a choice that is presented to you in a gift wrapped box by the ruling Few. I've only been studying political science for a short time, but I believe I have a fairly firm grasp of the major concepts. For one, are you or anyone you know able to truly say what you feel at any given time? No, some because you don't wish to offend another person, but other times because at the risk of that offense you may be subject to a lawsuit since the comment pained someone emotionally. What the newspapers, magazines and Net sites editorial sections have become are not a place to exchange ideas. If you notice it's where some brave soul brings up an idea, and many others 'flame' that person for thinking of the idea. A public forum should hopefully be a open place to exchange ideas.
The most recent place in the world to have true Freedom, is in East Timor. The people were presented with a choice. Vote for Independence from Indonesia, or to become a form of colony, much like Puerto Rico is to the United States. They were not told, vote for this Democrate or this Republican. They had the ability of holding their own future in their hands, true power and freedom...
Yes we have freedoms: religion, speech, right to bare arms etc. But notice that you, and individual, have little actual power and freedom in the scheme of things. Being Free involves having the ability to choose anything you want... The Internet is the closest thing there is to freedom. Since it involves a choose of anything, the Few in power are scared since they have little control over it. This is where the Many should be able to let their voice be heard...
Enjoy, hope this at least spins a few wheels for people...
It seems to me that in our country today it is becoming acceptable for everyone to lambast White Male Christians.
Yes, America is a country that is well-known for its persecution of Christians.
Here are some shocking examples:
Life In Our Anti-Christian America
Look. Many "White Male Christians" have made it their life's work to "lambast" other groups. If it's not calling Muslims the "s pawn of Satan" or advocating killing homosexuals because the book of Leviticus says they should be put to death, it's blasting professional women because they have high-paying corporate jobs instead of a non-paying role as a submissive housewife.
I'm sorry if it offends you when people say that these views are completely full of shit.
But they are. They just don't fly anymore.
Sigh. I don't even know where to begin in dissecting this tantrum of his, but I'm not really sure it's worth the effort.
In the first place, I can't shake this feeling that Katz is nothing but a poser: a pure pseudo-intellectual with delusions of self-importance. There is little if anything in this rant of his that could be substantiated by either a) evidence, or b) logic. The First Amendment has never been a particularly popular one. ???? Puh-leeazze! What dorky planet are you from, Katz? Oh, and this is choice, too:
Singer exemplifies America's founders [sic] prescient convictions - born out of centuries of observing the gruesome interaction between religion and monarchies and free speech -- that it's often the most upsetting ideas that warrant discussion - and need protection.
Katz, have you ever read a history book? I doubt you that you have. It's obvious that you are dreaming up this fantasy worldview of yours as you go.
There's nothing to see here in Katz's latest crybaby, narcissistic tantrum, folks. It's nothing more than the latest troll from Slashdot's own resident troll: a two-bit, indefensible pseudo-intellectual screed not worth the electrons it's made from. If only it were true that he would go away if we'd just ignore him...
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
About the whole Brooklyn VIrgin Mary and all that:
I am not sure how the statement "We refuse to give you money to put up your 'art'" translates into censorship.
If you are going to try to shock and upset the establishment with your art, dont be upset when the establishment decides that they dont want to pay for it.
No one is saying that you cant make art--they are saying that they dont want to pay for it.
i have to question your assumptions on freedom in your comments.
as a native american i call into question our freedom in this country many a time, but having livedin many other parts of the world i must say that the 'freedom' we experience in this country is certainly of a much truer nature than you claim.
the censorship that you refer to and the privation of ideological freedom that you mention are not those imposed by the country itself but by the very fact that we are able to express our ideas freely, and expect the freely expressed ideas and actions of our ideological opponents to do the same.
censorship is a natural instinct, a way to protect our view of the world by suppressing the views of others; the censorship you alude to however is not institutional (not that it does not exist) but rather the instinctual reaction of individuals and groups who feel threatened by an idea and who fear the acceptance of something that threatens their world view.
it is the fact that these people, rightly or wrongly, can express their disapproval of an idea and attempt to suppress it by whatever means possible that essentially expresses our 'freedom'. our 'right' to disapprove and to make "our" ideas superior. like any other animal we are attempting to secure or domain, even if it is in our minds and the mids thsoe around us.
the reaction of many of these groups is "almost" understandable considering what many so called freely expressed ideas have doen in this century, when people were truly unable to oppose them and ended up blindly following them to protect themselves and their families.
do not criticize what freely expressing our ideas, in whatever foolish actions we choose, as being a los of freedom, if anything, it exemplifies just how far we have come, and just how basically instinctual we truly are as humans
I see the problem here as being not that people are attempting to censor more than they were in the past, but that with the advent of new technologies more people are able to present their oppositions to others ideas. Attempting to quell this is also a form of censorship. If I want to do X and so-and-so doesn't like it, then so-and-so has every right to scream out loud and promote their opposition to my X idea. At the same time, it is sometimes scary to the lenghts at which some will go to to promote their opposition to an idea, using harsh terms such as mass murder in the case presented by Katz.
Also, the art issue is fairly complex. I don't think that my tax dollars should be used to support something that I find offensive. However at the same time, I feel art is an important part of society and needs to be supported in someway.
I have no solution to offer to these problems, but these nonetheless are my opionions.
Yes, but selection of which exhibits to support and which not to on crtiteria of religious offensiveness goes against the separation of church and state clause.
:P
Imagine if we had, for instance, "Everyone must pay taxes, except for people of such-and-such a religion."
Oh, wait.. that's already true...
It's funny how anti-censorship diatribes almost always turn pro censorship in some underhanded way. ("You can say anything you want unless you criticize the group I consider 'free thinkers'").
What I like to do is if someone states something such as what Mr. Singer has stated, I try to read as much as possible about the issue, then form my own opinion. I try not to form an opinion based on what a single group says, until I've heard both sides of the issue.
What scares me is when governments refuse to listen to both sides of an issue, or atleast acknowledge the other side of the issue.
An example of this can be found in a blurb in Focus on the Family which it appears as though the government is ignoring a study done by the American Psychological Association simply because what the APA is saying does not fit politically with what the government has been saying since the 1970's. At the time of this writing, the Focus on the Family web server is down, and I don't want to make a statement regarding the contents of the blurb because I can't quote it exactly. However, there are several good articles on the APA where if you just search on APA, you will find them.
Another example of this would be government funded studies which say that marijuana is not any worse then cigarettes or alcohol. Because the government has been saying for years that marijuana is bad for you, they refuse to acknowledge their own studies. The information regarding marijuana can be found on the ACLU website in their drugs section.
In both of these cases, I have not made a decision as to what I think about them, but I try to get further information in hopes of making a better decision.
Generally, even if I don't agree with what a person is saying, I will not try to stop them from saying it. They have that right to say what they think regardless of whether or not I agree with it.
if you didnt understand the article or what he was saying take a step back. try dropping all the prejudices and ideas that have been embedded in your brain and really take in what he is saying. killing deformed and retarded babies? it may not sound good but it is an idea that people should talk about. after hitting the 6 billion point we need to look at the way we are reproducing because soon enough there won't be enough room for all of us. if you really want to understand and dont see the ideals embedded in your brain maybe you should read ishmael by daniel quinn.
another good place to go and read that deals with over population and gets lots of the shunning i talked about visit the voluntary human extinction movement.
want to write me about this post? click here.
Does Singer advocate murder. You decide, this is what he said Tuesday night at a debate on the euthanasia issue:
"Killing an infant is not equivalent to killing a person because by a person I mean something more of a rational self-aware being," Singer said.
-From the Associated Press
Nobody, btw, is arguing that Singer doesn't have a First Amendment right to say what he's saying; the issue is whether or not Princeton should be supporting him in that.
Katz said this is what universities need to do but I say that's BS. A racist who thinks blacks should be murdered to purify the white race in America raises a lot of interesting ethical issues, but is no more deserving of a prominent professorship at Princeton than Singer is.
BTW, the obvious implication of equating Singer's position with Dyson's is that it is a roundabout way of equating abortion with infanticide (which Singer tends to do as well) -- hey Katz are you going to take up the prolife crusade next?
That's not true. You definitely can be a Nazi or a member of the KKK. In fact, the ACLU reguarly has to defend their rights to peaceful demonstrations and so forth. Now, some of the heads of the ACLU are Jewish, even, but although people may get personally offended or even despise the views of white supremecists, they fully support their right to free speech.
That's why I so admire the ACLU's guts to stand by what they stand for so firmly and non-discriminately support the First Amendment.
Btw, I'm not saying that it's any easier to be a member of the Nazi party or the KKK than to be Peter Singer due to social pressures...
If you hold the First Amendment so dearly, then you must agree that the people who complain about art, defend or decry religion, call for censorship (but not the act itself) and state they are horrified by the thought of mercy killing, are also practicing their first amendment rights.
For some reason we like to spout our opinions, and when someone disagrees we cry censorship or label them as thought police, when they are simply practicing their first amendment rights.
OK, here's a good example: the recent art exhibit in New York. The mayor does not have the right, nor the authority (on his own) to pull funding, and I hope the museum wins any lawsuits that result from this. However, the Mayor and all the people who supported him (by protesting and boycotting the museum) were also using their first amendment rights. Do they not have a right to voice their opinion about how their tax dollars are spent?
Stupid sexy Flanders.
The Brooklyn Museum of Art faces the loss of a third of its annual budget, even eviction, because the mayor of New York City finds a painting in an exhibit offensive.
Which he is in he perfectly legal right to do so as Mayor of NY. Just because they have the right to say whatever they want doesn't mean we should be forced to fund them!
Katz, your argument works both ways. Those who called for the removal of Singer, Ventura, and Buchanan had just as much right to free speech. In the case of witholding funding, Singer doesn't have any 'right' to be a professor of Bioethics at Princeton, and Princeton has eveery right to dismiss him if they believe his values are directly opposed to the mission of the university.
Censorship is a government issue, not a social one. You have the right to free speech within certain bounds. You don't have the right to commit treason and claim you are protected under the first amendment. You can't threaten the president's life. You can't operate a radio station without a permit from the FCC. Yes, I'll probably get flamed for this one but I think all these limits on free speech are reasonable.
If there was absolute freedom, there would be chaos - Aristotle
The U.S. still has a long ways to go in many areas... but damn, I really am proud to be an American. At least people can actively, and outragreously attack (vocally) anything they see fit. Every American out there screaming that the United States sucks, has to realize that we are one of the few countries where they can DO that!
The right to bash and ridicule you own country is something that many people really take advantafe of, without realize what kind of power that is.
Is intellectual laziness on the part of the US citizenry (and the human race in general). I spoke with one of my friends at length regarding the gun issues facing our country and world. He constructed a fascinating argument using personal responsibility as the reason why guns should be legal and unencombered. Managed to use the 1920s prohibition as an example. When I brought up the fact that the _exact_same_argument_ (personal responsibility) can be used to promote the legalization of drugs (he did use prohibition as an example), his response was, "No not really. Drugs are bad."
?????
How did this happen? It just amazes me that people are so often blind to flaws in their logic, just because it would force them to change their mind. Reminds me of something the fortune file served up the other day:
"The very powerful and very stupid have something in common. Instead of changing their mind to fit the facts, they try to change the facts to fit their mind. It can get pretty nasty when you're one of the facts that needs changing."
I forget who said this. Oh, yah, it was Dr. Who.
As I write this, I see five comments of six suggesting Katz shut up, or not write the article.
This demonstrates exactly what he is talking about. As long as people can't speak without the fear of offending others, we aren't truly free. Not that Katz is going to be inhibited by the abuse he gets, but a more timid person with ideas as or more worthwhile might be.
When someone suggests euthanasia in cases where conciousness isn't present or survival is not possible he is reviled. Maybe the idea is wrong, but a free society attacks the idea, not the person behind it.
If I were to suggest revolution in my country, and it happened, innocent people would die. How is this any different from the euthanasia controversy? Is suggesting revolution worthy of being named a mass murderer then? And why aren't the founding fathers reviled?
Examining an idea never hurts. It may be wrong, but in the process of honestly determining that for yourself that you can learn important things.
Let Katz write. Filter him, or turn your eyes if you think it worthless. You at worst harm yourself that way. Inhibiting free discussion harms everyone else's right to be exposed to ideas they may find more valuable than you.
It seems that in our society, we scream about wanting honest politicians, yet when we get one such as Governor Ventura we start screaming about it and asking for his resignation. I think people just don't know what they want anymore. First it was survival, then it was luxury. Now it seems that people just want to be right, at any cost, no matter what the discussion or platform, and at the expense of others. While I don't agree with the Professor from Princeton, or with abortion in general (except under extreme cases, such as rape), I do think that we should have the right to die, and I do think he, and others, should have the right to try to convince me, and others, of their points of view free from censorship. The problem I see is with other people choosing whether another living being should live or die, and in this case, if the Professor from Princetons ideas were put into practice, we might have been deprived of great minds, such as Stephen Hawkings. A great loss indeed. - iCEBaLM
I see it all of the time with the Drug War. There has yet to be a true discussion with the actual policy makers about the drug policy and its implications. For instance, in the Drug Czar's eyes, medical marijuana sends the wrong message to our children. Yet he is all for doctors ability to prescribe Marinol (THC and oil pills). Bill Bennett is against drugs but is for the theraputic effects of wine.
Is it possible to describe what a person doesn't like about an idea without actually labeling it as something else? It might take a good hard look at yourself first, and few want to do that. People tend to get upset when an idea attacks their ego.
Ventura's statements about organized religion being a crutch for the weak minded seemed true to me, but not my friends who go to church. A poll that came out after the statements reported >70% of those polled believed religion was very important to them, yet around 40% actually went to church at least once per week.
If an idea breaks down what a person believes to be true about themselves (a vested value) then they will usually resist. Be like the Dalai Lama and discussions will be intelligent. But I'm not holding my breath for anyone (including myself) to be able to do that with all ideas. :-)
I can honestly say, i don't feel free in my own country, but its not my countries fault. Crime is rampant, politics are nothing but corrupt, officials are corrupt or hold powers that shouldn't be under there single control.
Union labor is a problem. Its nice to think people as a group have control, but i don't believe in union since they don't do anything as a group except protect themselves. I would believe in union labor if they would start there own companies, and work from the ground up instead of the top down.
Politicians, leave it to them to decide my future. Nobody really pays attention to how they control your lives until its too late. For example, my town has a horrendous crime problem, the mayors solution is to build a new police station. sounds good, but one problem, it costs 6 million dollars, and its only half a block down from the existing and fully functioning police station. That is really a waiste of money, and i can't stop my taxes from that waiste, and it urks me that this mayor has been in control for this long when he is this inept at his job. (BTW: lancaster PA is the town i'm reffering to).
About the ill, and people born terminally ill. Its there right to live, but its my right to live myself too. Don't spend my tax dollars on the terminally ill, spend it on prevention from those diseases or spend it on my own healthcare, and my own disease prevention. If its used to keep someone alive, save it to keep me alive. Sounds like i'm an asshole, but i can't stand watching the news seeing how crappy my retirement will be since the existing concepts and plans will be bankrupt, but its nice to know my tax dollars are being spent on terminally ill, instead of the prevention of these disease. Naturall selection has been around since the inception of everything around us, stars get swallowed by bigger stars, bears it smaller animals, big fish eat the small fish, strong big fish kills weak or sick big fish.. strong big fish never gave his food to the weak sick fish just to have it survive, but strong big fish would give its food to its healthy own baby fish to survive. Nature has its ways, and sometimes it has its own problems.. but polution, drugs, stress, poisons, wars, crimes, rapes, diseases and all these other man made problems create most of our terminally ill. leave it to us for our own demise.
Religion.. believe what you want to believe, but don't preach it to me. I believe my own beliefs, so don't EVEN try and get me to think otherwise. I don't dis other peoples beliefs, herritages and don't feel that should have any consideration on how my life is lived either. Just because your a perfect christian senator you shouldn't be able to take my right away to buy liquor on sunday mornings. You also shouldn't be able to take away cigarettes because they're bad for your health and leave guns for sale.. treat people as an equal society for a change..
society.. definatly heading for a civil war, be it a crackdown by police, a change of culture a movement by the people.. whatever it will be it doesn't have to involve guns, but there is alot of hate out there, alot of pain, and alot of grief.. thank god again my tax dollars are buying new police buildings, cars, and fancy hotel's for new convention centers.. but hey, kids can keep killing each other, schools can keep raising local taxes to pay for education, my car can keep getting broken and my property taxes can keep rising..
whats so free about being trapped by everyone elses beliefs. its not just "the us isn't free or i don't believe the us is as free as it could be" but maybe there is no such thing as freedom.. I can't drive my car fast on a road i made unless i register it as a race track and claim it private property.. otherwise a state trooper could give me a speeding ticket... i can't paint my house my own colors because county laws prohibit you form doing so. i can't admire nude paintings becuase some religious biggot won't let them hang, i can't be comfortable with my beliefs nor my personality in public, because people get offended, when in reality its none of there business..
people think people need to respect them for superiority, people SHOULd respect people for PEOPLE. but my life is my life, because i hate one kind of food doesn't mean i hate the people that make it..
Again, these discussions go really no where.. i'm suprised its on slashdot.. you can go off on so many tangents its not funny..
but, to hit the technology standpoint.. nothing has really been breakthrough since mans entrance into space.. bugdets are cut, computers have to be standardized, so new ones just are not accepted.. technology has to fit a budget and not a future.. we limit our minds to only things that will make us money instead of make us better (believe me.. GNU software does not make us a better person.. its a step to get technology to move instead of sit, but not quite something to base your principles on).
again its political.. my money gets spent on killing people, building new jets, i guess i've paid for a few bombs to be dropped.. i'm not at all proud of supporting the wars we go into, i don't believe in war.. but i guess as a us citizen i have to feel proud of our service men.. whats so proud about killing someone.. whats there to protect.. is civilization and peoples freedom based on an ego and superiority or is it based on humanity and choice?
I believe the truth of the matter is that the genes that forged us at birth still have the brain to play political games for the paleolithic environment and concern ourself with retarded issues of 'he said, she said'. When quite frankly it is not about what people say but what is about the truth of what goes on.
I believe in free markets and open minds as an inevitable reality. If you don't like some claim "change the channel" or "press back on the browser". Who cares what people say?
It is terribly brutish for people to try to suppress other ideas, however this doesn't mean that any idea should get publicly funding regardless of its popular support.
This article is very much in line with arguments over Internet pornography and decency, as if such a term could have consistent meaning. Parents unacustomed to technology look for filtering software to even their odds with technically saavy children. If they simply had a frank discussion with children they could recognize the difference between art and trash. An intelligent mind is the only effective filter on the Internet.
-- Solaris Central - http://w
It seems to me that most of these issues surrounding euthanizing disabled newborns always goes something like this. They point out that it is showing compassion to euthanize disabled newborns since they wouldn't have much of a life. After that, this compassion is never mentioned again and economic issues, how it affects the rest of the family, how it affects the parents, etc. Those are all points to look at, but the so-called compassion stops their. I have a real problem with that. A newborn is a life, a person that trusts you to take care of them. These arguments all revolve around making the parents' life easier by euthanizing the newborn. It is really the newborn that is being affected. If one of your children becomes disabled at age 31 in a car accident or something and you and your spouse have to start taking care of him again, the thought of euthanizing your 31 year old never comes to mind, though there is little difference in the situation. There is one element that is different-you have grown attached to your son or daughter and want to always love and take care of them. Every parent wants a perfectly healthy baby, but it doesn't always happen. So you just kill it until you get what you want? When you and your spouse make a baby, you must take responsibility for the child you create. I don't believe any of this really is about being compassionate towards the disabled newborn, but is more about making the euthanization of disabled newborns socially justified. The people creating these arguments focus very little on the person in the group that is the most affected, the disabled newborn. To lose life is to lose the ability to change the lives of the ones you love for the good-to help them when they need you. When a disabled newborn is euthanized, it is the most affected of anyone because it loses that ability. You can never compare the value of life to economic, emotional, or physical hardships. If we ever allow those to come up equal or greater on the scales compared to life, we will be in serious trouble as a society. We must all grow up and be responsible for what we create, for our actions, and not look for an easy way out. I guess we are all a generation of children-the "me" generation. Well, that is my .02.
Hmm.. Katz tends to ramble.. but he is right.. Singer should be allowed to speak.. His books make a fair ammount of sense. The fact that people feel a need to censor and torment professors of philosophy is sad indeed. The lack of freedom spoken about is philosophical freedom. Yes compared to many countries we revel in freedom. However ideas which contrast with certain Christian ideals are reviled. Even non Christians find many ideas too repulsive to discuss. Take for example, a 30 year old male sleeping with a 14 year old girl. In many societies this would be normal behavior, and one would be married and have kids. Now, the 30 year old would be arrested and put on a list so he can be harassed by his neighbors. I'm not defending this or recomending this, but the idea is 'these are our morals and they are right' has been getting out of hand. No one even bothers with any sort of explanation of why X is wrong most of the time.. Its merely 'because I know its wrong'. This is unacceptable. We cannot have a free country and limit peoples right to die and have sex for no other reason but religion and its ideals.
Nope. For Jon The Drooler Katz, censorship occurs (or is threatened) whenever anyone protests federal subsidies of some hack's so-called "art" (my, but it's a long road from Rembrandt and Van Gogh to some loser throwing elephant dung and calling it "art").
Katz is a drooler. Remember that, and give his tantrums the respect that drool deserves. I sure do.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
With freedom comes an often over-looked secondary aspect. That of responsibility.
Yes, you have the freedom to have 18 children, however, if you excercise said freedom, you have the responsibility of caring for them properly.
Of course, with an estimated 6 billion people in the world, I begin to question the "freedom" of being able to procreate ourselves into extinction. Primarily since I find that the responsibility that comes with raising a child includes doing what you can to make their life better. Having to fight 17 siblings for everything, including your parents' love.....
This isn't an America-centric world, no matter what they're teaching you in high school or in Hollywood's ultra patriotic propaganda. There's the rest of the world to consider, and you can't use the excuse "well, in the third world they're having 12 children each" - infant mortality means few of these kids live to puberty.
The US has twisted the meanings of Right and Freedom. Child raising, welfare, guns, abortion, capital punishment, broken legal system.
So this is enlightened society.
--- http://foo.ca
Personally, I believe that this is what makes our country great. Jon Katz may like to believe that he is full of great insights, but the truth is a great deal of what he is talking about is not censorship. (Art in NY, see one of the other posts for a good explanation) It is not censorship if I do not let you talk about a topic in media which I fund, it is censorship when I don't let you say it in media that you fund. This is the key difference, subtle though it may be. If Princeton were to fire Singer, that would not be censorship, just good sense. They need money more than they need his reputation and "expertise". If Princeton starts suing me because I am talking about the topic and the government allows it, that is censorship.
--
Gregory J. Barlow
fight bloat. use blackbox.
Gregory J. Barlow
fight bloat. use blackbox.
There is no myth of american freedom. Because freedom isn't as simple as Katz would like it to be. Just because you don't understand is no reason for meandering bio-ethics articles. Katz your piece on freedom/enuthenisa/america was so murky i can't really respond except to say that you don't have the first clue about what it is to be an american. I will continue to use technology to exercise my freedom and protect it. Note: The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
You know, it's interesting. This is going to get me in a lot of trouble on Slashdot, I already know that. But I've noticed a pattern. First, we have pro-choicers saying that fetuses aren't human (whether or not you believe that isn't the point of this post. They might be or might not be; anyone who says they can prove one way or the other is either lying or deluded in one manner or another). Now, we have a college professor (and a new movement that seems to be growing, if slowly) saying that newborns aren't human. What's next, that small children aren't human? Then adolescents? I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this.
I respect the pro-choice movement, though I don't follow it. My main problem with it isn't even abortion itself. My problem is this: it denies humanity to a group (which might or might not be human; current technologies don't seem to be able to prove one way or the other), but then it never defines where or when (or, for that matter, why) humanity begins. There are people who would push that age further and further forward, to justify killing for just about any reason. I see this professor as the first example of that; to kill a human being for selfish reasons, justifying it by saying "but it wasn't really human." There are risks involved in having a child, and if you don't think you can handle the possibilities then you shouldn't be putting yourself in a situation where those risks could come back to bite you.
To kill another being without that being's consent is generally considered a major taboo in just about any culture (sometimes even killing with that person's consent, such as euthanasia, is considered taboo). There's a very good reason for it, though: murder, if allowed, sets a dangerous precedent whereby a person could justify killing anyone he doesn't like. A newborn certainly can't consent to being killed, of course (at least not in any way we can currently understand). That doesn't mean we should try to guess. Ask any disabled person if they've suffered so much as a direct result of their disability that they want to die; I'll guarantee you that nearly all of them will say no. In other words, in most of these euthanasia cases, you would not be doing the child any mercy at all; you would simply be killing a kid because the parents don't want to live up to their newfound responsibilities.
A free culture is not an anarchistic one. It doesn't mean you can do whatever you want; one must always consider others ("the right to swing my fist ends where the next man's nose begins"). Giuliani was out of line with the art exhibit; that's true. He found the exhibit offensive, but that was no fault of the artist or museum. He has no right to deny others the right to see it, whether by overtly ordering the removal of the art exhibit or by using sneaky tricks like cutting public funds. Jesse Ventura wasn't out of line with his comment about religion, but he could certainly have been more tactful (or at least explained why he believed as he did, rather than simply blurted it out). Making an intelligent argument, which implies backing up your statements ("Religion is for the weak-willed and needy, and this is why..."), is within anyone's rights; simple insults ("Religion is for weak-willed and needy people") are not.
But enough of this, or else I'll really go into rant mode. If you don't agree, that's fine; if you want to flame, do it over e-mail.
And...how many of those in the SW Baltimore neighboorhood have even seen the Internet, much less participated in discussions like these?
What's most disturbing is that all technological advances -- those that people like us on Slashdot don't even think twice about -- seem to widen the gap between wealthy and poor. Whether it's access to the 'Net, or genetically engineering your offspring, only those wealthy enough will reap the benefits.
George Orwell's description of the 'Proles' in 1984 seems more apt today than ever.
--
"You're gonna need a bigger boat." - Chief Brody
Thanks for the article Jon, this one doesn't suck.
I'm not sure how long it will take for society as a whole to realize that we have already created a monster we can't control. A monster that spits out information to whoever happens to click on it. Many more attempts will be made to cage it as powerful people learn to fear an educated (and often miseducated) populace. Rationalizing with such cliches as "ignorance is bliss".
I watched A&E's top 100 people of the millenium the last couple nights. They picked the same #1 as a couple other lists I have seen, Johann Guttenberg (no relation to Steve), and for the same reason. More available information can have HUGE impacts on society as a whole. I couldn't help but laugh to think of the difference in power of a machine that can make paper and ink copies of information, and one that translates magnetic images, over electric line, through an electron gun, lighting up rare earth elements, with information from anywhere in the world. That's pretty impressive.
I love Jesse Ventura. I've been saying this for a while now and not much has changed. You might not agree with his politics and his personal views. But boy does he have balls when expressing them. He'll say stuff that others are scared to, and because he isn't embarassed or guilty about it, he's gained my respect. His potential as a polititian is still debatable, but he does draw attention and focus which is a very political type thing to do.
As far as the Singer stuff goes. When we start doing this, the first person I'm going after is Stephen Hawking. It's obvious from his physical inadequacies that he can offer absolutely no value to society and should therefore be removed for the good of the whole. Dammit people, different does not mean worse, it does not mean less, it means different.
..and finally..
The United States is using medical and other technologies that may result in genetic selection to remove physical, even psychological problems like alcoholism that are increasingly being linked to heredity (see Tuesday's story on Slashdot on gentically engineered kids).
If we start doing gene therapy for alcoholism (a horrible example, Katz) we are truly the laziest, most worthless society to ever have existed. Hey look, i've created a huge problem for myself, anybody got a Quick Fix(tm). Quick Fixes lead to nuclear weapons.
And just because it's on-topic...
I very highly recommend the film "American Beauty". Rarely do films shoot straight for the heart of what it is to be American (if you believe in TV commercials that is). A very well done picture that you won't soon forget.
(*gets off soapbox, takes of rant hat, and gets back to work*)
+&x
Hmmm... I recall something about attacking the arguement and not the person behind it. Ie, 'your idea is lame' not 'YOU are lame'.
And people look all hurt and angry when they're accused of being 'slashdot whiners.'
--- http://foo.ca
Good point. JonKatz's article glossed over the fact that it wasn't that NYC Mayor Giuliani was trying to shut down the Brooklyn Museum for displaying the art, he was objecting to the fact that taxpayers were paying for objectionable art. Which I believe he should have a right to do. I can definitely agree that it shouldn't be automatic for them to get tax money simply because they have gotten it in the past.
They're putting dimes in the hole in my head to see the change in me.
How does Katz manage to call this an `article'? We have a short discussion of censorship and a long-winded attempt to moderate a debate under a `grabber' headline that is only tangentially related. We have half-baked examples that are only related by Katz' opinion. We finally have Katz distancing himself from the article he wrote: the only sign of intelligence displayed in the text.
Katz, people are free to say what they want. Other people are free to refuse to pay attention to those opinions, to oppose them, and to refuse to disseminate them. It is a misfortune that in the land of the free there are so many physical attacks on people who hold unpopular or controversial opinions, but the present priority of law enforcement isn't to protect those people, and that's a crime in itself. That is what you get when people are comfort-driven rather than principle-driven, and we'll be living with that as long as the USA is a constitutional republic.
There is an old USENET saying that newsgroup discussion threads end when the first reference to Hitler or Nazis is used, because after that people's brains turn off.
I think this is where Katz is coming from. People, especially those with money and power and who benefit from the status quo, always seek to demonize their opposition, because then people stop thinking. So the first thing they do is call someone a "monster", a "Hitler", a "Nazi", a "baby-killer", or whatever pushes the emotional hot buttons of their supporters. The Christian establishment definitely has money and power and benefits from the status quo.
And nothing starts the demonization chorus like questioning religious tenets as Singer did.
The abolition of child-killing was one of the main tenets of the early Christians, and was one of the major reasons for Christianity's success in the old Roman Empire. It went against the old Romans, who routinely killed their own children for any reason they deemed fit. So this issue strikes and the very heart of Christian belief. So it naturally cannot even be discussed.
Also furthermore, why is it that Juliani can say that he doesn't want tax dollars going to fund obscene art, but I can't say that I don't want my tax dollars used to support (in the form of tax dedectible contributions) religious proselyzation?
Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
1. News feed (story recommendations) are only seen by the admins.
2. comments rated below "-1" are censored [Note that this requires only two or three quick and biased moderators, and then no one can see it (i don't think the other moderators do either, but i've never moderated, so i don't know)]
3. (this is more subtle) does not store copies of the articles we link to. A lot of times servers delete or hide the stories, after a time period, and, though the slashdot blurb is available, the actual article has been censored (by them AND us)
Solutions:
1. At least, the emails should be viewable by everyone (another web page). At best, moderators should be able to rate-up and down stories, and when they get a high enough rating, they would appear on the homepage.
2. There should be a "-infinity" threshold.
3. I don't know about the legal stuff involved, but google caches the pages it hits. I don't see why we can't do the same.
Slashdot is one of the most uncensored news sources I know of. Why not make it closer to perfect?
sky
Who said it was 'cool'? As I understood it Singer meant that parent should BE ALLOWED to take a decision. There are several cases where a baby's physical hanicaps are so severe that medical technology can't even be remotely helpful. In those cases there is no 'cool' or 'right' thing to do. Everything sucks, but IMO it should, in normal cases, be up to the parents to make a decision. To whom should he leave morality issues? I think this is one of the cornerstones of the article, and I agree with Jon that everyone sould be allowed to publicise their opinons. Just because you disagree, or /. is a tech-site, dosn't remove his right to utter his opinions.
Who you are isn't innate. That implies some sort of predestination or presence of soul; these are things that are unprovable. Rather, if John Katz had been born "like that", then John Katz likely wouldn't be John Katz. He would have been raised drastically differently. The conditions and experiences of John Katz are what made John Katz. If you were to terminate a hypothetical infant John Katz, you wouldn't be killing John Katz at all.
So I don't understand what the problem is. Sure people get bent out of shape when you say contraversial things, but that shouldn't be unexpected. As far as the examples Katz cites in his story:
1) Buchannan and "The Body": Well, political parities have the right to kick people out, so what's the big deal?
2) Singer still has his job
3) That stupid exhibit of "art" in NY went on as planned.
If you really want to see the chilling effect of the reduction of free speech in this country, look at the silly things people get slapped with sexual harrasment lawsuits for.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
This isn't murder, people, this is *natural selection*.
As a race we have subverted the process of natural selection, allowing those individuals who would previously have never survived and reproduced to perpetuate their genetic material, flawed as it is.
The whole purpose of life on this planet is as a means for individuals to attempt to perpetuate their DNA to the next generation. Also remember that DNA only "wants" the best individuals to survive, because the best individuals have the best chance of reproducing and therefore satisfying the genetic imperative.
What we have done is to stop this process, halting the winnowing, and allowing the gene pool of our species to stagnate.
Whether this will have any effects that can be seen in our lifetimes remains to be seen, but there *is* an increase in cancers, and there *is* an increase in allergic reactions. Both of those phenomena could be caused by other factors, but the reduced quality of human genetic material is one possible cause.
Religionists will try to place all this in some kind of moral context, which patently doesn't make sense to try to do. The universe doesn't care. As Dawkins said, it's just blind, pitiless indifference.
Many of the problems that Katz talks about come from the fact that the religious right is gaining in influence; not because it has any intrinsic value, but because people like to hate. And the RR give people something to hate (anything that isn't them) and the moral high ground from which to do it.
Fling a few guns and death sentences into the mix (you might as well shoot the cop/hostage, you're gonna die anyway) and you have a society that's collapsing from the inside out.
I suppose this is what you get when everyone's "free".
--
Peter
>If you KNOW that some kid is going to have the mental powers of a 3 year old for their entire life This is precisely what you *don't* know, what you never know. If medicine makes the same advances in the next 50 years that it made in the last 50, (remember Kurzweil who says we'll be able to scan in minds from the ground up and reproduce them in software) who knows? You don't know, you merely suspect, based on current evidence and current medical approaches. When you kill a human, however disabled, your act eliminates any hope for him or her. Anyone alive has hope, however faint. Killing is an irreversable act. At the end of the day, its a question of how much of society's resources we want to put into preserving our citizens' lives. The value placed on capitalism and efficiency have grown strong enough that people value their money (or other resources) over other people's lives. While this has always been true to some extent, as a society, we need to be very careful about how we institute policies reflecting that in a governmental system whose purpose is to provide "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." There will always be a tension between those three ideals and the warring constituencies each wanting their own happiness, but keep in mind that the responsibility for killing someone else who can't talk back to you to argue their position, (i.e. the extremely young or disabled) on a personal and societal level, is a grave one.
We *are* free. But the noise to signal ratio for almost all complex social issues is awfully high. And always will be. Even the internet doesn't truly solve this problem. And can't. If a person does not wish to receive unbiased or truthful news enough to work for it, nothing on earth can force him/her to listen. He or she will gravitate to whatever makes them happy.
The mainstream media presents someone like Peter Singer as a heartless bastard because god forbid someone in it's highly generic often stupid audience might misunderstand a truly sensitive article on the subject and think that the WashingtonPost or whatever your favorite paper is thinks "baby killing" is ok.
Now the Internet "new media" doesn't care if some moron thinks it just said baby killing is ok, because the person running the site JUST MIGHT REALLY THINK THAT. Internet sites are about specificity of interest. Instead of attempting to apeal to a large bland audience, the sites vie with eachother for various tight audiences. And there's a danger here,too.
On the internet, we listen to ourselves too much. We're free not just from news coverage we percieve as moronic, but from hearing opinions we don't agree with stated in a well thought out way. We're free to stick our heads in the sand as much as we like -- OR alternatively to be very well informed indeed. The internet gave us some control, but we can still choose poorly.
Scrappy
The internet has created a whole new realm of information that is no longer directly controlled by the genral media. Most people see this as a good thing, but it's just as bad as the rest.
Say Joe Blow puts up a web page about the history of the world. The web page proves that the holocaust never happened. The sick thing is, there are people out there that beLIEve everything they read. Some people even think that since they saw it on their computer that IT MUST be true.
That's all I have to say about that...
...but freedom entails the right for people to be stupid, closed-minded, and sheep-like. In other words, a person is, in fact, free to say or think what they want, but they aren't therefore protected by force from the consequences of their words and thoughts.
That may be foolish, and it may be wrong, but it's not censorship. It's society.
I, for one, don't think taxpayer money should pay for any art, regardless of content. Im I a censor? No. I'm not interested in viewpoints or content. I simply don't think government should subsidize any businesses. But what about the Internet, you ask? Wasn't that subsidized?
Well, the Internet was a defense research project. The bacic technology was invented under defense auspices. But it didn't become the pervasive entity it is today until it was turned over to the private sector.
Just remember, freedom includes a nearly unlimited right to foolishness.
- -Josh Turiel
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
Previous inventions (printing press, industrial revolution, astronomy, etc.) took years to enter mainstream - some took generations. In the last 100 years we went from landbased (steam trains and a few cars) to astronomical with complaints that NASA (et all) haven't given us moon/mars bases yet. My grandparents have lived from topspeeds of 40-50mph to mach 1 for commercial transport (Concorde - 30 years old and still going strong) and faster.
Technology has GIVEN us solutions to problems we didn't know even existed, let alone wanted to solve. If we don't stop and take stock of where we are and where we are going, then as a race we are in great ethical danger.
Scientists are people who try to find solutions to specific problems, they can't be expected to imagine every possible (mis)use of their work. Case in point .. Dolly the sheep, the company was looking for a way of putting vitamins in the milk of sheep to create a 'natural' drink/cure for people suffering from (sorry can't remember, something like asthma). They needed a lot of sheep fast so they came up with the obvious solution, it was only when OTHER people looked at their work that they saw it could be used for creating master races, etc..
The obvious solution is to stop any research at all, as recently happened in Britain with the GM trials. The government runs TRIALS to find out if GM food can be grown safely in the 'wild'. True maybe the trials weren't perfect but they were a lot safer than just growing the crops without tests. Nature-nuts (supply nice name here if required) destroyed all of the tests, now no-one knows if GM food is safe (or even has a starting place to check) and GM food continues to be grown regardless elsewhere - EVERYONE loses.
The public must actually look at the FACTS now, calmly dicuss the problem and decide what is and is not acceptable. Once we have a list we can change it if necessary but without a list the matter will not be discussed until AFTER technology has 'solved' the 'problem'.
As much as people agree/disagree with the list of major debates (euthonasia, GM, Selective breeding) they should, MUST, not sweep the matter under the rug and forget about it. That is what the article is about and as such definitely needed to be said.
N.B. sorry about spelling and grammer, I'm english and never bothered learning my first (and only) language ;-)
Looks like someone got a thesaurus for their birthday...why do so many people continue to talk about hammer, when carpentry is the thing?
Thte following was taken from a Wall Street Journal Article entitled: Freedom is the Surest Path to Prosperity.
I saved it because it was such a great read.
The question they asked was is economic freedom itself that has contributed to the wealth of the people (or lack of) in over the 160 different countries studied.
Well, the study showed that there was indeed, a high correlation between economic freedom and economic growth. And nor is this wealth concentrated in the hands of the few. The income gap between the rich and poor is smallest in countries with greater freedom.
The Index of Economic Freedom:
(I will include a summary)
FREE
1) Hong Kong (though now challenged after the government intervened in the stock market last year)
2) Singapore
3) Bahrain
4) New Zealand
5) Switzerland
6) United States
7) Ireland
Luxembourg
Taiwan
United Kingdom
Mostly Free
11) Bahrain
12) Japan
14) Australia
Belgium
Canada
18) Austria
25) Germany
28) S. Korea
Kuwait
Thailand
33) Sweden
34) France
Italy
Spain
54) Israel
62) S. Africa
65) Poland
Mostly Unfree
72) Saudi Arabia
75) Kenya
81) Columbia
85) Mexico
90) Brazil
97) Egypt
106) Russia
120) India
124) China
Repressed
135) Haiti
141) Sudan
Syria
152) Vietnam
153) Iran
155) Bosnia
157) Iraq
Libya
160) Cuba
N. Korea
Jon, I agree with you in general, but I think you (and others) are defining too much legitimate behavor as `censorship'. Take the above quote. To me, censorship is not the vehement expression of a contrary opinion to another opinion. A slashdot poster who appends a rant to an `offensive' statement is contributing to a discussion, not invoking censorship. Even when the rant asks for the original post to be deleted or moderated down. IMHO, a call for censorship is not censorship. It is only if the call for censorship is acted on has censorship occured.
Now if the original post had been deleted or replaced with a distorting paraphrase, as is common in newspapers, would slashdot have suffered censorship. That is not what happens here. The original poster's statement is still present on slashdot, for all to read, in his or her own words.
IMHO, the ranter has just as much right to complain about inappropriateness as the orginal poster had for posting. The ranter may even be right.
It is a common mistake to confuse highly charged dissent of dissent (counterdissent?) with censorship. True censorship tries to replace valid argument, ranting and raving with mechanisms that operate outside of the discussion. For example, threats to job and life. Crushing distribution.
Joe
In my opinion complete freedom for all is not possible, in a society where groups and individuals may have conflicting interests. Different groups of people set different priorities with regard to freedom.
I hope this post is not misunderstood as an anti American rant, it is certainly not intended as such. I am certainly aware that we thank our present freedom largely to the Americans. I am certainly very happy we were liberated by the Americans, and not the Russians.
Here in western Europe many people have trouble understanding the American notion of freedom. Americans seem to be very keen on economic- and certain forms of political freedom, yet seem to have a different priority for personal freedom.
In most European countries nazi propaganda,
membership of fascist organisations, even display of fascist imagery or gestures (the 'hitler salute') is illegal. Where I come from, an organisation like the KKK would be fiercely persecuted.
It is difficult to understand how a racist's freedom of expression is somehow considered more important than an ethnic minorities freedom to live without being threatened and discriminated against. Why is a religious fanatic's freedom from being 'offended' more important than a persons freedom to live and love who and however they choose. Why is an 18 year old boy old enough to die for his country, but too young to drink beer? Is beer more dangerous than war? Nudity certainly seems more dangerous than violence. An exposed breast leads to parental advisory rating, while cutting off a head is good clean family fun.
It is also difficult to understand why Americans continually try and teach us a lesson about freedom, because we limit economic freedom a little, in order to somewhat ensure the freedom of being exploited of the weak by the strong.
Americans mock us for having a non democratically elected head of state (a purely ceremonial function), but see nothing strange in a political system where there effectively only is a choice between two identical political parties: christian conservative, and christian slightly more conservative.
In short, in my opinion the American system puts so much emphasis on the freedom of the majority, that this is sometimes achieved at the expense of the freedom of the minorities.
-----
Several comments posted express the opinion that this kind of debate does not belong on slashdot. If not here, where? I think this is the perfect forum for this kind of discussion. Dealing with speech that we find offensive or makes us uncomfortable is a skill, perhaps one that needs to be taught more effectively. As citizens of the United States, we are taught how to excercise our rights to free speech, but we are not taught how to deal with others who do. The proper response to speech we don't like is not to attack or condemn the individual, but the idea. In most cases I have encountered, if you take the time to understand why someone believes a certain thing, you will discover that it has at least a kernel of truth. It's just easier for lazy people to write off the idea altogether - and often the individual as well.
While wrapping itself in the guise of free speech, this piece is advocating an insidious form of censorship that is creeping into our society.
Censoring the censors.
Or more precisely, silencing anyone who disagrees with you by screaming censorship.
Free speech guarantees free speech, nothing more. It does not guarantee people have to take you seriously, it does not insulate you from the consequences of your speech, and certainly doesn't guarantee you can contiune to speak on someone else's dime.
And that is what most of these carefully crafted, Slashdot friendly examples boil down to. People want free speech, but they do not want to accept responsibilities for their actions. You have no inherent right to an elected position, a goverment grant, a media platform, or even a job. You are free to say whatever you want, but in a merit based society, doing so can reveal ignorance, incompotency, bias, or even simple incompatibility, causing the powers that be to reevaluate your suitability.
And that is the last thing that would ever come to mind as a description of this "article" of his. He has no evidence; he doesn't understand history; he doesn't understand the people he attacks; he doesn't seem to understand much of anything.
I won't bother dealing with Katz's "ideas" (that's a charitable term for them) until/unless he dispenses with the narcissism and the bitter vitriol he reserves for his perceived enemies. Until then, his "ideas" (more charity) aren't worth the time.
Have a nice day.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
Well I'm going to use my freedom of speech to declare that I think that I think that this writer is an idiot.
I see a lot of posts here about "Religion this" and "Christians that". People seem to be taking the extreme views of a few who call themselves Christians and extrapolating their guilt to all Christians. That sux. By using that process, EVERYONE is guilty of something. One lesbian-tattooed-Newage-Latino woman kills somebody. Soa are all lesbians, Newagers, people with tattooes, and Latinos guilty by association too? Then why do some of you folks get so hateful against all Christians when one stupid peerson or group of persons calling themselves Christians does something stupid? That's irresponsible. YOUR the one with the problem. This is what happens when our society doesn't blame the INDIVIDUAL for their own actions. Smack the individuals that do stupid things regardless of Socio-Ethnic-Religious affiliation. But you can't automatically smack everybody ever associated with them.
Serves them right if they're accepting public funding (How does the mayor control their funding: directly, or indirectly via the weight of his opinions?) -- it seems natural if the "public" funds them, the "public" gets to call the shots, as it were, via their elected representative.
If anything that's an argument against accepting public funds -- you lose your autonomy.
There's a self-correcting mechanism to things that are widely unpopular, though, that does not require any "censorship from above" to "correct": unpopular opinions have, with them, a hidden cost of defense against those who would use force to silence them. It isn't a question of whether use of such force is right -- it just boils down to the statistical chance of someone being pissed off enough about what you say, to act against you.
For example, should I have a right to say (warning: offensive example follows), "Niggers should leave!" in a public place? If you value freedom of speech, you'd have to say yes, perhaps reluctantly. However, that is not the same as the privelege of having society defend me against the possibility of being battered for such a comment. Most would find such a response wrong (absent any physical action on my part), but certainly understandable (as would I). The burden of defending against the consequences of my speech, if I choose to excersize my freedom of same, rests on my shoulders.
If I think it so important to express an idea that the risks I might face are worth it, in my opinion, then so be it. However, I can't simultaneously claim a freedom of speech and insist that I be protected from the response it might cause: it is up to the discretion of the "publicly funded" police to defend me only to the point of what the public considers "acceptable". Any defense I require beyond that is my responsibility.
Historically, the United States, via the Supreme Court, has been very tolerant even of the expression of racial or religous prejeduce: I'm reminded of the Nazi march (all seven of then, IIRC) through Skokie, IL. some decades ago. (Personally, I'd have let the march happen, but not provide a shred of police protection - let the Nazis hire their own guards).
Is there a risk that this would mean that widely unpopular ideas would get silenced, out of fear of retribution? I don't think so. Anonymity allows an idea to be expressed without identifying the protagonist -- if an idea is interesting (and controversial ideas are, by definition, interesting because of the controversy), it should stand on it's own, regardless of who's promoting it.
The best we can do, then, for expression of unpopular ideas, is to not render such expression outright illegal, but neither should defense be provided for their protagnonists ad absurdum. And that, my friends, is how the First Amendment should be interpreted, IMHO.
In Liberty, Rene
Katz would probably be very upset if some group defined as "far right" had the most noses. What if [insert liberal cause] was defined as a severe defect? Euthanasia. Remember, we changed the definition of murder - handicapped/retarded/young/old aren't really citizens or people. How hard is it to add a group to the list?
"If you're handicapped, it's easy to fear what Singer seems to be advocating. But he argues that what he's proposing is compassion and the importance of a healthy life, which he sees as much of a right as life itself."
Remember, we are changing the definitions. More and more groups are becoming handicapped. Bad news if you are in a new group. And if you don't like "sin taxes" on booze and cigarettes, you won't like how the new laws will try and force you to have that "healthy life."
Look for yourself at the societies that encouraged euthanasia. I don't think you'll like them.
"1t's funny, he knocks religion for being dogmatic and narrowminded, then signs praises for a bio"ethic"ist. Let's see, most religions abhor murder,..."
/.
What's that you say? That is one of the biggest piles of bullshit I have ever seen on
If most religions abhor murder, then why is it so prevalent in almost every major religious scripture? Why are most terrorists backed by fundamentalists of one religion or another? Why have more wars been fought for the cause of "God" than for any other reason?
"...and this princeton guy thinks it's a cool idea for terminally ill newborns!"
Perhaps you ought to actually read the article. Then, you ought to reflect on what is meant by "terminally ill".
I'll give you a hint - when someone is referred to as "terminally ill", context implies that they are going to die very, very, SOON.
"...Stick to reporting tech issues and leave morality to others."
Such as you? Thanks, but I'm done with self-described moralists such as yourself. You are NOT competent to decide ANYONE'S morality but your own, and it's time that you learned it.
Land of the free? Uhhh huh- Americans don't seem to understand what that means. It DOES NOT mean owning a gun- have you ever noticed the US is the only country in the world that lets its citizens carry handguns? Surely the US is not so arrogant to think that the rest of the world is wrong and they are the only ones right?! Europe was old when the US was conquered- I think they actually figured out a few things. . .oh well- one can always count of the isoloation of the American mind for entertainment.
:)
By the way, if you want real freedom, come with me to the Autobahn- freedom is going 165mph while I pass you a phat one. .
Preople say they want to be free. What they really mean is that they want to be able to do whatever they want without any consequences. Freedom is defined by rules and laws. Without rules and laws there is no freedom.
This is the way soceity works, physics works and God works. When a person infringes on someone else's freedoms then the person is disciplined or punished. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Blessings are bestowed by God to obedience to the laws through which those blessings are predicated.
When we are obedient to rules and laws, which appear to limit our freedom, our freedom is greater then those that choose to disregard those rules and laws. You cannot be free from inside of prison. You cannot fly when you disregard drag, gravity, thrust, lift, etc.. You cannot obtain the fullness of God if you disregard the council, teachings, and commandments that he gives us through his chosen leaders, the prophets.
Understand how freedom is created, defined, and maintained before saying that something limits ones freedoms. There are people that believe the world would be a better place if we were free from all forms of censorship, friction (anyone want to build a perpetual motion machine?), and religion.
This article is really very trite. The author mistakes our freedom to exercise some of our freedoms as censorship and a reduction of our freedom of speech.
The reaction to the exhibits at the New York Museum of Art is not censorship, but people exercising their right to choose. The majority of people either are offended or do not want their children viewing the exhibits. So they have taken the point that the city of New York (ie New York taxpayers) do not want to pay for that exhibit. This is not censorship, this our freedom to choose. The artists are perfectly free to take their outrageous exhibits to the streets and show them for free. It's just that the people of New York don't want to pay (ie sponsor) them.
The same with Gov Ventura. His remarks also offended me. The people calling for his resignation are simply exercising their right to demonstrate that this man no longer speeks for them. This is not censorship.
The real problem with our society is not censorship, but in a way it is censorship. We are not censoring our public exhibits and public officials, we are saying I don't want to pay for this, I don't want to support this, this does not represent me, this man does not speak for me. The real censorship is society's backlash against those of us who stand up and protest that these are not things I want to support.
I do not like gay people. I do not have to like gay people. I do not want to sponsor or support gay marriages. I don't vote for politicians that do support gay marriages.
Now lots of people would attack those statements and say that I was trying to oppress gay people. That I was trying to "censor" them. No, I'm not. But I am making it clear that I disapprove of them and I myself do not want to support them in any way. This is our freedom to choose. I am excercising my freedom to choose what I do and do not support.
Just because someone does not like something and takes steps to see that something is not in any way being supported by them does not mean they are censoring it. You can go down on the street corner on your own dime and spout whatever crap you want. If I try and shut you up then, that's censorship.
Isn't this:
"You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free."
On the Official seal of the CIA?
This is precisely what you *don't* know, what you never know. If medicine makes the same advances in the next 50 years that it made in the last 50, who knows? (Remember Kurzweil who says we'll be able to scan in minds from the ground up and reproduce them in software in that timeframe?) You don't know, you merely suspect, based on current evidence and current medical approaches, and in the process, you're overlooking some counter evidence and when adopted on a societal level, developing an economic system with the motive to continually ignore that type of counter-evidence.
When you kill a human, however disabled, your act eliminates any hope for him or her. Anyone alive has hope, however faint. Killing is an irreversable act.
At the end of the day, its a question of how much of society's resources we want to put into preserving our citizens' lives. The value placed on capitalism and efficiency have grown strong enough that people value their money (or other resources) over other people's lives. While this has always been true to some extent, as a society, we need to be very careful about how we institute policies reflecting that in a governmental system whose purpose is to provide "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
There will always be a tension between those three ideals and the warring constituencies each wanting their own happiness, but keep in mind that the responsibility for killing someone else who can't talk back to you to argue their position, (i.e. the extremely young or disabled) on a personal and societal level, is a grave one.
As Janis Joplin sang:
"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."
Personally I'm not sure that I want that much freedom.
In America we are lucky to have freedom of choice, but as anywhere else, not freedom of choices. The choices available to us are dictated by the tastes of the masses and the culture of this country. There may be plenty of things wrong with America, but I for one chose to live here, having moved from England. I think that trying to change a country you like is like trying to fix the "flaws" in a romantic partner - you realize that the flaws are part of the person that you were attracted to in the first place. I'm glad that America is a country where we can talk about what's wrong, but I'm not sure how many people would really like it if we truly did have complete freedom without the constraints of culture and custom.
Another one of my favorite quotes is from Henry Moore, the British sculptor:
"Form is liberating"
You can choose to view the "form" of American culture as restrictive, or you can enjoy the freedom it gives you to be American!
How free do you really want to be?
This isn't new.
Jonkats says: The Brooklyn Museum of Art faces the loss of a third of its annual budget, even eviction, because the mayor of New York City finds a painting in an exhibit offensive. Further, from the context around the above, it can be concluded that he thinks this is a sign of a lack of freedom in the US. I say: Where did the money that they might lose come from? Well, it came from taxes. It was money TAKEN from people of the US at the point of a gun. It is money TAKEN by thugs who say "I'll have a portion of your life one way or another." The average person in the US has 40 - 60% of their annual income taken in that way. America is not free because of this and not because The Brooklyn Museum of Art might not get their share of the theft. Hugh
Got Rhinos?
That is very intesting...
I am suprised Switzerland is so high, whith what I thought was an extremely strict immigration policy. It probably only considers the rights of each countrie's civilians.
Picketing, handing out pamphlets and the other activities that xtians indulge in (one might say "it's legal, so WTF has it got to do with you?" but that's another argument) is harassment. And they don't just stand there, quietly putting their point across, all the time? Do they?
Screaming "murderer!" at someone is unlikely to make them warm to your viewpoint. Shooting their doctor even less so.
If you want to debate, then debate. But that kind of behaviour is illegal (in the UK, at least) and shooting doctors is not on, anywhere.
Remember, your opinion is precisely that. Do not attempt to qualify it as fact.
--
Peter
Get your facts straight, Katz! If you read past the sound bites, you would see that Buchanan isn't being kicked out. McCain said: This was after Buchanan started flirting with the Reform Party. McCain was merely pointing out the obvious: Buchanan is full of crap, and the Republicans now think he's a putz. Here's the ABCNews.com article I got the quotes from.
Besides, how can that be censorship when I can link you to Buchanan's book, A Republic, Not an Empire, on Amazon.com?
Keith Russell
OS != Religion
This sig intentionally left blank.
Professors have the right to believe and advocate what they want. So do governors. Whatever they say, the way they say it and the way the press misreports it has more to do with the reaction of people than whether the claims are controversial. When Governor Lamb said that the elderly "have a duty to die. [IIRC that was what my paper said]", I understood his point and assumed that he wasn't as stupid or callous as the press reports made him out to be.
Still, when people make outrageous statements, they better be willing to take the heat for it. Certainly it is a crime for people to threaten others for their statements, but it is not a crime, nay it is our duty, to tell people that they have beliefs that are totally outside reality.
Sadly, none of the arguments of the article have anything to do with freedom. Social pressures make people unfree? JonKatz, that is what I took away from your article. This is silly. It is wrong. It diminishes the value of freedom from government controls by whining about social sanction. Social sanction is a critical part of civilization and the maturing process of humans. It's not always fun, and the punishment may often feel worse than jail, but there is no society that works without it. Even if you were not demeaning the value of legal freedoms, you would still be wrong. Few countries in the world tolerate more social variation than the US, and, of those that do, many had to suffer greatly through wars and legal repression to find the value of social tolerance.
Katz is completely off-base here. Your problem is in completely conflating two distinct forms of freedom, only one of which we are promised. Criticism and censorship can pretty much be divided into two groups (and their really called norms but i forget to actual definitions for them so bear with me); govermental: you write something that's deemed wrong by some judge, or worse yet, a violation of security by the NSA and you get sent to jail; and social: you say something that pisses me off and I erturn the favor by making your life such a living hell that you simply shut up. Our constitution only protects us from the former, and in fact life with out the latter would be entirely boring and bleak. Can you imagine a sociaety where you weren;t allowed to respond excessively to soem of the bile and bigotry out there? Everyone has the right to speak without fear of governmental censhorship, but everyone has the resposibility to own up to their words, even if that means being tossed out of your political party.
-m.d.
As Mr. Katz observes, no person is perfect and freedom needs preserving
Yet he has not solved the problem. His new definition of freedom is "how the Internet is". The moment you decide any human-related entity is inherently free or inherently uncensorable, you are in trouble.
The best way to take something from someone is to convince them that no-one can take it away from them.
-
<SIG>
"I am not trying to prove that I am right... I am only trying to find out whether." -Bertolt Brecht
<sig>Guvf vf abg n frperg zrffntr
Katz, did you even bother reading the First Amendment?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Read that first word again -- CONGRESS. And by extension, Govt in general. Only in the case of the Brooklyn Art Museum does it even remotely apply (i.e., Whether the Govt can fund the arts in general and then decide it doesn't like particular art).
All the others concern PRIVATE organizations and people. The Reform Party can do whatever the hell it wants. So can Princeton. So can Ventura and Singer.
When did we get to a state where "Freedom of Speech" means someone can denigrate anything and everything I believe in, and I'm "censoring" them if I don't politely golf clap and say "Oh, isn't that precious! Oh, my aren't you intelligent and wonderful and I would be so honored to have you impart your unique and special wisdom to me!"
Bullshit. Democracy is messy and argumentative. Always has been, always will. If you decide to demean everything someone believes in, don't be surprised if they peaceably assemble and give you a lot of grief about it. A quick perusal of Boston, New York, or Chicago political history will show you that Freedom of Speech ain't for sissies. Of course violence or the threat of it is wrong, but someone else vehemently opposing what you say, calling for your ouster, or refusing to listen to what you say is NOT censorship. Even if they're being close-minded, they have a God-given right to be, and that doesn't impinge on any of your rights.
Democracy does not mean you can do anything you want or that people must like your ideas. The nazis thought they were free to kill jews. Are you in favor of that? Also the nazi's had a state policy to euthanise the retarded. Do you really spit upon the ashes of our ancestors at Treblinka, Auschwitz,...?
Honesty is just one of the qualities we look for in a politician. (but rarely find) People want Ventura out not because of his honesty, but because he's an idiot. The honesty facilitates seeing him for who he is, and who he is is what the people of Minnesota don't like. He runs around doing whatever he wants and saying whatever he wants. It's great that he's honest, but he should learn when to shut his trap. In addition, he hasn't done anything to benefit his state. When have you heard his name in the news regarding anything that has to do with the governer's job?
I may not be fully informed on this topic, but I'll calling this how i see it. Some insight from a Minnesotian would be beneficial.
Those of us who think Singer is advocating mass murder have a right to our opinion, and we have a right to express that opinion, too. Deal with it. That's called FREEDOM, Mr. Thought Police. No government agency is trying to shut Peter Singer up, so the First Amendment doesn't apply. You'd be the first in line to insist that the government shut up those of us who disagree with Singer, though, wouldn't you?
You're a typical liberal fascist, Katz. You favor "freedom of expression" and "diversity" so long as you agree with the opinions being expressed. But for those of us who don't agree with you, you have no problem FORCING us to pay for the propagation of opinions we despise. You have no problem FORCING us to be quiet when you disagree with what we have to say (look into how peaceful prolifers no longer have any First Amendment rights due to RICO, and then post on that, if you dare). You don't want FREEDOM. You just want the FREEDOM to advocate your beliefs without opposition.
Commenting on only one issue raised, that of Singer, I have to agree.
Because technology is allowing infants, who would normally die soon after birth, to mature and mate -- the human gene pool is becoming increasingly polluted.
If you don't advocate termination, you should at least agree on sterilization of defective newborns.
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
I got cut off in traffic the other day by one of those brand new F150 trucks. I saw the driver was white, male, and youngish (like me). Just for a second there I felt like yelling something nasty and flipping the bird (I didn't). The reason why I felt I could try to humiliate him was, since he was a white male, he probably wouldn't do anything about it. If he was black or a brown-skin, I wouldn't dare. I could see him following me around all night waiting for me to stop so he could pull out a weapon and start using it. White males are pretty much on their own these days. I'm glad I didn't yell anything. One thing that white people lack that they need badly: SOLIDARITY!
Is it just or is there something strange about all these replies being rated 0 while most of them deserve more than that ? Could it be censorship showing up in a debate about censorship ?
conception (post-mieosis chromosomes in fertilized egg)
viability (aka third trimester)
physical birth (head pops through birth canal, leaves woman's body)
As far as I can tell, Singer is introducing a fourth:
conciousness, arriving maybe a year after birth
It's not clear to me that Singer's definition of life is better (clearly demarcated, more compassionate) than any of the others, and at first glance, it looks less so.
... is that it's occaisionally necessary to discuss Hitler and the Nazis, even on the Internet.
Hitler wanted to kill Jews, saying they were less than human. Singer wants to kill handicapped kids, saying that they are less than human. Therefore, Singer's position is quite similar to the Nazis, we've just changed the definition of who is untermenschen. Hitler's policies were implemented, and mass murder resulted. Singer's policies have not yet been implemented. If they were, the results would be the same -- lots of handicapped kids would be killed. Singer would not "define" this as mass murder, but I do.
So far, nobody has shown to me that there is a logical falacy in this progression; I simply get called names for daring to note the resemblance. Oh, yes, and I'm a "censor", according to Katz, for noting the resemblance and daring to exercise my own freedom of speech.
This is why I wrote in the previous discussion that Singer is not offering any new viewpoint -- he is simply advocating a return to the old Roman practice.
But you are (ahem) reality-challenged if you believe that this is not even being discussed, as the AP news references and these very discussions on Slashdot prove.
The first ammendment allows people to express unpopular viewpoints, and not get put in jail or ostracised for doing so.
It is not supposed to force people to provide funding to allow people to express themselves in an obscene manner (as in the Brooklyn Museum case).
It is not supposed to guarantee a job to a polition if he expresses viewpoints that others in his political party disagree with (as in the example of Jesse Ventura or Pat Buchanan.)
It is definitely not supposed to protect speakers from being reviled (because otherwise you attack the revilers freedom of speech), as in the example of Peter Singer. And if as an employer, I am hiring a person to come up with different viewpoints (as in hiring a professor), and I find his viewpoints repulsive, I can say that he is failing at his job, and if the contract allows, fire the guy.
(Now if Peter Singer worked as a computer operator, I would not have just cause to fire him for his views, as his views would not affect his job. Although I think I might have cause to fire him if he was working in a children's hospital, if I had good cause to think that he might actually follow through with his ideas.)
America is free - it is very free. Try publically critisising the President in Indonesia. Really, that is the kind of freedom of expression that the founding fathers were talking about. When I listen to the news, I get very angry when I hear of the heavy censorship in other countries. But I also get very angry when I read of the idiots in the USA who think that their freedom of speech is surpressed when they cannot, fr example, publically display obscene material. Those people should try moving to a dictatorship for a while, and then they will see how abstract their former concerns were, and what lack of freedom of speech really means.
If I'm understanding Singer's argument correctly, he's arguing that babies with no self-awareness and no hope of self-awareness do not have the same ethical standing that babies with the potential for consciousness have.
To say this somehow justifies euthanizing Dennis the Menace is nonsense.
Jon has managed to make all three of the usual mistakes about free speech and censorship in one short article.
1. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that anyone else has to subsidize your speech. Removing the taxpayers' subsidy of the Brooklyn Museum of Art is not censorship.
2. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that people can't ask you to leave the room. Jesse Ventura has a right to say anything he wants to Playboy, but others also have the right to ask him to leave the Reform Party. Ditto for Pat Buchannan and the Republican Party.
3. Freedom of speech doesn't imply that spirited or even demagogic disagreement is prohibited. I feel sorry for Peter Singer, but I don't think we should prevent people from disagreeing with him. Protesting someone's point of view is not censorship.
Incorrect. Whether or not it is murder depends on your definition of what is a person. Does a fetus suddenly become human as soon as it leaves the mother? what about halfway out? what about right before firth? 8th month? 7th month? 5th month? 3rd month? 1st month? first week? at fertilization? just before fertilization? Are eggs and sperm people? what about the cells that germinate into them? what about the cells that develop into testes and ovaries? is a single cell on my body a person?
Get real. Human is a relative term. Nothing in this world - species, gender, sentience, skill - is an absolute, a definite "one or the other". We may try to slide them to one end or the other to fit our preconcieved needs, but there is always a linear scale in between.
Then, you go and act like this person is talking about going around and killing people he deems not worthy - you're doing just what he is saying people are doing - not giving the idea a chance to be considered. You're setting up a Straw Man, and then tearing it down. Get this one thing straight: he is not advocating killing those that don't fit it. Let me say it again: He is not advocating killing those that don't fit it. What he is saying is that there is no reason to define the cut-off point of where a being is human as being when 51% of its body is out of the birth canal.
Do not try and distort the issue.
Understand that the people he is preaching against are you. The ones who don't put an idea on a fair grounds for debate and instead resort to low, distorting tactics, like your straw man about killing internet columnists.
- Rei
p.s. - Which is a more incineary term to be called, a murderer (or worse), or a blockhead?
I just have to say that what went on at the Brooklyn Art Mueseum does not exemplify a trampling of free speech. If one relies on public funding to present an exhibit, then one must please the public or risk losing funding. Its not about free speech; People have a right to express their opinions, not a right to government funding.
I say this not because I am offended by a shit covered virgin mary (its probably one of the few art exhibits I would actually pay to see), but because it's ridiculous to cite this as a violation of free speech.
However, to say that America is not 'free' because of the strong reactions of opinionated people to other people's opinions is IMHO misunderstanding an important thing about 'freedom' in the political context. The freedom whose absence Katz laments is an illusion . We have no 'freedom' in this sense, and never can have. The freedoms which are important, and worth struggling for, are specific, carefully defined 'human rights' -- being 'free to act' in a particular manner (freedom of speech, movement, freedom from repression, violence etc.)
Check out Beyond Freedom and Dignity" for a rather mind-bending book on the subject. Mind-bending for those without a background in psychology or some of the more entertaining philosophies.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Christians
believe that when someone dies unsaved they go to hell and burn in pain for eternity. We don't like
the idea that others might be subjected to this, so we are trying to help as many people as we can.
I am pissed at myself for being sucked into this thread... but oh well.
The above has always been my largest criticism of Christianity. The idea that I am doomed to eternal suffering if I am not "saved". While "saved" means a lot of different things to a lot of groups, I am going to go with "saved" under the following meaning:
I am saved if I believe in Christ.
So what I am being told is that the majority of our population goes straight to hell, no matter how they lead their lives or if they have ever even heard of Christ (there are plenty who have not). They (and I guess I) are dammned.
And I have listened to Christians tell me to my face, that I am going to hell... simply because I do not necesarily believe in Jesus Christ.
I always like to use the example of Gandhi... here you have a man who sacrificed his entire life for the good of the people. But according to this thinking, he is currently sipping scalding hot margaritas with the Devil.
While not all Christians hold this view point (but then are they true Christians?), but a very large amount of them do. Do you? Do you honestly believe this, and are you really trying to save me from this impending doom? No matter how I live my life, I will suffer eternally... if you are not able to "save" me?
If that is how it is... that is certainly not a God I would be proud to call my own.
Freedom always has limits, and there will always be debate over what those limits should be. This is part of what being a free country is all about.
Katz's examples of current "censorship" are rather lame, though, again, typical of him.
The issue at the Brooklyn Museum is not whether art that some people find offensive should be forbidden, but whether it is appropriate for it to be displayed under (partial) government sponsorship, and in a government-owned building. This is a legitimate topic for debate, since the government is, in theory, representative of the people, and people don't like having their tax money support things that mock their most cherished beliefs. Being mocked is one thing, but being forced to pay for it is another matter. (Katz, in a typical display of rhetorical dishonesty, gives the impression that Mayor Giuliani is the only person offended by the exhibit, which is, of course, not the case.)
Personally, I am not offended by the exhibit, and have no opinion on its merit as art, but I would prefer that government get out of the arts-funding business precisely because it leads to controversies like this that waste (IMHO) public-debate and media time that could better be spent on more significant issues.
The Ventura and Buchanan examples are even more lame. Membership in a political party is not a Constitutional right; a party is a voluntary entity that exists to provide an organizational focus and a sense of belonging for people of more-or-less common political views. If Ventura and Buchanan are being asked, by some contingent of their respective parties, to leave, all that means is that some of their fells Reformists/Republicans can't stand being associated with them anymore. (Considering Buchanan's long history of race-baiting, I'm glad that at least some Republicans can't stand him anymore!) Whether they or their critics should leave the party is beside the point; either way, no one's rights are being violated. Being kicked out of the Reform Party is nowhere near as dangerous to one's well being as, say, being kicked out of the Communist Party in the People's Republic of China.
Peter Singer's case is unfortunate, but the need for guards at his lectures has nothing to do with whether the US is a free country. Even in a free country (for reasonable definitions of the term), antagonizing extremists can get you killed. That he should find himself under attack by his own university administration merely demonstrates, yet again, this thing that Jon Katz just doesn't understand: that freedom is never absolute. Eventually the world will get to a point where it can consider ideas such as Singer's baby-euthanization program, but right now we're having enough trouble just settling the abortion issue. If we as a nation are still unable to agree what right to life, if any, the unborn have, then this is not the time to suggest that some babies be killed after birth. I think, ultimately, Singer is just being criticized (and threatened, unfortunately) for trying to start a debate before its time (though I'm sure his critics don't think of it that way).
This is a great article. Its hard to find any outlet or author willing to write about a subject _any_ person might find offensive. This sort of dialogue actually helps win us (the individuals) greater freedom. The main point of Mr. Katz's article, it seems, is that the discussion of ideas can hurt noone. We should not feel obligated to skirt an issue if the possibility of (gasp!) offending someone. Personally, I would have a tough time deciding whether or not I would terminate a fetus that is terminally ill or massively deformed in some way. I _should_ have the choice, because this fetus is my responsibility. Our society was founded on rights and responsibilities that balance each other. I should have many rights, but also the responsibilities of using my rights in an ethical manner.
- Peter Singer and Princeton University issued press releases when he got the fellowship. That didn't generate enough publicity, so they did another round of press releases when his class started.
- Pat Buchanan and his publisher have conducted an extensive PR tour in support of his book.
- Jesse Ventura and Playboy publicized the interview--emphasizing the outrageous comments.
- The Brooklyn Museum has filled the NY subway with ads stressing how controversial the exhibit will be.
In each case, somebody went to a lot of time and trouble (and expense, in the case of the Brooklyn Museum) to make absolutely certain that they would invite the kind of criticism that they have received. It is an old axiom in the Public Relations business that the best way to sell books in New York is to make sure that the book is banned in Boston. [Digression: ever wonder how the Shiite theological faculty at Qom knew to condemn Salman Rushdie for "defaming the imam" before the book got published? The guy had a death sentence on him, had gone into hiding, and had celebrities staging rallies on his behalf before the book ever hit the streets. Why? Because the publisher sent advance copies of the manuscript to them, in the hope that they'd go ballistic.] Jon's argument is bogus--none of the "victims" here is the slightest bit unhappy. But his argument is also bogus for being circular--if I am restricting Peter Singer's freedom by criticizing him and his dangerous, insane, lethal ideas; isn't Jon Katz, by his own reasoning, restricting my freedom by criticizing me? Criticizing one another's ideas is called "debate," not "censorship." And declaring that an opponents ideas are so dangerous, so contrary to common decency that they may not be uttered, is not "censorship." It is the expression of an opinion. I am an old fogie--I grew up in a family atmosphere that emphasized correct manners. I am morally offended every time I see a couple (by which I mean a man and a woman) walking down the street--and the man is on the wrong side! It disgusts me--I sometimes have to turn away to keep from expressing the rising gorge in my throat. If I display dour disapproval I am being censorious--but I am not engaging in censorship. Only if I am a police officer and arrest the man for walking down the wrong side of a sidewalk then I am being oppressive. (P.S. I'm really not that disapproving of people on the sidewalk. But yes, there is a proper side to walk upon--the man always walks on the curb side to keep mud [that is, horse manure] from splashing on the woman's skirts. JM)OK, moderate me down if you want, but I agree with the basic points of the article, and find it reasonably well written.
the basic point is that society needs people to say the unwelcome, this prevents people from being closed minded individuals, and makes them remember why they belive what they belive, or to change their belifes with their new realizations.
I hope I am not too, um, circular or unclear with my statement
Laugh, it's good for you!
I don't understand where the whole "censorship" angle comes in. Suppose Katz for his next "article" for Slashdot decide to argue that the Protocol of the Elders of Zion (an alleged document outlining a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world forged by the Russian Tsars sevet police) was in fact true and that we needed to do something about all the damned Jews everywhere?
Would Slashdot run the piece? Would they be guilty of censorship if they didn't? Would the users be a bunch of patriotic blockheads for arguing that a person who makes such arguments doesn't deserve to get the sort of prominence being featured in Slashdot can garner?
I mean I think if my local newspaper started running a weekly column written by the David Duke, for example, I would drop my subscription and urge the newspaper to reconsider its decision.
Whoever said the problem with the liberal fascists such as Katz is that they can't stand the fact that free speech runs both ways -- that Singer has the right to say it's not wrong to kill infants and we have the right to say such a person is unfit to hold a prominent position at one of America's elite universities.
And Princeton is free to make up their mind as well and hire or fire Singer as they so choose.
[random example, not meant to offend]
"People over 70 cost society more financially than they attribute financially"
Solution: Kill all elderly people.
This is obviously a pretty stupid idea, but, if I had true freedom of speech, I could propose this.
Everyone could discuss this, think about it, and if everyone would agree it would be dropped pretty quickly.
So why is there consorship anyway? Bad ideas will not live long at all.
Gee, another Nazi, I discussed that years ago and found it a stupid idea. Next!
All censorship promotes is extra (media) attention when someone has a bad idea (and that is, obviously, a bad idea :)
It only hurts when you survive
The Brooklyn Museum of Art faces the loss of a third of its annual budget, even eviction, because the mayor of New York City finds a painting in an exhibit offensive.
My take on the Mayor's action is that he does not believe that the painting in question serves the public interest. The exhibit of the "art work" is being underwriten with public funds and he does not feel that it is an appropiate expenditure of his budget. He is an elected offical. If people do not approve his actions he will not be re-elected.
The Mayor has no qualms whatsoever for the painting to be displayed in a private museum and has he has stated so.
Furthermore, I wonder what the reaction would have been if the subject was Martin Luther King or Gandi ? It would have been labeled as racist or mean-spirited trash - which is exactly what it is.
Look if anyone want to be a "ground breaking" artist these days - forget talent and skill - just select some popular religous icon, mix it up with several bodily fluids from various orgins, include some sexual context and you have a masterpiece ! The art critics will rave over your genius.
First, they argued that the unborn weren't alive and that terminating a pregnancy was a womans right to her own body. The pro-lifers argued that this would one day lead to Euthenasia of the elderly and the handicapped. They said that was rediculous. Now here we are arguing for and against euthenasia.
Do human being have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? NO! they are priveledges that are given and taken from us by Nature, God and our Fellow Man.
Everytime you abort the unborn, kill a handicapped child or murder someone in cold blood you prove that those "rights" do not exist. That's reality, not the constitution.
You can argue that a woman has a right to kill her unborn baby. But for someone who believes that the unborn are as alive as you or me, this is the same as arguing that Adolf Hitler had a right to "purify" his country. Personally, I weep when I hear of the plight of the unborn children just as I do when I hear retellings of the extermination of the jews in Nazi Germany.
As for the "right" to free speech. Don't forget my "right" to disagree and do so vocally! Don't expect me to sit by and smile when you attack the beliefs that make me who I am. And as in the case of the Art Exhibit in New York, don't expect the taxpayers to foot the bill for YOUR free speech! That is absolutely ludicrous. If you wan't to shit on the Virgin Mary don't expect ME to pay for it.
We are being with only two true rights: To Live and then to Die. If human beings have a real right to free speech then it would be UNIVERSAL and not provided for by laws in only few countries.
Brought to you by Frobozz Magic Penguin Fodder.
Reguarding the NYC museum exhibit, yes the mayor wanted to close it down because it offended many poeple, BUT what you are forgetting is that the museum recieves public funds, and if we are expected to pay for things like museum exhibits through taxes (which I find personally to be rediculous) then we must also empower our leaders to speak for how our tax money is used, and if somebody has a problem with how the mayor handeled it, then they are free not to re-elect him in the future. I don't see it as a censorship issue, so much as a tax issue, because I personally have no problem with any museum exhibit (that i know of).
First off, censorship is a necessity in any society as overcommunicated as this one. That doesn't mean censorship should take place based on political or philosophical agendas; rather it should seek to filter information and ideas that are irrelevant to an individual from those that are.
Of course, relevance is subjective; that's the sticking point in any discussion of censorship. In practice, the institutions in power decide relevance. Hence, we don't find out about American involvement in, say, aggressively destabilizing freely elected governments in South America until decades after it matters. The government and news media decided we didn't need to know.
I submit that we are in a period in which established institutions feel especially challenged. The magnitude and vector of the challenge can be gauged by who is seeking to censor whom, and how.
The reason Mencken was allowed to write about religion all those years ago was because religion (one of many institutions enjoying hegemony in consensus society) felt fairly sure of itself. In that situation, it makes no sense to create a martyr. Far better to let the crackpots have their say, and let their marginalism feed on itself. Now, it would appear, things are different.
The process can be viewed in reverse, too. Through most of this century, I probably couldn't openly espouse Communism without being fired, blacklisted, or otherwise ostracized. Because for most of this century, Communism was seen as a serious threat to another institution of the consensus, capitalism. That threat is no longer evident; if I wanted to join the American Communist Party now, people would think I was a harmless crank and move on.
Look at the institutions reacting most strongly against criticism, and you see the most insecure institutions in our society. The ones cited in Katz's article are organized religion (steadily declining membership for decades) and the Republican party (a representative of a host of, generally, ideas formed in reaction to the events of the early and middle twentieth century -- IMO the pragmatic approach of that WWII argument fairly reeks of the military-industrial complex a la Dr. Strangelove).
(Oh, and I suspect the Democratic party would probably react the same way, but they have less to worry about because their rhetoric is not as openly tied to the existing order. They've been harmlessly marginalizing people for years -- cf. Jerry Brown.)
So, given that the venerable institutions of religion and ruling governmental bodies are feeling insecure, does that mean they are? Why, and should we use the opportunity provided to remodel or retire them?
Discuss. Use back of page if necessary. :)
phil
Another useless discussion on /. What will this prove? Other than that Katz is a moron? He has the logic skills of a child. This drivel has NO place in these pages! Go ahead...moderate me, make my day
Since when has the US ever been "morally superiour" to the rest of the world? Sure, it's democratic and reasonably free, there's worse places, but have we forgotten the slaughtering of the natives, slavery, the nuking of Japan, the nuclear tests conducted on their own citizens, the use of chemical weapons in south east asia, illegal bombings of lybia and other countries, Echelon, the KKK, Watergate, The Monica Thingie, and a myriad other things?
Don't get me wrong - as I said, there's worse places than the US. But the United States have never been, are not, and probably will never be "morally superior" to the rest of the world.
Katz made an issue that a discussion about Euthanasia could only take place in the relative 'underground' of a place like Slashdot, but it seems apparent that not even Slashdot is ready for it. Katz, despite being attacked for 'ranting leftist idealogy' and promoting 'thought control,' quite clearly said that he wasn't sure about the issue. Jon Katz is not advocating killing children. He's merely using Singer as an example -- and a good one -- of how our culture tends to find any excuse it can (Katz's need of an editor, in one comment, or several past articles that are entirely unrelated to his present point) to utterly destroy any notion that is foreign to our accepted standards of what is ethical. Ideally, I tend to think of the 'geek' avant garde as being less reactionary and more directly critical and thoughtful of any notion, be it Katz's, Singer's, or CmdrTaco's, but there is an unnerving tendancy to blow the author out of the water because (in prior episodes) he actually used Microsoft Word to write it.
Maybe we should actually consider the points Katz is trying to get at, rather than attacking the pencil he's using to elucidate them? Or go another step and forget about attacking the person holding the pencil; Katz is trying to do what writers do best, which is to ask questions of his audience. Faulkner, Hemmingway, Fitzgerald, and any other great writer didn't come out and deliver earth-shattering epiphanes that made people go 'Whoa!' They pointed out something about their readers that profoundly disturbed them.
So be disturbed, and consider the questions that Katz (via Singer) asks; perhaps we'd see more than one or two posts above a '3' that way.
-Aqui
This means that all the parents who bring damaged children into the world because they decided to drink, or smoke, or ignore pre-natal care, or just eat all wrong (folate deficiency apparently causes the majority of neural-tube defects like spina bifida) are sticking the rest of us with the bill.And yes, I resent it.
--
Deja Moo: The feeling that
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Come to think of it, I used to live in that neighborhood myself, and I had both a 'puter and a modem connection to the rest of the world. Sure, it's a crappy area, but it has a certain charm to it, and a lot of the people who live there are damned decent folks who simply haven't had much of a chance in this world.
- Robin
How is it that Katz can mess up such a good topic in such a bad way? I've been saying the last few months that the USA is the only police state in the world where the citizens aren't aware they are living in one. For instance and from the top of my head..
The USA imprisons a larger percentage of its population than any other country in the world.
After you have completed your punishment you still do not have any rights. Felons cannot vote in many states and in others they need special treatment to be allowed to vote. Former felons cannot own firearms. There are others. What really bothers me is the class of crimes that are considered felonies is getting larger every year. For example in FL (where i used to live) it is a felony to trespass on a construction site.
The "zero tolerance" laws that seem to be getting more and more popular. I had a friend who every night when he left work at 12:30 was pulled over and searched because he was 'suspicious' looking.
The fact that every year you need another 'license' to do something that had been done for years without one. License is a nice word for 'permission from the government'.
The police have a 'right' to any information you can provide them on any subject they feel that they need information (otherwise you are obstructing justice) on. If they think you might be guilty of something the police can 'steal' this information from you (read wiretapping).
The government maintains extensive databases of personal information on very large parts of the population (read fingerprint, social security, etc.) and has access to large databases maintained by other sources (note above).
People are 'watched' on a daily basis. Where I live I pass at least a dozen cameras a day that are operated by the local government. At work there are cameras to monitor everything.
The current attitude that 'rights' not explicitly given by the constitution are 'privileges' and therefore you can be forced to either give up the privilege or sign away a right. Does anyone actually believe that driving is a 'privilege' and you don't need that privilege? What kind of life can you maintain in most areas of the country if you don't have access to an automobile?
Many activities while harmless in and of themselves are considered serious crimes. Every year this list keeps growing. Take owning certain substances (drugs or otherwise), building certain devices etc.
People actually take laws that are obviously against the constitution seriously. National news recently pointed to a MI man who was charged and found guilty of public profanity. I should point out that the law they convicted him on was quite old and the ACLU is fighting his sentence.
Oh, that is such a cheap excuse. Giulianis opinions are obviously narrowminded attempts to enforce his idea of art, while in truth he doesnt care the least about the money. All art is objectionable for someone. Id object strongly about my taxpayer money going to support any religious art. However, I believe in freedom of expression has precedence over my opinions, and if any taxpayer money goes to pay for art, I expect it to be done fairly without any regard to who may find it offensive, wether me or anyone else. Giuliani is just another hypocritical liar.
My original language is not english, but most of the time (99%), I have no problem at all reading all the post in /. except your articles which always seems very fuzzy and very long.
:-) Clarify your mind first and then go to step 1. :-) :-)
In France we say:
- 'Ce qui se concoit bien, s'enonce clairement et les mots pour le dire viennent aisement' which means:
- what you understand well, should be said clearly so as to be easily understandable.
I don't know if American and English people can easily read your articles, but please try to to think a little bit about us foreigner.
So 1) if it's quite clear in your mind what you want to say, try to express it clearly, make an effort to be easily readable.
2) if what you are trying to say isn't clear in your mind, why are you posting ?
No, seriously, you should try to be more readable
This is the worst piece on Free Speech and what it means to be a free people that I think I've ever read. Jon Katz should perhaps read something about the philosophical underpinnings of our rights and the responsibilities that these rights imply.
Somehow, supporting the right of someone to express an opinion has become conflated with supporting someone in expressing an opinion.
Pat Buchanan, Jesse Ventura, The Brooklyn Museum, none of these are examples of censorship. There are examples of people freely expressing desenting views and people exercising their right of association (in these cases disassociating themselves with, and withdrawing their active support for, opinions they find wrong or offensive).
There are so many absurd examples in this article that I don't have time to go over them all. The worst might be that Pat Buchanan is having some First Amendment right taken away because the Republicans don't agree with his views and don't feel that he represents their principles. I suppose if Clinton suddenly started spouting Stalinist slogans and calling for a centralized economy that it would be an abridgement of his First Amendment Rights if the Democratic party were to oust him? Patently absurd.
Pat Buchanan is exercising his right to associate with those who agree with him by going to the Reform Party. If the Reform Party makes Pat Buchanan their Presidential candidate would the rights of Donald Trump be trampled on because the Reform Party would be withdrawing their support from him? It would seem to follow from Katzian logic.
It's a complete strawman that H.L. Mencken couldn't get a job in any newspaper today. I see a lot of columnists who make a practice of poking fun at religion, or expressing anti-religious views, and they just seem to get more popular. Molly Ivans and Ellen Goodman come immediately to mind.
Confusing this issue is the case of Mr. Singer. Mr. Singer enjoys the academic freedom which we have bestowed upon people with tenure. I do believe that it would be wrong, although not an abridgement of a Constitutionally guaranteed right, to fire Mr. Singer for expressing his view.
I think it would be right for Slashdot, for example, to stop supporting a certain Feature writer. Slashdot makes frequent editorial decisions. They don't publish every feature submitted, after all. Are they censoring those that they don't print? One of the editorial criteria is supposed to be that it's well thought out and coherent. This feature doesn't pass the test, if you ask me.
I wonder if I'll now be ostracized for suggesting that Jon Katz should be "censored"?
Please name a country that doesn't suffer the same afflictions? Now name a country that suffers to a lesser degree. Hmm?
So if we do not allocate support based on opinion then how would support be allocated.
Suppose I have developed a artistic technic where I ingest paint and then vomit it up (along with my lunch) skillfully on canvas. I now declare my art as challenging and apply for support. If you think that my art is disgusting and in fact the majority of people think my art is disgusting, tough.
Katz wasn't supporting or not supporting Singers viewpoint. He thinks it is wrong to have your life put into danger simply because you say things that piss people off. He is correct about that. He correctly pointed out that many of the politically ambitous are simply trying to get mileage out of Singers controversial view points. That many cease to listen right at the moment their undeserved self serving,self-rightous rage kicks in.
Personally I disagree with Singers proposition and those who support him. Referencing the value of human life in such monetary terms is IMHO inhuman. One of the signs of a civilized society is the innate high value it places on all human life, independent of what the life will or won't contribute to society.
Just to re-inforce Katz's point......
We really aren't a free country. Just try to find and rent an unrated directors cut of a movie at Viacoms' Blockbuster video (the nations largest video chain). Do to pressure from highly motivated conservative extremist groups and individuals, they stopped purchasing them over 6 years ago. They, not the US government, have effectivly censored artistic freedom with their tremendous buying power.
Singer is niether brave nor brilliant, but I will give him credit for one thing: He points out quite clearly the conclusion a nihilistic worldview must reach. A traditional Judeo-Christian worldview has a quite different take on things. This is the real clash here - a culture clash - one of conflicting worldviews that by their very nature cannot be reconciled.
The religious argument is quite appropriate here in light of the worldview conflict. Dostoevsky said it best: "If God does not exist, then all things are permissable." But we *know* deep down in our souls and bones, that right and wrong DO exist and all things are not permissable. And that in turn demands the existence of God. And if God exists, then perhaps we should listen to what He has to say about killing. (For those of you that ask, "Which god?", I suggest you search for the one which corresponds to truth - that one will be God, not god.)
Singer's argument is perfectly logical, but that points out its fallacy, and the fact that his logical conclusions are based on false premises. If one does not believe in God, then it does not much matter what one does. Many would claim that we should all be free to do whatever we want so long as we don't hurt others, but why should even this restriction exist in the abscence of God? If it pleases me to say, kill Peter Singer because I disagree with him, and there is no God, no objective right and wrong, why shouldn't I do it? I have never found a satisfactory answer to this question outside the conclusion that the question is invalid and God must exist.
On the issue of America losing its freedom because Singer feels threatened: America is a free country, and Singer is free to speak in marked and unguarded classrooms. He has chosen instead to act as a coward. Those that proclaim truth seldom do so with cowardice, those that believe it never do.
Katz further falls victim to the idea that all ideas are created equal. They are not. Singer's ideas devalue humanity and are not equal in value to say, Mother Theresa's. The press, society, and yes, even discussion groups are working properly when they supress the propagation of ideas and values that are evil or harmful.
Jesse Ventura did not "question religion" in any intelligent way, he simply exposed his bigotry and prejudice. This is not something to be celebrated whether or not you agree with the man. (And despite what the community here may think, many, if not most, Christians have thought deeply and logically about their faith and its implications.)
Furthermore, the use of terms like murder are not at all incorrect in this circumstance, and certainly do not prohibit a dialog. A quick check with m-w.com shows a definition of murder as "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought". I think most would go further and say that a component of murder would be that the person killed (and it must be a person, despite what Singer says) is not maliciously endangering the life of the person doing the killing - thus the "self-defense" exception. Disabled infants or inconvenient elders (remember, you may be one some day, especially if you haven't taught your children the value of life) may indeed cause extreme hardship and inconvenience, but there is certainly no malice in their hearts driving their condition, and so killing them would, by any reasonable standard, be murder. Killing simply for the convenience of the killer is never justifiable.
Killing another person is generally (but not always) deemed to be justified in cases of war (which can be morally defended only if one is sure one is on the right side or forced into service), self defense against a life-threatening attack, or in certain cases and within well-prescribed bounds, to enforce the law.
The killing of deformed infants, the infirm, the physically disabled, the elderly, the currently out-of-favor religious/ethnic group, and yes, even the unborn clearly do not fall into that category. Every stable (and that's a *very* important qualifier) society in history has proscribed such behavior. Many here dismiss the "slippery slope" argument, but history shows that societies that start down it inevitably wind up at the bottom.
Finally, I thought it was interesting that even Katz seems to leave open the question of knowing "whether any of these ideas have legitimacy and are worth exploring, or whether some deserve to be roundly rejected." Interestingly, Katz seems to think that only he or those that agree with him can assert that an idea should be roundly rejected.
All ideas are clearly NOT equal. If we begin to treat them as if they are, we will make some very bad choices indeed. Some ideas are worthy of a serious discussion. Peter Singer's are not that kind.
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
What's appropriate? I'm an artist & I don't get shit. I think that everytime I make love to my woman I should get a million $, because "i'm such an artist". People are usually not compensated as much as they want because they aren't worth it. In my case, I'll have to settle for undying gratitude.
I'm not being argmentive, but did you actually ask any catholics before forming this view? For instance, I'm Catholic, and I didn't find it offensive at all. In fact, I thought it was stupid to oppose the display on religious grounds. If you refused to display something because it might offend someone, you'd end up displaying nothing. I ask you, would the Mayor have taken the same action, if it would have been offensive to say, islamics, hindu, or any other religion? I think not.
One of my favourite sayings is "Offence is taken, never given" Yes, many people say that "free speech doesn't mean we have to pay you to say it", and that is true - to an extent. But, would you regard it as a breach of free speech, if the government gave the use of halls rent free only to people who said nice things about them? If a public official refuses access to some "offensive" material, then he should by right, refuse access to it all. If a public official decides what it offensive or not, based on his private opinion, then that is censorship.
As an aside, it could be worse. A few years back the Monty Python film, "Life of Brian" was banned in Ireland.
In society, there are no absolute rights. All rights are relative to how they impact on each other member of society. You are "free" to do what you like, so long as your use of your "freedom" doesn't impact adversly other people's "freedom". Of course, there is always an impact, and society, as a whole, must decide where those lines are drawn.
To finish, a quote from the film Dead Poets Society
"Only in dreams are men truly free ; 'twas always thus, and always thus will be"
--
Exigo spamos et dona ferentes
As most Internauts are aware of by now, many of our freedoms have been stifled by a vast bureaucratic army that eats out our substance and a corrupt and elite ruling class -- not to mention a legal system that rewards tort lawyers and fails to let people take the consequences of their actions.
Our "moral superiority" has nothing to do with that. Sure we have problems with censor happy moralists that would like to run our lives. Thats why the first amendment exists.
What I fail to undertstand is Katz's cluelessnes when it comes to the natural reaction of people to an "ethicist" who proposes murdering helpless children. Peter Singer's opinion, while protected by the first amendment, is simply a replay of the opinions of Nazi and American eugenics theorists of the early 1900's. I'm sure he has tenure at whatever excuse for a university he works at, but I'm sure the research dollars wasted on him could go to a better cause.
If you think America isn't free because some Americans have emotional reactions to these opinions, try teaching Nazi eugenics in Israel and see how they are treated there.
I'm not advocating that anyone harm anyone else because of their opinions. Sticks and stones and all that. The first person who harms Peter Singer because of his opinions is guilty, likewise for people who burn the flag. But I don't see that government enacting laws that make this speach illegal. (Not that congress hasn't tried with Flag Burning)
Next time supply some content, Jon.
Jim Burnes jburnes@earthlink.net
While Jon makes some good points, he makes the common mistake of bluring the line between censorship and public funding. It is NOT censorship to not fund a silly art exhibit with my tax money. It would be censorship if the government sent out a tank to run over the silly art, as they do in China.
I don't know if Jon has every lived in another country, but I've lived in a bunch of them, and I promise you that people in the United States have far more freedom than most other countries, including most of Western Europe, let alone the actual dictatorships that abound on our planet.
One of America's most enduring and self-deluded myths is that we are the equvilant of a dictorship, when we are in reality the most free country in the world for almost every human activity.
Who said that ? You can say what you like until you start to make threats. Once you do that, you have caused someone to fear for their life, and that is not permissible. Singer, and his critics can both say what they like, but its the fact that he has to teach in secret that is a problem.
There's nothing really wrong with that, when the couple paid for helth insurance they got coverage. Its the insurace companys responsibility to pay for these things. If you don't like it, don't get insurance.
Most insurance companys, by the way make their money from playing the stock market...
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
But Katz always makes the party interesting.
Good article
The points that you raise are very good ones, but I personally think of it more like this. You argue more for the idea that the infants are human; we can't know for sure, as you say. True. But, is it human to inflict a lifetime of suffering on them and lower their overall quality of life for their ENTIRE existence than it might be to simply kill them? Harsh as that sounds, I know that if I was stricken with a disease (or if I had been diagnosed with AIDS) I would want to be dead. I don't know if others here would feel the same way, but personally I would rather die a quick, relatively painless death than suffer over a period of 7, 8, 9, or however long and drawn out the virus can take to kill you.
One might argue as well that AIDS is a new virus, that we could arguably still find a cure and thus justify the suffering by adding on say 50 years of happiness to the children's lives. But we can't guarantee that. We can only guarantee that they will suffer, and they will suffer painfully. AIDS isn't the only example, although I find it a good one. What about the child being born with cancer of the lungs, or cancer anywhere? We have ways of treating it... but the treatment is often (reputedly) as painful as or more painful than the actual problem. What about kids who won't have the ability to enjoy anything because of society's already drawn lines of "normal" and "abnormal"? Someone who is born with a deficiency such as retardation or missing limbs will never be accepted by society. And although you might point out that "Hey, just because they won't be popular doesn't mean we should kill them!" That's not the point. The point is that they'll be under constant emotional pain; they'll wonder why nobody likes them, they'll wonder why they don't have any friends, or can't go places with the rest of their peers. Emotional pain can be worse than physical pain.
I know your point, I work at a blockbuster which is why I'm AC but I'd like to point out the fact that blockbuster does indeed censor their tapes or rather pressure the movie companies to send them chopped versions or else they wont carry them. Youll never see the movie Kids or Happiness at a blockbuster because theyre NC-17. Eventually R rating will just become NC-17 as noone will carry NC-17 and they're pushing for more and more stuff in R rated films. I consider it heresy what they did to Eyes Wide Shut. Employees arent stupid, most of them know about all the shifty things going on in the corporation such as ripping off customers or delaying pay increases for the employees. see here http://www.blockbustervideosucks.com/ for a list of censored films blockbuster doesnt carry. On and BTW Im glad I've got a japanese copy of disney's song of the south because due to the bastard southern baptist censorship church I'll never be able to buy a legit copy.
I think the point that is being raised is very timely, right now we are in the midst of an ever accelerating high tech age, and many are refusing to even contemplate the ramifications, sticking to a its a GOOD THING(tm) or its a BAD THING(tm) position, without any real in depth discussion. In the past life changed only slowly, so that each new generation would accept things that the previous did not, now we are into massive intra-generational change, and we must all be prepared to constantly re-examine our views as technology and society match forward. That is a freedom that we must allow ourselves and others if we are to avoid becoming split and end with idiocies like Holy Wars which benefits noone.
- Free your mind and the rest will follow
Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
The right of one person to express an idea in now way obligates me to respect that idea, agree with it, or consent to it with my silence.
I don't have a problem with the Brooklyn Museum's current exhibit. I don't have a problem with Giuliani calling it "sick". I do have a problem with Rudy's witholding of funds--particularly his egregious claim that he's witholding the funds because the museum is charging admission to a public building. Still, there remains a deeper question of what obligation the state has to spend money taken by force from its citizens on art, which leads to one of those nasty all-or-nothing propositions that surround the use of "discretionary" funding of any sort.
I don't have a problem with people calling Professor Singer a monster. They have a right to do so; denying them the right is censorship. I don't approve of death threats, naturally: the threat to murder is tantamount to coercion and should be treated accordingly.
But I don't have a problem with the Reform Party calling for Ventura to leave the party, nor with the Republican Party asking Buchanan to leave. Those parties have every right to expect their members to be committed to a particular code of conduct and political agenda. That's not censorship in any sense of the word, because, as you circuitously mentioned, they have other means of expressing their ideas.
--
This is not my sandwich.
... up until this post. I think it is preposterous to suggest that every person who does not convert goes to hell. And I'm a Christian. The Catholic church believes this to be true, but I personally don't find enough compelling evidence in the Bible to support it. Anyway, you may be right and you may be wrong. Nobody knows. You have every right to believe whatever you want. You also have every right to practice your religion, as long as that does not include restricting (through legislation) or violating the rights of others. You also don't have the right to harass others as part of practicing your religion. It is certainly acceptable to promote awareness of your religion in the hope of saving others through advertising and similar means. But the actions of missionaries and some modern Christian groups occasionally crosses over into the realm of harassment or violating anothers rights.
I've also noticed that there seems to be at least as many people who want to take away the rights of Christians to practice their religion as Christians who want to take away the rights of others.
Well, there are billions of diffrent kinds of life on this planet and only a hundred or so diffrent numbers of chromosomes. is that ameba with 43 chromosomes human?
also, some humans have diffrent numbers of chromosomes. are people with downs syndrom *not* human?
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
What entitles a person to human rights?
There are a few conceivable answers. Most people would agree that it can't be the law since we know that slavery is wrong even when it's legal. We need the law to protect our human rights, not to define them.
We should never decide that another person is not entitled to his/her human rights. Science is quite aware of exactly when human life begins. As soon as we introduce exceptions and qualifications into the definition of "personhood", we step onto a slippery slope which endangers all of us. This is what the holocaust was all about.
Legalizing euthanasia or abortion even in special circumstances undermines the equality that we have been fighting so hard for.
Excuse me for pointing this out, however, didn't Mr. Katz propose that everyone trust an AI to filter everything one would see? what kind of freedom is that? and none of his examples were censorship, they were in fact prime examples of freedom of expression. The problem with white christian males yelling about something is that they're rich and vote, and make up too much of the government. They're the Man. But the Man can still say whatever he wants.
Murder is by definition a moral judgment. Killing
is synonomous with ending life. Murder is ending
life unlawfully or unjustly.
Killing a baby that has little chance of survival
is only murder if it is unlawful or unjust. The
argument that the professor was espousing is that
it is NOT unjust and should be lawful.
The distinction is important. Calling him an
advocate of murder is serves only to pass moral
judgement and cloud the issue, in effect to
stiffle discussion rather than foster it.
If YOU believe that infantacide is wrong, even
in these cases, then that is fine. You are free to
make your case for that, but calling him an
"advocate of murder" is not stating your case...
it serves only to turn the discussion away from
the topic and onto the person proposing the topic.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Doesn't that imply censoring the critics?
They smartest thing my Dad ever said was "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it." That should apply equally to Peter Singer as well as the "ideologues, educators, clergymen and dogmatic politicians". Even Dr. Laura.
I'm glad Jesse Ventura has the guts to speak his mind. I'm sure this Playboy thing won't intimidate him. However, the people in the Reform Party whom he has offended have just as much right to be heard. If they don't want to be represented by him any longer, they have the right to say so and to work to that end. Jon, you can't limit your libertarian ideals to one side of the story.
A side issue: Guiliani withholding taxpayer money does not equal censorship. The artist is still free to produce his/her art, but that doesn't mean that we, the taxpayers, have to pay for it. Forcing us to pay for art that we think is crap is elitism.
Another side issue: Jon is playing the threadbare "envy/hatred of the rich" card in describing the genetic engineering issue. Generalized to the whole medical industry: Would you rather have Canada's socialist medicine whose state of the art is effectivly stuck in the seventies? In a (reletively) free market, as new medical technologies become available, they are expensive and only available to the rich, but as the state of the art progresses, the costs come down. What you end up with is the rich subsidising the R&D.
Jon, are you suggesting that new technologies be denied from the rich because others cannot afford them? If we did that, progress would all but stop, and many of the low cost technologies that we enjoy today never would have matured, and the people hurt the most by this misguided altruism would be the poor.
My only comment on this article is about the example of the Virgin Mary painting. The only problem I had with this painting is that (and this is just my understanding) tax payer money was used to fund it/display it. If you were a Christian/Catholic living in New York City, would you like it if someone used some of your money to paint something that appears to be defamatory of your religion? I know I wouldn't. If, however, the person used their own money to fund it and a private museum with no government funding wanted to display it, fine. From what I read in the article, David Bowie said he'd put it on his website. Fine. That is his choice. I don't think his website is government funded. While I do not like the painting myself, my problem is not with the painting, it is with where the money came from to paint it/display it. And before you go off about saying "that's just discriminating what should be taxpayer funded and what shouldn't" let me say this: I don't think any art should be government funded, period. If I am incorrect in my understanding of the situation, please correct me.
Translation: I haven't given the issue any solid thought, but it bugs me that some people are using a strong, clear word like "murder", and I'm afraid that will focus my thinking too much. Theyfore, they are practicing censorship.
Hogwash. While words are powerful, they are not that powerful. Polemics are not censorship. Else you'd be guilty of "censorship" by your vilification of Singer's critics here.
It may seem "simple-minded," but it's actually the entire point. Singer says that killing handicapped babies isn't murder. His opponents say that it is. That's the substance of the debate, and if you're not comfortable with the terminology, that's more a reflection on you than on Singer's critics.
It has been without exception poorly thought out, puerile flame-bait.
Ok, perhaps what Guiliani technically did here was censorship. But you must remember, these art exhibits are based largely on city funds. There is NOTHING stopping them from privately creating and exhibiting such 'art'. And there is nothing in our Constitution which says we must support and pay for others speach. Public funds should be spent to please the greater public, not just some fringe liberals.
Turn this censorship argument around. If this were a Neo-Nazi or Anti-Black exhibit, would the liberals still be crying blooding murder? If Guiliani rushed to their defence, what do you think they would say? While both have a constitutional right to free speach, they don't have the right to do so on the city dollars. The central theme here is, if it is against the "established majority" (aka: WASPs and christianity), all is fine and well. But if anyone dare make such an assault on any other group, be it Islam, Blacks, you name it; holy hell will be raised. It is hypocritical, plain and simple.
Besides I think the artwork sucks, where is the artistry? Why should a city spend millions on this crap, when there are better places to spend it?
Wow, a lot of people are really getting a lot of mileage out of the contradiction that flames are an attempt to suppress another's free speech and at the same time, are protected by free speech rules. It seems like the point of Katz's article was, wouldn't it be nice if we lived in a society of mature adults? Kinda pointless to point it out, but it's true enough. I see lots of complaints that this stuff doesn't belong on Slashdot, but it seems to be what draws people. Maybe it's not strictly news for nerds - more like controversy for nerds, maybe. But I like it. I don't come here for advice on setting up Linux (I'll do that in newsgroups and mailing lists - that's what they're for). I don't come here just to read about the newest doo-dad that comes out. That's usually pretty dull unless of particular interest to me. I like to read interesting viewpoints and see how people respond to it. I do have a suggestion, though. Currently slashdot is organized in a thread manner. Conversations develop, just like in Newsgroups. I'm not sure this is the right paradigm to use - it's making for bad dialogue. It might cut down on the flames if all posts in response to a story were top-level. It would be impossible to directly respond to anyone else's posts. I think this would have the effect of reducing the flame-wars, since flaming looks real silly with no obvious target. But, it might make for fewer posts which might not be the goal here at slashdot (even if the posts were of higher average quality).
it's beacuse there posting as AC. so there score starts out at 0. there's no moderation going on
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Discrimination is wrong no matter what social/economic/racial/gender group you belong to. Just because WMCs have traditionally been the holders of power doesn't mean they are fair game for discrimination or persecution. If you hope to ever live in a society that is free from discrimination, persecution, racism, etc. you have to protect the rights of EVERYBODY.
not all ideas are good
we are free to denounce some of them
shut up
-I go to Rice, so figure out my email address
The subject of this Message is the Jack Williamson book "Brother to Demons, Brother to Gods" (yes it is SF)which describes our future earth after genetic engineering takes place. Mankind (as such) is divided into: Premen (people like us, unmodified humanity), Trumen (the purified human race), Mumen (genetically modified humans that can live in hazardous environments) and Gods (purified humans that have been genetically modified with ET material). This book sums up one view on this topic and should be a quick read for anyone interested in it.
Next up on the hit parade is world food supply. Sorry world food supply is not declining. Even the UN doesn't say THAT. What is said is that the current food supply is not well delivered to all people who need it (that is an economic and supply problem, NOT a growth and production problem).
Finally freedom in the US. Yes there are many sources trying to censor citizens within the US. When distribution of information was limited to expensive hardcopy output there was only a small chance of stopping "unliked" information. In cold war Poland, mimeograph machines (black market) were used to distribute information against a far more dictatorial regime than most US citizens can imagine. And they did that without mimeograph carbons, too! (typewriters and aluminum foil were the answer). As the distribution of information moves to a softcopy over a redundant digital system, censorship becomes a meat-ax approach by governments willing to stop the free flow of discussion (witness China blocking news sites). With the advent of satellite phone systems, there will be no way to stop distribution of information on a global scale to any point on the planet. Couple that with inexpensive receivers and the only way to censor information is to live in a non-technological setting. Self-censorship is the best form of censorship and we will all learn how to practice it, eventually (both on the consuming and generating side of information).
Finally, as for the screening of infants for genetic problems... many maladies are NOT genetic. Your chance of becoming a diabetic is only raised a couple of percent if there is a background of it in your family (it is a widespread condition, influenced by many factors of which genetics is only the smallest part). Other conditions, such as a prediliction for certain types of cancer, are only an increase in probability, not a certainty of getting the disease. Perhaps genetic engineering can cure us of these problems. Perhaps not. But any rational discourse on the subject must start with an understanding that quantity of life is not the same as quality of life. Parents make decisions for infants/ children which you may not agree with, and which may be harmful in the long run to the child. Is this wrong? And if it is, what is the solution? (argument is one avenue...how about making parents get a license to have children?) Can the discussion on the topic even be started? If not, why not?
==========JM==========
Your global village idiot!
I hate the fallout from the brooklyn museum, but in a way the curators deserved what happened. I've recieved grants that were partialy funded by the NEA, and some of my subject matter I'm sure would have made Jesse Helms jet green flame out of his ass, but looking at the decisions the curators made, i can't see them as free speech heroes.
Religion and Art have been intertwined since both of them began, and even though I personally see nothing in the works in questions but some moderate art ability coupled with sensationalistic content to grab attention, I would defend funding for it. The funny thing is the artist didn't recieve any public funds, but the fallout from this has brought back the same tired jabs at the NEA. This is a Bad Thing for the art community, brought about by some half-assed jerk who was grabing for his 15 minutes of fame the easy way.
Here's the real problem I have with the museums self righteous defence. Everyone involved in the decisions over the content of the show was Jewish. Last year an exibit was thrown out that had defaced stars of david and swastikas. It was considered anti-semetic. In all fairness in an age of political correctness, where anything with tinges of anti-semitism is viewed on a backdrop of the holocost it's possible that the curators completely forgot the fact that judaism is a religion. It still begs the question why did two jews give a big stamp of approval for a series of anti-catholic pieces and the boot to the anti-judaism exibit.
This whole controversy is a blow to free speech, race relations, it makes me ill to think about it. The true anti-semites got a PR boost, the folks who try and kill the miserable dribble of money that the federal government contributes to art are having revival, black, black times for the arts.
perhaps you should take some remedial reading classes, as you clearly have some sort of trouble with the english language.
in the meantime, if you can't understand Katz's writing, don't read it.
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Just thinking about it old media look for sensationalist interpretations because it sells more, so giving an instant viewpoint to the reader / viewer. They profit from people reading their views which are designed to inflame, /. works the other way, by trying to elicit understanding from others. If you think about a Bell curve, old media are at one extreme or another where /. is more in the more central 1-2-3 sigma region, and profit comes from participation, anyone who posts extreme views without building a framework around it as support is moderated down, so extreme views have to be backed with more than "cos I say so", you can lead a man to /. and after enough time, he WILL begin to think. If an extreme view is backed by some persausive arguement, then the Bell curve will move slowly, but inexerably towards a new midpoint closer to that view. So more /. and its ilk, the more chance to explore rather than deplore those with different views. You didnt know you were part of a social revolution did you?
Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
Since when do I have less of a right to say 'No, that's wrong don't do it.' than anyone else does to say 'Yes, that's a good idea, do it.'??
Well, why you certanly should have the right to say that you shouldn't do it, you certanly should not be able to stop someone from doing it. Its there choice not yours. and if you don't like it, well thats two fucking bad.
Remember, the world is not yours to do with what you want. People saying 'yes that's ok' and 'no that's not OK, don't do it' have equal footing. nither has any control. of course the people saying 'yes' already agree with the person who will be doing it.
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Please feel free to exercise your ethical responsibility and remove yourself from the gene pool.
"The Brooklyn Museum of Art faces the loss of a third of its annual budget, even eviction, because the mayor of New York City finds a painting in an exhibit offensive." First it is not just the mayor of NY who finds the exhibit offensive. Second that third of their budget are tax dollars. No one has said that they do not have the right to exhibit their art but that does not mean that they can use my tax dollars to do it.
Re: The Brooklyn Museum art exhibit
Since when does freedom = taxpayer financing to allow wider distribution of your free speech?
The artist is free to create the work, David Bowie is free to display it on his Web site. That's all freedom is. Freedom != funding.
For a good argument against the exhibit, read this Salon article.
You mention Princeton's Dyson and Princeton's Singer. Dyson is at the Institute for Advanced Study (http://www.ias.edu/) while Singer is at the University (http://www.princeton.edu/)
t ml).
They are unrelated institutions in the same town. For the IAS think Einstein. For the University think Fitzgerald (dropped out, see http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/7734/cdoaa.h
I agree that the if money is going to go to art it should be doled out reguardless of content or personal opinions. The problem is that it is not done this way. Right now it is the "in" thing to do to knock anything and everything Christian. If this artist had decided to deface African or Native American religeous symbols I am sure the press would be all over him for mocking that particular ethnic group.
I liked the article even if it did ramble a bit.
As an American who was raised overseas I have had
the chance to see both sides of the coin. I can
state from being in "my" country for 25 years
now that I have yet to see anything but blatant
rigid intolerance for any differences so often
as to color my own support of "my" country.
I may not agree with Springer but I think that
he is being persecuted. Guards,locked class rooms
and an concealed office. How would you feel if
you were in his shoes?
Change is bad and we dont want to have to think!
"80% of all human wisdom comes from figuring out that no one else has a right to dabble in someone else's business." Paraphrased from R.A. Heinlein For those of you out there who believe that this article is rambling b.s., ask yourself this: if someone was advocating that which is in itself anathema to you, and something that you would die to keep from becoming popular belief, wouldn't you try to stop it? Wouldn't you do everything in your power to keep it from happening? Would you not consider a culture that does such a thing barbaric, or uncivilized? Would they not think you uncivilized for not doing this thing?
The amount of hype myth and outright lies in your pathetic rant is incredible. To respond to every one of your irrational comments would take more time then you are worth so I will just say this; Your assumption about the internet and technology in general borders on ignorant. Who and what has technology or the internet made free?
Just answer this one question: Do you believe this planet can support an infinite number of people? Ah ha. Didn't think so. Something has to give sooner or later, this is why violence is so widespread. Ever seen the mouse experiment? They supplied them with as much food as they wanted and watched the population explode. After a while they got extremely violent and only a few ended up surviving. Look familiar??
It seems to me that Mr. Katz has fallen into one of the great liberal intellectual traps. Obviously, his point is that freedom of speech is not an absolute. Only the most rabidly patriotic (or possibly just stupid) would argue with him. As an example of how the good old USA treats those who try to exercise their right of free speech, he gives us Jesse "The Mind" Ventura, Governor of Minnesota. The reaction which has raised Mr. Katz's ire, is that of several leaders within the Reform Party, of which Ventura is a part. Now... if Ventura's statements are protected under the Bill of Rights, as they obviously are, exactly what makes the views of these unnamed politicians invalid? Other than the fact that Mr. Katz disagrees with them, nothing. While arguing against censorship, he himself is covering some opinions under a blanket of acceptibility, and leaving others on the outside looking in. The Reform Party is not intended as a haven of complete free speech, nor are most other organizations. The Reform Party's business is to get it's members elected to high office. If they believe the statements of one of their member to be counterproductive, they have every right to take action. The same goes for Pat Buchanan and the Republican Party, though I would argue that in his case, long-term frustration with his extremist views are the real cause of tension, not one statement with the potential to embarass his party. As for the case of Peter Singer, obviously, his statements are also protected under the first amendment. Just as obviously, his ideas are controversial. For every person with an idea on one end of the spectrum, there will be a person at the other extreme end who will label the idea pure idiocy. This is his right, just as it is the right of the first person to propound the idea in the first place. Neither has the right to threaten or use force in the process of declaring his opinion, however. That Singer has in fact been threatened is tragic, and does indeed say something about our country. However, the overreactions of a few extremists is not a good indication of the overall environment of the country. Is Singer going to face official opposition because of his opinion? No. Will he be imprisoned or forced to recant? No. Would any attack on his person be regarded legally as a heinous act and prosecuted? Yes. Obviously, the nation has a problem with a few people who think violence is an acceptible response to a difference of opinion. I doubt anyone is going to rationally argue that we don't. However, to indict all of society based on this problem seems ludicrous. As ludicrous, in fact, as denying the right of free response to another's free speech.
If abortion is okay, then why isn't it okay to kill a newborn?
Katz, you have a goofy argument. Singer publicly made his argument and is not in prison. The fact that others publicly disagree with him does not make this some kind of dictatorship.
What does make this a dictatorship of the 51% is that I risk prison for holing up for a weekend with a couple of hookers and a bag of weed.
As a non-American, I find it so interesting the way Americans look at themselves, as a free country. Take off your star spangled rose coloured glasses and see that your country is ruled by a military industrial complex and a party of fierce advertisers. Your privacy rights are the worst, your hypocritical media portrayals disgusting.
I find it quite interesting that the same people who spout, "Just don't buy it, then!" when the discussion is about pornography in general, get so upset when the mayor of New York simply decides he isn't going to buy a pornographic and overtly offensive museum exhibit.
Not buying something is not censorship. Mayor Giuliani is simply not buying.
This infringes no ones rights. Forcing the taxpayers to support something they generally find repugnant definitely infringes their rights, though.
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
If there's ever another war between people who will not stand to see innocent children slaughtered like pigs by eugenicist nazi scumbags (that's you Peter Singer fans out there), sign me up ASAP. I'll be glad to help settle this in the trenches. I'm tired of debating this issue. Who's with me? :)
I'm surprised the average /. reader finds this worthy of debate.
(On the other hand, the moral issues he raised as examples are certainly worthy of debate both on /. and elsewhere)
-XDG
hey, you forgot a few. while you're at it, how about filipinos, australian aborigines.... anyone notice that there are no native tasmanians anymore? that's because the christians killed every single last one. yet, that was katz's whole point. when you bring something like that up for discussion, like ventura did, people immediately start foaming at the mouth instead of having a rational discussion about it. i'm seeing a lot of criticism of this article, but it's usually by complete and utter morons. please, read the fscking thoroughly before criticizing.
You piss and moan about people exercising their right to disagree calling it censorship and whining how unfair it is. The entire basis for your simpering rant is because you do not like the actions of those whose opinions differ from yours. Could you possibly be more hypocritical?
Could someone get elected ANYWHERE to a major office being an avowed atheist? Doubtful. So much for freedom of religion. I want freedom *from* religion.
.02
My
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
I'm far from poor, but I paid for neither of my color TVs. One was a gift from my parents over fifteen years ago, one was my grandfather's and no ones else in the family had a use for it when he passed on.
One friend who is genuinely poor (she's disabled by severe OCD and receives SSI and food stamps) has both a color TV (12 inch or so) and a computer (486 with Win3.1). Both were cast-offs from middle-class friends who had upgraded to bigger screens and faster processors. Neither one helps her out when the landlord raises the rent, or her food stamps are cut.
But the computer (or, rather AOL) does help her stay in touch with friends, and find information and support for her mental illness. Her biggest worry on the tech front is that AOL keeps upgrading - or bloating - their software, and she can't upgrade her hardware to keep up.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Okay let's knock us out some taboos man! Let's start with:
Discussing making it legal for adults to have sex with minors (which is already legal for the CIA);
Talk about legalizing crack cocaine
Legalizing polygamy
Doing away with child support
Retroactive abortions
Killing people when their lives become too expensive to justify (see: welfare recipients)
Closing US borders to Mexicans NOW
Doing away with the unproductive races of the world
Yeah man let's break down those nasty taboos, especially all the ones that were put up to push us towards the pinnacle of civilization and away from wild, hateful, impulsive, bloodthirsty animals.
Way to go, Katz, way to fraggin' go.
.. no one is stopping you from going door to door handing out tracts and spreading the belief that there is no God.
.. it is arrogant indeed to suggest that you know what's best for everybody else.
Did he say that anybody was stopping him from doing that? No. That isn't the frickin' point. The point is, he could go out banging on people's doors and passing out leaflets about the God myth, but he chooses not to because doing so would be intrusive, presumptuous, and just plain rude. Same goes for Christians. I'm sure we all appreciate your good intentions, but I'll do what's best for me, thank you very much
Every morning, after I have succombed to the evils of temptation and vanity, I look in horror at my besodden bed sheets... as all the little beings die in writhing agony. Oh the horror!
One of those could have become the next Nobel Peace Prize winner.........
I'm probably just bringing up an old flame here, but I'll say it again anyways.
That actually brings up an idea in my mind that even "The electronic frontier" is still subject to its censorship. Slashdot's message forum is moderated.
Even though you can "Set your profile" to see even the moderated messages, the default is not to. This seems synonymous to IE's "Defaulting" to install with 95, and you can "Change it later" if you want.
Is censorship a part of human nature? It almost seems so.
And before you go slamming the usage of the word "fuck", ask yourself why one four character string can invoke such a repulsive reaction in you. Seems like they've already gotten to you...
Normally, I find Jon Katz's articles to be well-thought and well-written. Even when I didn't agree with his opinion or views, I could not refute his facts. But this one is worth writing about, because it concerns something I have been to court over. I'll try to keep this short.
"Some leaders of the Reform Party are demanding Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura's ouster because of a Playboy interview in which he said, among other things, that people who support organized religion are weak-minded and needy."
Most america-bashers seem unable to realize there is a difference between government action and citizen action. They don't understand that it is possible for a government to be (relatively) benign, while citizens fight verbally, sometimes physically, over opinions. They don't understand that the Reform Party is not the same as the US Government.
If Jesse Ventura has that opinion, good for him. If that opinion is not that of the Reform Party, and if the Reform Party wants to alienate one of their party members, then Mr. Ventura should reevaluate his commitment to that party.
I think the fact that a pro wrestler interviewed for Playboy who insults organized religion is an example of free speech that could only happen in America. Let's see you do that in Italy, Iraq, or India. I also thinks it just plain 'kicks ass,' but that is my opinion.
"The First Amendment has never been a particularly popular one. Americans have always embraced freedom until somebody says something they don't like. Then they like to fire the offenders, chase them away, close them down."
If the first amendment has not been popular, American society would not be so based in it. Anyone who thinks the first amendment is _not_ popular should pick up a newspaper, and realize that without the first amendment, that newspaper would never have been printed.
Just because you say something doesn't mean that other people agree with it. And people who have been fired for saying something improper often have to face the court.
And I should point out if you voice opinions in some asian, african, middle-eastern, south american, and european countries, you will be lucky if you are only shot.
"When New York Mayor Guiliani threatened to shut down the Brooklyn Museum for displaying a painting of a black Madonna with a clump of elephant dung affixed to her chest, singer David Bowie announced he was putting the "offending" exhibit up on his website."
Guiliani is a bad example, because he is insane. Ask any New Yorker. We will ignore for the moment that this same artist thought a bloody decapitated cow's head with maggots and flies in an open plastic box was art, that one was right down the hall from the Black Madonna. The important part is, Just because you have the right to 'express' yourself doesn't mean you have the right to money or attention from someone. You have the right to speak, you do not have the right to make others listen or they compensate you for your speech.
"If America really were a free country, Singer would be able to talk about his ideas in the open, in a classroom without guards. He'd be able to list his classes in the catalogue along with the other profs. The Net, at least, makes it certain that these controversial memes will at least be considered."
The last sentence is beautiful. The first requires a bitchslap of reality. You cannot hold the actions or reactions of a small group of lunatics to demonstrate the behavior of the whole of society. I would point out the Columbine massacre or the Oklahoma City bombing as prime examples, and note how rare those circumstances truly are, and how condemned they are by society.
What Jon Katz misses here is that he thinks a 'free' country is one where all its citizens are safe from every conceivable factor and element in their society. This is not physically possible (oh, but how beautiful and wonderous it would be if it was!). I think that a 'free' country is where one has protections from one's own government, to act and express their opinions without fear of Gestapo, Kremlin, or other Thought Police.
There is no shortage of stupid people.
The USA has some who believe the USA can do no wrong, and is the epitome of freedom.
Most USA citizens do not believe the US is perfect, or infallible. Most World citizens don't, either.
Most Americans (and World citizens) know, from both fact and history, that the USA *does* try to do the "right thing", even through it can backfire or fail, either due to human error, greed or corruption.
But that does not stop us from trying. Many hateful coutries have pledged to kill all Americans, yet there is no country the USA has pledged to destroy. Think about that.
The USA, and her powerful global peers and allies, do not believe the world is perfect, only that through democracy and a free market, people can live better than under totalitarianism or communism.
Oh yes, Katz has a right to his opinion, but that doesn't mean he isn't a clueless idiot. If people do have souls that exist past death, there are souls of all races and nationalities crying out in disgust at the foolishness and ignorance of this little man.
Abortion seems to be the preferred method of euthanasia in this country. Yet in many states where abortion is legal, a drunk driver who kills a pregnant mother is charged with negligent homicide in the death of the unborn child. The pro-choice movement argues that abortion a woman's reproductive right. They seem to be against prostitution. Then again how many Right-to-Life folks are for Capital Punishment. We need more technology to give us more free speech so someone can explain all these damn paradoxes to me. Regards,
And just because there are people who are less free than you, that doesn't make you free.
If you want to live in a completely free society (anarchy, if you're catching on), you must be responsible. Obviously, the system wouldn't work if people harmed others constantly. Notice I didn't say "if everyone did what they wanted," because since when is it a person's first impulse is to harm others? If murder wasn't against the law, would there be more of them? Or does something other than laws, like our own sense of responsibility, community, and ethics that prevents this?
Who is he to speak for me on this very spcific issue. _I_ give money to the artists _through_ him. The artists decide what to draw. Now if he makes bad invetsment choices I will not vote for him. And to punish the museum is a very bad invetment choice... Do you get the idea?
Actually I was trying to say,
:)
Your 'right to denounce Singer' is perfectly fine.
* I ended up making up a word "You'r" as in "Your bicycle". *
As in "freedom to denounce"
But let me give it up since I think people got the general idea
Sorry!
My sig was done by a buddy of mine who's really into SW.
Steven Rostedt
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
All the jousting over the minutia of legalities vs. social tyranny miss the point.
Many of the themes I see in the various works of Mr. Katz seem to revolve around social hysteria and the psychoses that our society, as a whole, seem to be stricken with. Personal freedoms, whether by law or by custom, do not amount to much when society reacts to the slightest provocation like a skittish school of fish.
We are bored folks. It is human nature to complain, and this trait will always be with us. People will complain about whatever is on their mind. In a land of bounty, if a hangnail is all you have to complain about, then complain you will. People will scream bloody murder over who's fault their hangnail is right up until the day they lose an arm. It's all about perspective.
We need a Frontier, big time. A challenging, even deadly, Frontier. When there are no significant challenges to survival, society loses perspective on what really matters. When you're busy trying to survive you don't have time for psychoses.
We can't all be on the frontier, of course, but frontier perspectives help to balance social discourse. I guarantee we'd have more voices like Ventura if we *did* have another frontier.
Keep up the good work, Katz. It is not difficult to see the themes in your work; at least not nearly as difficult as many of these ninnies insist.
Mojotoad
Most people just don't appreciate what they have. Go live in Somalia for a few years and you'll understand. I'm disappointed Slashdot posted this idiot's views. Obviously this is someone who is morally corrupted and wants everyone else to be too so he can feel better about his own moral decay. I've noticed Slashdot posts a lot of links with opposing views ... NOT! Sad. If you only really understood the purpose of religion. My father served in Korea. When he returned and went to college, he had a professor in 1948 that predicted that the US wouldn't collapse from an invasion by an outside force, but from within. I see it slowly happening today, just look at the sucess of the Democrat/Commies party today. Common sense. Faith in God. Take responsibility for yourself, quit complaining and don't blame others/society for your problems - look within. You can be anything you want in the USA, but YOU have to do it. Nothing is guaranteed, life isn't always fair. Follow these rules and you will be successful. Simple.
lack of reader comprehension does not imply stupid author.
Sorry, no: you're badly misinterpreting the situation. Katz gets a free ride- he has the ability to post stories unedited and without direction. He abuses this privilege. ;) ). However, I and most Slashdot readers have a problem with Katz not being subject to editorial judgement, not being subject to the standards any normal person would be held to when trying to get stories on Slashdot.
Look- I tried to contribute something to Slashdot, too. I erred in thinking self-promotion would work, I erred in underestimating the need for specifically Linux stuff- what I suggested was this page of mine: http://www.airwindows.com/rotsos/index. html. This is the first appearance of a GPLed game terrain engine, more accurately of a method for deriving insanely detailed data from a particular sort of datafile of limited size (16M).
I have movies up, I have pictures, I have the (REALbasic, but think of it as 'pseudo-code') GPLed source code up. I've put months, _years_ into this work, there's lots more still to do, and I wanted to get serious publicity for it specifically so that any ideas worth keeping from it couldn't ever be patented. To me that was worth giving up any notion of profit or control from the ideas themselves (on the other hand, it'd be fun to make a game from such ideas and try to sell the art and concept around the game, with the engine being completely open but the story and art copyrighted works being sold).
Well, I miscalculated, and I accept that. Silly of me to even try self-promoting and submitting my own story in hopes of it being run on Slashdot (not to mention not having Linux binaries, but that's more than I can do currently). Rejection sucks, but it happens when you and your audience mismatch. (I'm not going to try and go to Freshmeat until I can come up with proper Linux code, which might be a while yet, as I'm getting no help from anyone on any of this).
And meanwhile, blithely, Jon Katz takes up the space I was denied- not working hard and trying to bring innovative ideas to Slashdotters like I was, oh no! Instead, he's a rabblerouser! He's descended to where he is only restating other Slashdot articles, in the most inflammatory manner possible, couching it in tired rhetoric.
I have no problem whatsoever with Slashdot using editorial judgement and witholding publicity from me personally, or any ideas I might have. Decisions have to be made and there are worse things than not being given a story on slashdot (if you're a server, the 'worse thing' might _be_ getting a story on slashdot
I agree with you on one point only. Let Katz write- on the privacy of his own Mac. There is no reason for him to be 'published', and if you are for one second suggesting that his empty restatement of the Singer story is 'ideas more valuable' than the months of GPLed game engine algorithm work I tried to bring to Slashdotters' attention as a story, you're out of your mind.
It's not even that what I had to offer was so great- I think it's pretty cool, and you could adapt the ideas to many things, and those ideas can be kept safe from patents with glaring publicity, but what the hey, it's just some fun code. But compared to this?
Let Katz write- don't let him POST. He can put his ideas in the queue like anybody else. He doesn't deserve special treatment, he doesn't deserve editorial status. Let him post comments like your average MEEPT!.
Every morning, after I have succombed to the evils of temptation and vanity, I look in horror at my besodden bed sheets... as all the little beings die in writhing agony. Oh the horror!
Clearly, you are the worst mass murderer since Cecil B. DeMille. Luckily, further transgressions of this nature will likely wind you up in prison. Bob Barr and Tom DeLay, right-wing hardcore Christian fundamentalists in the United States House, have recently written a piece of legislation that would criminalize masturbation, along with other forms of "unclean self-touching."
The bill, called the "Sperm's Right to Fertilize Act", would make illegal any non-vaginal male ejaculation. Some of the less-fundamentalist sponsors suggested the addition of the words "and non-esophagal". Mark my words, this bill will pass, and then you can expect to see time in the big house for your Satanic twiddling. Remember, when you beat your meat, you might as well be spitting in the face of God.
Stick to porking good Christian wives (preferably your own.)
People have been saying we all pay for such care through insurance and gov't programs. The inference seems to be that in a free market that wouldn't be so.
But even in situation where you only get what you pay for, we all would pay for the care of the disabled. How? If you are rich and can afford to hire the care your disabled child needs, the care you've hired can't be used for other things. If I can't get to a doctor/nurse/practitioner because he or she is busy taking care of someone else, I pay too.
How we use our resources, who gets what and why are perennial, questions.
Seth
You know, maybe someone else has said this before (I wasn't going to read through the 400+ comments to find out!) but in my opinion censorship is bad, plain and simple. Why? Because it doesn't address the real problem. Aside from terminating the lives of the handicapped (which I'm not even sure on; I need to think it over before I've made up my mind) there are plenty of issues where the solution always seems to be censorship. Clearly, it's not working.
1. Child Pornography is illegal and currently censored in a manner of speaking. Yes it is absolutely disgusting. Most of America would agree it sickens us. We've made it illegal and lock up those who violate the law and publish / purvey such stuff. And what good has it done. Every year we lock up several thousand child pornographers. Next year we will lock up just as many in prison. Did making it illegal and censoring it affect the rate of it happening? Absolutely not. We come up with punishments for those who commit such things. But we never target the underlying problem -- why is it happening? How can we prevent it from happening? Treatment and analysis are skipped for the quick fix of locking them up in prison. Just like the handicapped babies: instead of discussing and analysing, we revile, ignore, and refuse to even discuss the idea.
2. 'Offensive' television. I love the use of the word 'Offensive' in this context. SouthPark obviously made itself worthy of the 'Offensive' label. So in response, instead of raising children with good morals to recognize that this was TV and not real, and that we shouldn't act like that EVER, Networks in their infinite wisdom censor the show, move it to a late time slot, what have you. All they did was made a martyr out of it.
I could come up with more I guess. But I'm sick and tired of seeing censorship as the answer. It doesn't work. It's a surface cure so we can get around addressing the real problem. As long as we continue to promote censorship as the answer to our problems civilization will not advance one iota. God bless America!
Yes...until such time as the law is changed
(which probably will never happen but, if it
does...) it *IS* murder.
However...was he saying that right now couples
should kill unfit babies? or was he arguing that
they SHOULD be able to. Saying that they should
have the choice is not advocating killing, but
advocating changing the law and the general
society itself to where it is acceptable
(and thus no longer legal murder).
There is a difference between saying "It should
be legal, its not morally wrong in my book" and
"Damn the law, lets just do it".
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
My main argument against the termination/euthanasia/whatever term you want to use is both emotional and practical. Emotionally, I think it's just wrong. Practically speaking, a good illustration of why it is wrong can be summed up in one person. St ephen Hawking.
He wasn't born disabled, but if his parents could have looked at his genes and see how he would suffer as he grew, they would have been appalled. They might have even considered it a blessing to terminate him as an infant to spare him the suffering. If they had done so, they would have snuffed out a life that was not only full, but truly pushed the envelope of human understanding.
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
First of all, you spelled cerebral wrong in your sig
He spelled Cuisinart wrong as well...Must be too much television.
Would you be this offended if I were trying to stop you from running full speed off of a cliff, just because you didn't know it was there?
.02
If I was peacefully sitting at a red light in my Ford Escort at the time, yes. Theists don't understand that their particular delusion is not shared by all. I'm sorry if this comes off as particularly sardonic, but I find it terribly insulting, this line of defense that you offer.
Theists can't even tell us about the seen (think Gallileo), and they presume to tell us about the *unseen*?? How ironic.
Don't call us, we'll call you.
My
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
I think some of you may have missed the distinction between active and passive euthanasia. That is, the distinction between withdrawing treatment (which may include but is not limited to life support, food and water) and actively euthanising. Presently, the first is considered O.K. and the second is verboten. I believe that whichever side of the issue one stands on, this is hypocritical. Also note that, terminally ill newborns is what is being mentioned here (in other words, newborns who otherwise have no prospects for survival, i.e. anencephalic babies).
Freedom is the bedrock of our country's way of living, but it's important to understand just what freedom is and how it is framed. The same founding fathers that sounded the cry of "Life, Liberty and the persuit of happiness" also understood that freedom does not mean liberty without boundries. Limits must be set between your rights to hapiness, and my right to keep the money that you try to steal from me to have your happiness, for example.
Thomas Jefferson said in defense of a Virginia Statute on Religious liberty:
"to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation
of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical"
Freedom and anarchy are not synonyms. Government is a necessary and proper institution for confirmation and definition of the boundaries between personal freedoms. The First Amendment guarantees your right to express your opinion. The means is entirely up to you, however I should not be compelled to pay your salary, or livelyhood, or advertising space, or any other enablement to the expression of your opinion which may be repugnant).
You will not hear me express the idea that you should not be free to express your opinion here. Slashdot is one of the facilities on the web to foster communication and the free exchange of ideas. You and I however do not have absolute freedom to express whatever we want.
I'm sure that our astute hosts would remove posts that are patently offensive to the majority of participants. If someone posted nude pictures on slashdot, they would have every right to pull the post. After all, it's their quarter!
The Brooklyn Museum is supported by public funds. These funds have been given to the government with a variety of states of cheerfulness. In any case, we render to Caesar that which is Caesar's. Under our republican form of government, (who convinced you that we live in a democracy?) our representatives have been given authority to disburse funds by the consent of the governed. The Mayor has every right to do what is in his power to insure that these funds are used wisely. I give him credit for stepping to the plate and taking responsibility. In today's environment of excessive burecracy it's too easy to say "well, that's the system". Entire sectors of public spending evade blame by carefully crafted obfuscation. If we don't (or can't) know who is to blame, we can't exercise our ability to exert our opinion (and our vote)
for or against the person behind the decision.
Peter Singer is a man living under the common and usual and customary restrictions outlined here. He does not stand apart due to the unique nature of his opinions. Too many times, the faculty of our universities have not held professors accountable for their teachings. You seem to have a problem with university contributors, trustees, and advocates for the handicapped expressing their opinions and fulfilling their duties and callings in this matter. No doubt you consider this to be somewhat less than an attempt to censor their views. There's no knowing what would happen if university contributors exercised control of what their money was spent for!
What I am most discouraged about, is our waning belief in right and wrong. The fundamental principles that our country has been built on are being erroded by "politically correct" fallacies that are being propagated. I have a fundamental belief that sooner or later, a lot of people in our country will realize that relativism is the cancer that eats away at our national inheritance. We in this country are getting the cart before the horse. We have come to believe that the "national discourse" is designed to bring all the facts into the open so that the nation can decide what is right from wrong. This differs radically from our responsibility to DISCERN what is right and wrong. We do not determine the truth or "rightness" of a thing through our opinion, either singly or in aggregate. We can only seek the truth as it exists. Your opinion as to the safety of walking across a busy highway has no effect whatsoever on the mathamatical probability that you will be smashed into the pavement. This is the way of a real world. We have, to our detriment, confused "the thing" with our perceptions of "the thing". We reduce our world, and our importance itself, when we espouse the nonsense that what is true for me is not necessarily true for you. Relativism is a contradiction to reality itself. It is a fundamental philosophical atom that a thing cannot be both true and untrue at the same time.
(Unless, of course, you are talking about quantum computing states!)
I applaud your struggle to formulate an opinion on the grey areas of current medical research and capabilities, both realized and forecasted. Don't, however, view your struggle as a search for your "truth", but as a seeker's journey for "the truth". There DOES exist "right" and "wrong" here, and it's your job, responsibility, and calling to discover that truth.
There was a man, 2000 years ago who asked the question "what is truth?". He was blown by the same winds that much of our society is being moved by today. You mention patriotism as visualized by some "blockheads" in the country as inhibiting the ability to appreciate the genius of our fouding fathers. I am in perfect agreement. The people that framed our nation were wise beyond belief. They were men who shared a common vision, to establish a country and a system of government based on what's right. You can see in EVERY document that has survived the test of time, that they were men who believed in right and wrong. "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." presupposes a couple of ideas. The fathers believed that there was truth, and that it could be less than self-evident. They were able to avoid the "lazy thinking" that is dispensed today through the conventional media outlets. It is easy to suppose that things are relative. If you base your life that way, it's no longer necessary to convince, discuss, debate, or decide. The removal of the imperitive removes the imperitive. It becomes much easier , as all you need is a consensus. Democracy becomes a much more compelling idea, and as it is embraced by the masses, mob rule replaces the
ordered republic of our astute fathers. They were thinking, moral men who knew the value of someone being given authority and responsibility to decide. We all shoulder that burden. There are things that we need to decide and boundries to be choosen. We need to fulfill the calling of government to protect the framed liberty of all of it's citizens. Those that have life must be protected, and those things that need to be done must be done.
Let's get up off of our lazy backsides and make some choices. If we don't, someone will choose for us.
Sure, the 1st amendment gives USAns the right of free speech. Katz seems to be arguing that speach should also be free of unpleasant consequences.
Or is he saying that free speech doesn't include disagreeing with others? If Jesse Ventura says "people who support organized religion are weak-minded and needy", that's free speech. If I say he's wrong, why that's censorship! And God forbit if I suggest I'd rather not have a Governor who takes such a dim view of an important part of my life!
Katz writes "Americans have always embraced freedom until somebody says something they don't like". Pots & kettles, Jon. Pots & kettles.
-y, apparently still under "the hoary grip of ideologues, educators, clergymen and dogmatic politicians"
150 Opening BINARY mode data connection for slashdot.sig (129323052 bytes).
In NONE of the cases Katz brought up did the GOVERNMENT infringe on anybody's first amendment rights. And that's all the first amendment is - if you say something somebody doesn't like, you can't be arrested for it and they have nothing on you in court, because you were simply expressing your view.
The first ammendment does NOT read "Everybody must be provided a forum to say whatever they want, wherever they want." You can write for a newspaper and start spreading around antisemetism, and nobody will arrest you and charge you with "disturbing the peace" or anything like that. But the newspaper is not obligated to keep you on staff - they are perfectly within their rights to fire you.
Any kind of "censorship" here is just what Katz said - social taboos. Does anyone out there realistically think that there is any way to make social taboos dissappear off the face of the earth in favor of a society of pure intellectualism? I didn't think so.
--
grappler
Vidi, Vici, Veni
I don't see Jon Katz lifting a damn finger to see to it that people listen to _me_. I could be the cleverest guy around, I could be incredibly karmically gifted (eh- '45' is semi karmically gifted for Slashdot) but Katz doesn't care. He isn't the least bit interested in fighting for my 'right' to publicity and free Slashdot stories.
And this is okay, because I don't _have_ such a right. If I work hard enough (like with my work-in-progress GPLed game terrain engine concepts, eventually I would get that attention. It might take years, but I don't need Katz's help.
The problem is, he feels very differently about any of _his_ thoughts. To him, there is a _right_ to publicity, Slashdot story posting access (just for him! Not for the common people), and even to criticise that makes a person a CENSOR. My wanting him to lose story posting access makes me a CENSOR.
Well, tough. He does not have a right to publicity. It is a privilege he abuses, it's granted to him through Rob Malda and not by some global sense of the fitness of things, and it should be taken away. Katz needs to put the same effort into his thoughts and work as the rest of us have to. It's extremely annoying to see him justify clinging to his unreasonably nepotistic position by accusing critics of censorship. We are not born with write privileges to the world, nor with a stage conveniently growing out of our feet. If we want such exciting abilities to communicate on a broad basis, we have to go out and earn them, and convince someone with the means that our voice deserves amplification. Having done that, we become privileged, and that can be very transient.
Another comment on this, I read through the 'Life in Our Anti-Chiristian America' compilation and it struck me that atheists apparently don't understand why christians try to convert them. Christians believe that when someone dies unsaved they go to hell and burn in pain for eternity. We don't like the idea that others might be subjected to this, so we are trying to help as many people as we can.
... esoteric ones) is to do no harm, and to help your fellow human. In other words, lead a good life. Ever single religion, whether it be muslim, Christianity, what-have-you, has the same deal. Everything else is religious dogma, which personally I see as being completely unnecessary.
:)
The thing is, the central tenet of every religion on the planet (apart from some of the more
I don't subscribe to any official, organized religion - I have my beliefs, and I try to live by them. They're decidedly similar to beliefs that people the world over have. Yet, by deliberately spending my time following those beliefs (and being a good person - which, remember, is the central idea behind Christianity) I will supposedly end up in some lake of fire somewhere or other for the rest of eternity.
Personally, I'd prefer to spend my time doing good now, rather than waste it in a church giving "praise" to a God that I reckon would prefer it if I got the hell out of there and did something worthwhile for other people instead. I'll worry about the lake of fire later; no doubt if you're right, I'll have a long time to think about it.
But when it comes down to it, no-one has any definitive answer about all this - it's all up in the air. You have to believe whatever makes the most sense to you, and whatever makes you more complete as a human. That is, whatever makes you happy and whole.
Would you be this offended if I were trying to stop you from running full speed off of a cliff, just because you didn't know it was there?
Not at all. But that cliff is signposted. While I'll give anyone the time of day, there are limits to that time. I wouldn't mind if it was just a case of "Hey... there's this really cool Christ guy who gave his life so that you wouldn't have to be Satan's Own Charcoal-Broiled Snack"; it's when people start trying to convince me that I've got it all wrong, and that their idea of what the world is about is the only one that counts, that I have a problem with it.
The trick is this: Live and Let Live. Sure, tell people about it. But don't try to convert them if they don't want to be converted -- it's their choice what to believe in, not yours.
Simon
ps. Just wanted to point out that I'm not criticizing you personally; just the general modus operandi of most people who try to sell others on their brand of salvation, in the belief that they Know the One True Way.
pps. Interesting that the Gefilte fish (very important symbol from Judaeism) is currently the most popular car-bumper item displayed by Christians. Did anyone bother to check?
Coming soon - pyrogyra
If I want to make pictures of swasticas and burning crosses and deface pictures of Martin Luther King, Jr., do you think you should be obligated to pay for it? And if you don't pay for it, are you censoring me?
I too believe that freedom of expression has precendence over my opinions. But we aren't arguing over the freedom of the artist to express their ideas. We are arguing about whether we have to pay our money for it.Artists have a right to create art that offends people. However, they don't have any RIGHT to receive public money at all for any purpose. Public money should only be used to benefit the community. If somebody decides that subsidizing art is beneficial to the community (I don't think it is), the artist still doesn't have a right to spend someone else's money however they see fit.
If I privately commission a work of art, I'm not paying the artist to just do anything they want. I'm paying the artist to create something in my interest. The same priciple applies with public money. They are receiving money in exchange for producing something that is in the public interest. If we are going to spend our tax money on art, the art should not be offensive to ANY significant group of people. If it is, the artist and/or gallery/museum is not a good steward of public funds and should not receive further funding.
There is a big different between censorship and restricting public funding. Artists have a right to create art that expresses whatever idea they want and offends whoever they want. However, they have no right to be paid for it by the public.
"By the way, if you want real freedom, come with me to the Autobahn- freedom is going 165mph while I pass you a phat one. . :)" ;) ;) ;) ;)
Heh. Glad I'm not there
Maybe I'd feel safer if you were getting stoned while going 165 kph (uh, wouldn't that be metric, then?)... in 'Grand Theft Auto' while sitting on the couch at home
But you know my final say on the matter? It's "Whatever, as long as I get to know what I need to know to stay out of your way". Does that sound reasonable? Would you consent to affix a flashing green 'stoner' light atop your car, so you could go 165 kph stoned out of your gourd, and I could see you coming and get out of the way, knowing you were pretty wasted? I'd be quite happy to settle for that and would never wish to restrict your personal freedoms unless your personal freedoms were sodomizing me with an automobile at 165 kph
Okay, end of digression
Freedom is not something one is given by another. It is always "taken" (expressed) for one's self. Whether or not an individual "siezes" that freedom depends on his/her courage. Less courage is required in some societies than in others. US society requires little courage to express one's freedom. When Mr. Katz says that the US is not free, he is merely admitting that he thinks it requires a lot courage for someone to speak out about some controversial issue. It always requires courage to speak out about issues that are not popular around you, if you care about what the people around you think about what you say.
I don't care about what Mr. Katz has to say. Personally, I resent the title of his article. It is the *only* reason I read it. In my opinion, he didn't have that much intelligent to say. I get the feeling that he wanted to write controversially for the sake of being controversial. Slashdot has given him this forum (and me, I'll admit) to say whatever he pleases. So he demonstrates his courage by giving us this opinion piece. But frankly, I usually find his opinions either uninformed or self-serving. I have avoided his articles since a recent book review on TBL but fell prey to his catchy title this time. Believe me, that was no accident. Mine wasn't either. How many of you clicked mine because of it's title. Well I suppose that if this gets moderated down, I'll just have to go cry about how slashdot and the good old US are just not very free places.
Give me a f' break!
Criminalize spam and telemarketing!
This one is going to be short, becuase the article is so simpleminded.
Jon wants to have the RIGHT to say what he wants but no one should have the RIGHT to say things that might make him feel "bad" about his points of view.
Great Jon, not only have you shown yourself to be a Ludite, your now working up to Facist Controller.
Typical, let katz talk long enough and I bet he comes out with a Manifesto.
Jon Katz Uber Alles
Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!
All attempts at defining the beginning of a human life are ridiculous, if you insist on an all-or-nothing boundary. What if we assign a fractional value to the attribute "legally a human being". .25 (healthy third trimester fetus, say).
This value would be 0.0 until conception, and not reach 1.0 until a person is legally allowed to vote and sign binding contracts (age 18). "Murder" would be killing anyone who scored over
NOTE: for all of you less-than 18ys, I am not claiming that you aren't human! It is already a fact, however, that legally you don't have all the rights of an greater-than 18ys old.
I suppose you could argue for a fractional value for "murder" also, with small punishments for killing healthy 2nd trimester human fetuses, or adult chimpanzees...
Having big guns to protect our offspring helps encourage people to move here (wether or not we want them here). How our media sells us and the rest of the world the illusion of "The American Dream" also brings them here. Basically, we don't have an "inferiority" complex, rather that aggressive urge to knock the brains out of those who we perceive as pretending to be "better than us."
Most of the time they do abhor murder, the other times they justify it, when it "target" poses a threat to the religion. It's all about the double standards...
"Fear" is probably too strong; but the simple fact (conveniently ignored by the purveyors of monstrous ideas -- like Singer, though I'm certain he is aware of it) is that ideas have consequences. When elites start believing (as they all too often do) that they know better than the rest of us how we ought to live our lives, for example, they invariably begin to act upon that belief -- usually resulting in increased governmental intervention in the affairs of common citizens.
Ideas have consequences. Singer's monstrous definitions of what makes a human being would lead to euthanasia on a massive scale if they were ever accepted. The elderly would be next on the list, notwithstanding any pompous protestations of Singer's to the contrary.
When once we begin with arbitrary definitions of what it is to be human, we will inescapably start down a road of terror that we won't easily escape.
Of course, that's already happened. In the sixties opponents of abortion warned that its legalization would lead eventually to euthanasia. They were scoffed at then. And here we are, talking about it as if it were a serious question. Ideas have consequences. A society that will not seek to preserve its own ideals *cannot* survive. A society that destroys its own members as "not human" (according to some idiot academic's or bureaucrat's demonic definitions) doesn't deserve to survive.
And Katz the Drooler doesn't deserve to post here; his narcissistic tantrums bear no resemblance to the world as it truly is. He's a fable spinner seeking nothing more than to anger people and perhaps to crank up the page hits at Slashdot.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
Interestingly, _depictions_ of child pornography are also illegal. In other words, paintings, drawings, sketches, computer renderings- Etch-A-Sketches depicting kiddie porn are illegal and actionable.
This is not implying drawing from live models, but just artists' renderings of the subject at all.
Perhaps Katz would like to fight for the right to make artists' renderings of kiddie porn?
"Dostoevsky said it best: "If God does not exist, then all things are permissable." But we *know* deep down in our souls and bones, that right and wrong DO exist and all things are not permissable. And that in turn demands the existence of God. And if God exists, then perhaps we should listen to what He has to say about killing. (For those of you that ask, "Which god?", I suggest you search for the one which corresponds to truth - that one will be God, not god.)"
People speaking in the name of God have advocated for and commited what any decent atheist would call heinous crimes. (Yes, your likes, decent Christians, would say they were not "real" Christians, but most Christians in their times didn't agree with this, nor do some nowadays).
Dostoyevsky is magnificently wrong. As is evident in his works, his criminals repent (when they do; Raskolnikov does, Smerdyakov does not) not because God speaks to them, but because they don't feel at ease with themselves. They hadn't counted with their consciences. Dostoievsky being a faithful Christian, he sees in it the voice of God. But you have to believe in God in the first place; it is circular reasoning.
Conscience is a delicate plant. Most people seem to be born with one, but it needs to be cared of. Many warring "primitive" societies educated their children to inflict torture on captured enemies, and to expect such a fate in case of defeat.
What has God to say about killing, indeed? And where has He said it? In our "souls and bones"? They exist indeed, and they can "speak", after a fashion, but this is not proof that there be a God. In the Bible? Please! Being the work of a commitee, you have to read the Bible very selectively, and you are almost certain to find everything you are looking for. You can find God _ordering_ to kill babies, or punishing a king for forgiving the life to war prisoners. If the Judeo-Christian Holy Scriptures are to be followed...
If God does exist, and the Bible is inspired by Him, we are getting very mixed messages from Him; I think we can dismiss them. If God does exist, we don't have more of a clue as to what things are permissable than if He does not exist. The existence of God is _irrelevant_ to ethics.
We don't know whether God exists or not. But we know that we (each "I") exist, and we had better to live at ease with ourselves. If we have the fortune to have a conscience, or even pride, there are things we would not allow to ourselves. Moreover, we know (if we are not solipsists, which is psychologicaly impossible) that other persons exist too, and that they could have an opinion about what we do to them, and enforce it. Hence the Golden Rule. "Do unto others as you would like they to do unto you"... because the next time they can outpower you. An "ethical" ethics can be laid on very practical foundations.
"I'll let Dostoevsky speak for himself. Numerous other philosophers (even atheists) have reached essentially the same conclusion. There is little difference of opinion between civilized societies about major points such as the wrongness of taking another's life"
Ah, but we now find the same problem: the definition. Murder is defined as unduly killing a person (I understand that in certain states any death resulting from a felony is, o was, a "murder" charged to the felon, even if the death is caused by police fire or accident). So, there is no murder if the dead is not a "person" (an enemy, an underman, a slave, a fetus...) _or_ the killing is legally admitted, be it either judged positively (death penalty, war, self-defence, duelling), frowned upon (killing an adult son for a relatively minor offence, as in Republican Rome), or neutrally considered, as exposing a supernumerary child, which by the way was customary along ALL the history of Rome, not only the "decadent" period. Especially with female babies (as is a constant in pre-modern warring societies); old Romans gave names to their four first sons, but only to their two first daughters. From there on, they used numerals: Quintus, Sextus (Fifth, Sixth)... and Tertia (she the Third). There were no Quartae (female Fourths).
So, you define "civilized society" based on its attitude on "murder". It is as good a method as any other.
Marzo (marzo@encomix.es)
When I read the sentence "Under any normal circumstances, a bunch of elephant dung wouldn't even make it through U.S. Customs." it reminded me of the way Al Capone was jailed for violating tax laws, instead of murder, racketeering, etc.
But I had a point.
IIRC, the artist whose work is the cause of all the stir is African. In some African cultures, dung is (or was at some point in the past, before American McCulture tip-toed in and subverted their traditions) considered a symbol of wealth or prosperity and people would put it in their hair, the way other people use hair spray.
So, in this case, all the uproar could be because of a simple cultural misunderstanding. But I've been wrong before and probably will be again sometime soon.
But how are you going to effectively judge what is best for you if you do not have all of the relevant information?
:)
Do you really think I don't have all the relevant information?
Personally, I am probably more familiar with the Bible than plenty of Christians, having read different versions cover to cover several times.
For personal amusement I often watch the blubbering Trinity Broadcasting Network, watching female evangelists wearing their own weight in makeup peddle their own personal brand of salvation. Been there, done that.
And that's one of the problems: most non-Christians do have all of the relevant information. But you, on the other hand, mistakenly assume that the very fact that they are not Christians means that they must not have all the information. Hasn't it occurred to you that people might have gone over the case for Christianity piece by piece, and decided to pass? Shouldn't you respect that decision, even if you don't agree with it, and even if you happen to believe that we'll eventually pay the price?
Thanks,
AFAIK, KKK members call themselves "Christian" (which no self-respecting, of even self-hating, Nazi would have ever done), and KKK predates Hitler activity by a chunk of decades. Contemporary Ku Klux Klan may have borrowed some items from Nationasocialist ideology (to the extent that it exists), but to call them Nazis would be stretching the word. Not that it is not be done...
AFAIK, KKK members call themselves "Christian" (which no self-respecting, of even self-hating, Nazi would have ever done), and KKK predates Hitler activity by a chunk of decades. Contemporary Ku Klux Klan may have borrowed some items from Nationasocialist ideology (to the extent that it exists), but to call them Nazis would be stretching the word. Not that it is not done...
I just don't accept the idea that xtains are being discriminated against. They interpret any refusal of others to knuckle under to their tactics as discrimination. By that standard, Jews who escaped the cattle cars were discriminating against the Nazis.
It's funny sometimes to watch the upright ants with their little games. Funny to watch the scurrying about, thinking that they're going to change the world. Funny how the assumptions are made as to which solution is better for some ant that is in a position they are not.
I agree with that most hated ball of atoms in this cornucopia of confused electrons - by the time a child can make a conscious decision about whether it wants to live our die, we've already given it such a death-complex that it's brainwashed into its answer. Of course, it's absolutely amazing that a spinning, jiggling conglomeration of chemicals can FEAR in the first place, much less FEAR a cessation of motion.
Life is a mystery - meaning of course that it is completely circumstantial. It is what you ascertain from your own experiences that makes you "who you are" - from your own perspective, of course. To just shy of 6 billion upright ants on this planet, your death means nothing. A very small fraction indeed will cry for you; most will never know the difference.
I personally feel that this planet needs an enema. Too many cruel ants here.
(Check your definition of cruel - murderers are mercifully quick in their tortures as compared to those who drain entire economies dry for a living - we ants call them corporate players)
Money is the sugar of the ants. And like everything else, wherever it is, there it goes. The absence of matter must leave a void. Yet some ants have HUGE piles of sugar, while others have very little. The big ants tell the small ones that they only complain "because they don't have any" -- What self-righteous bullshit! What hedonistic little ants!
Do what you want, ants, but keep in mind that we're all on this same damned clump of dirt, and cooperation and sympathy are deeper than surface value and a selfish clinging to the threads of life.
And keep in mind that there is at least one out there who understands whose rights you'll stand up for.
Separately, we will fall. And this is not a dumb email sig.
If we can not rationally evaluate new ideas, no matter how they look at a glance, we will never make any progress. In my personal opinion, every highschool student should be required to take a critical thinking/logic class
What is your definition of Freedom...
~ ~^~~^~
1) GPL
2) BSD
3) I can do whatever I want, no one should be able to tell me its bad.
4) I can do anything imagionable.
5) I have a right to obtain the resources needed in the individual and community pursuit of happiness.
6) Everyone must do what I want them to.
7) Other: (please specify)______________________
Jon Katz, how would you answer this? I admire your pursuit of freedom, and your faith in the nature of freedom that it can never really be taken away. But if I may offer a thought, Freedom is not an end but a means to an end. What is the use of being free to do something if you do not have any reason to do it? What is, what was and what will be the reason for freedom, what is the result that freedom is a means to? What is the purpose of freedom?
Answer these questions, dear reader and Mr Katz. I see this concept alone as the thread that binds, gags or slices every article on censorship, morality, and what technology has done for human-kind.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~
>Democracy is just a way for 51% of the people >to oppress 49% of the people. Thankfully some of us still remember that America is a Republic with Democratically elected officials. Unfortunately, not enough of us remember this. It's not supposed to matter what 99.99% of people want, they cannot oppress the other 0.01% of the people or take away their rights (in theory at least).
Your highminded defense of Singer overlooks one implication for the unborn, the newly borne, the infirmed elderly, and the severely disabled: applying Singer's strictly utilitarian philosophy, the "right" to die becomes the duty to die.
---
- First Amendment freedoms
- Bioethics
These are both emotionally loaded issues. Presenting both simultaneously, and suggesting that they are connected in some fundamental way, serves only to muddy the waters yet further.People are inclined toward censorship because they are emotionally aroused by ideas. This arousal, and the absence of cognitive faculties to manage it intelligently, are dangerous to our society and our freedom. People who get stupid in this way should not be pushed deeper into their area of stupidity.
WWJD for a Klondike Bar?
He effectively calls those who consider this a free and morally superior country "self-deluded." Those who criticize Peter Singer as a monster (rightly so) are "praised" by Katz as "outrageously simple-minded and hysterical".
Meanwhile, Katz seems to endorse Singer's monstrosities, parroting him with the Orwellian notion that killing babies is "compassion".
Katz can get away with trashing religion as one of the "bloodier influences in modern history" while I get moderated down for criticizing him. Say, Katz (or moderator): please name for me a religious war in the last century that resulted in anything like the killing involved in any of the following:
Heck, I'll go one better: name me a religion-inspired war in the last half-millennium that resulted in the same number of deaths as did the Cultural Revolution in China *or* the terrors of Soviet Russia.
But of course, it's okay for Katz to flame religious people, but I get moderated down for flaming Katz the Drooler. Okay. I've got it now. Thank you.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
but you become ostracized by your peers. Is that the mark of a free and educated society?
...and so on
All I see in that statement are people doing exactly that, excersizing there freedom. They are choosing who they hang out with.
It may not be fair to that person, but then I've never understood why people believe in this grand view of "fairness." I see all to often those who get hurt or offended then appeal to "fairness" as if they expect legions of angels of fairness come and do away with the evil they just located.
Where is the great Mommy who taught us all what is and isn't fair that we can run to and shout "The Government told me I shouldn't smoke marijuanna, thats not fair! The evil government and right wing dogmatic clergymen just told me that a marriage has to be between a man and a woman, thats not fair! I can't buy alcohol just becuase I'm not 21, but they can buy it in Europe, its not fair. My friend just died from a drunk driver its not fair!"
Sorry to go on like that but its kind of fun. I'm even more sorry if I've offended those who have these opinions I just mentioned and actually *do* have reasonable arguments for or against anything I've discussed. I'm only attacking the adolescent appeal to fairness, not those people who genuinely feel that way.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
To a large extent, I agree with Katz' argument, but let me use Pat Buchanan as an example to illustrate what I think Katz is missing.
Buchanan wants to be president of the United States, and has a better shot at it than most of the rest of us. So as responsible citizens, we not only have a right but a duty to reach a conclusion such as this: because of the views he has expressed, Pat Buchanan must never become president.
Note that I didn't say that he should be allowed to think what he does about World War Two, or say what he thinks. But the views of a candidate about history may be the best guide there can be to understanding what he will decide in the future, and in a democracy we all have a responsibility to assess those views.
Imagine if Buchanan had been president in 1939-1941. I for one am convinced that if he had acted as he says would have, he would have made the most catastrophically awful decisions any president has ever made this century, perhaps in all of our history. Mankind suffered enough as it is during World War Two, but I am certain that there would have been far more misery and death, and a great deal less freedom, had we followed Buchanan's advice.
Chances are, the next president will not face a situation as dramatic and deadly as the Second World War. But then again, maybe he or she will. And even the less historic decisions that presidents have to make require clear judgment. Now we know that Buchanan doesn't have it.
Am I abridging his freedom of speech by saying so? Certainly not. He can keep on saying whatever he wants to say about any event in history. But I can keep saying that he shouldn't be president, too.
You may disagree with my conclusions about Buchanan, and you do have that right. You may even find my views abonimable, and you have the right to say so in the next post, if you want to. You do not abridge my freedom of speech just by exercising yours.
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
[Personally, I haven't even begun to formulate what I think about this idea. But I want-need to read, mull and talk about it. The wanton use of terms like "murder" and "genocide" make that impossible, and that means we aren't free either.] Hmmm... Seems like a pretty normative statement to me. Could this be construed as saying "people shouldn't use terms like 'murder' and 'genocide'?". Aren't they free to do so? And if they are, how does that impinge on the freedom of others to engage in rational discussion?
Since you apparently don't know who Peter Singer is, (a.k.a. Professor Death for those of you who actually pick up a newspaper) Peter Singer is a professor that claims that people should be allowed to end a child's life, if it is determined that that child's quality of life would not be good enough. Unbelieveable.
It gets better. Peter Singer believes that apes should be treated as people, and have all the same laws apply. So basically, he believe that people should be treated like animals, and animals should be treated like people.
This country already has a big enough problem with adults treating their pets as children and their children as pets. The last thing we need is a mentally unfit individual such as Peter Singer as a bio-ethics professor.
As society becomes increasingly competitive, humans may have virtually thrown the key out the window on natural selection but artificially we still have [an] ethical responsibility to our race and the planet not to further weaken the gene pool.
Disclaimer: Although i personally find the idea of abortion, et al, somewhat distasteful, i find the idea of imposing one's personal beliefs on others more distasteful. I guess this qualifies me as a pro-choicer, but i don't much care for labels yadda yadda yadda
That being said, i am unsure as to how artificially bolstering an individual's particular traits will somehow prevent the "further weakening" of the gene pool. It would seem to me that this would do quite the opposite.
I am not a geneticist, a biologist or much of anything else with -ist at the end of it, but it still appears fairly obvious to me that artificial selection would be a poor substitute for the natural variety. As a part of our environment, indeed a function of it, we are ill-equipped to understand all of the subtleties of that environment, much less presume that we can do away with a system that has developed over countless millennia on a scale that we are simply unable to grasp effectively. The potential ramifications of this approach to the continuance of our race are staggering to me.
I am not even going to touch the moral/ethical aspects of this, i'd just drop into blowhard mode, and that wouldn't be pretty. I have to say, however, that from a purely pragmatic point of view, the artifical selection as substitute for natural selection will doom us as a race. It's just not a good idea.
We should concentrate not on our physical evolution and traits, they're just fine. For example, i am myopic, i cannot hear particularly well, and i am not very strong, fast or handsome, but i can survive, and i can think, and i can do what i think we should really be focusing on: the mental and spiritual evolution of our race. It's our best bet for long-term survival, would probably be much more satisfying, and i don't think we are as far away from the realization of our potential as some might argue.
Which is cooler, babies that are pre-programmed genetically, with a particular color, intelligence, sexual preference, height, and so on, or transcendence of the physical plane of existence entirely, like some frickin' Star Trek Q bullshit?
Think about it.
"Cogito ergo es... I think, therefore you is." -The King of the Moon's Head,
Don't ask. Go see.
You were right to click, disobedience is the first step to freedom.
This is what's interresting about censored stuff, if you must not see it, you will surely like it. However, it's still terribly attractiv, even if it's nothing worth (worse?).
Why is it that the tolerant don't tolerate the intolerant?
Some have been saying that Katz is asking for it both ways: he's complaining about censorship of unpopular ideas and wanting to strangle the "ignorant, hysterical" ideas. I read his article as saying that the US is not especially intellectually free--people automatically denounce ideas in a non-intellectual way if those ideas are "bad." i.e. calling Singer Hitler for merely opening debate on a very important issue. How does calling him Hitler help the debate? How does it make for a more intellectually free society when one cannot at least express an opinion without being lynched? I don't think Katz was talking about censorship per se, but the automatic smearing of anything that isn't popular and tasteful by a majority of society as evil or "just like Hitler" or whatever, as long as the description is as emotionally loaded as possible! Why can't we just answer reasonable arguments on "touchy" subjects with reasonable arguments instead of automatically calling the idea or person "just like Hitler" ?
Rachael
"Go Forth Ye Lemmings and Propagate"
While I was living in Europe, I was confronted with an interesting dilemma with regard to Military Service. In most European countries there is some form of mandatory military service... even Switzerland. Is this freedom?
In the US, we have no mandatory military service, yet there is a higher proportion of minorities serving in the US military than in the civilian sector. There are are also some startling numbers showing the disproportionate numbers of casualties among minorities during wartime. Are some of us more equal than others?
So it ends up being 6 of 1 and half a dozen of another. In most European countries everyone is subjected to the same treatment. Everyone's freedom is trampled a bit by the government. They have equality, but less freedom. In the US, we have the freedom to join or not join the military, but we have less equality.
Perhaps Mr. Katz's rantings would have made more sense when framed thusly between equality and freedom.
Toddlers are the stormtroopers of the Lord of Entropy.
Finaly finaly an American writes something dispelling the myth that you live in the Land of the Free , this has been something people in my country have long made fun of the USA with , we would often laugh when we ever heard a yankee saying it. I come from a country that has no written constitution or bill of rights but I dont feel any less free than any American , yes I may not be free to buy a handgun for the sole purpose of shooting people, walk down the street waving a swastika or deny my child medical treatment because of my messed up religious views, but I can watch a television program with less fear it has had all pictures of naked bums cut out so as not to offend my innocent eyes or buy a beer at the same age as I can vote or go off to war ... I am not saying that America is that much worse than every other country but it is deffinantly no better than many of it's peers.
Whoever controls the present controls the past, whoever controls the past controls the future
freedom to blow it out yer ass
I had my first network admin job working for an anti-animal rights group called Putting People First. The daily death threats were alarming at first, then boring. For the first time in my life I read the 'how to spot a bomb' instructions the post office gives out.
The funny thing was that most of them were addressed from the same town that headquartered PETA, Peter Singer's favorite bunch of pro-animal rights people. Death threats happen to strong advocates on both sides of any controversy. It's just that the media seems to publicize one side more than another.
Very sad,
TML
s it truly freedom, when you expect to be (at least) socially blasted for expressing controversial ideas? I don't care about the legal structure, but about society. Sure, legally they can't touch you, but you become ostracized by your peers. Is that the mark of a free and educated society?
I don't get it. If one person has the right to say controversial things without censorship, don't other people have the right to blast those controversial ideas without censorship? Some ideas ideas deserve to be blasted. I don't get this warped thinking that Singer can make statements offensive to handicapped people, but somehow it's censorship when handicapped people take him to task for those statements.
-jimbo
I think the process is similar to the one described in an article posted on /. recently. It discussed the process of mapping. If we choose to think about an ethical problem, eventually we will come to a conclusion. This is important, because without convictions you can never be sure of yourself.
I believe where Katz goes wrong is when he states that the US is not free because there is persecution. The distinction is between being legally free and being free from persecution as Katz might put it. Obviously the US is the most legally free country in the world. The question then is whether it is worth being legally free if we are not totally free. I think the answer is that it is more than worth it. In this country the persecution of an individual should not be legally supported. There are cases of course where the system fails, but in general the system works. A murderer who kills a doctor in an abortion clinic will not be legally supported. There have been repeated attempts, some successful, by the government to support persecution (i.e. McCarthy) but the constitution generally keeps things in check.
The real problem is that human opinion does not change over night. Opinions, which have been held for long periods of time, are often held irrationally, long past their time.
Both sides can currently debate many of the issues Katz has raised rationally. If the discussion continues long enough one side will win out, but there will still be irrational opposition. In a country less free, the discussion might get stopped before this point, meaning the issue would never get resolved satisfactorily.
For politicians, they are not elected to be controversial, if they were controversial, they wouldn't have gotten elected. The politicians must follow the masses, that is their purpose, to reflect the wishes of their supporters. Does this mean they cannot speak their minds? No they have just as many rights as anyone else, but their actions and their words must differ in these cases. If Jesse Ventura things that organized religion is a bad thing, then he is allowed to say so. But he cannot take action to ban the catholic church from his state unless his electors agree with that decision.
The sum up, there is an important difference between being persecuted by a government, and being flamed. In the case of the Singer, sorry the best we can do is punish people who harm him, we cannot force people to think rationally and debate with him. Being controversial and forward thinking always carries risk, at least in this country we don't have to fear execution, imprisonment, or exile because of our ideas.
The only point of nitpicking I have with the article is the statement, "...as food production continues to decline." I would love for Katz to find a recent decade in which food production has declined. He should look for numbers, not just pick up the doomsayers party line.
Spencer Ogden
What no one seems to understand is that elephant dung is symbolic of rebirth in Africa. It's not supposed to be a defiling statement. Or maybe it is supposed to target culturally naive Americans... In London, it was the image of a child murderer done using the handprints of children that upset the locals about this exhibit. In the US, that's no biggie.
As society becomes increasingly competitive, humans may have virtually thrown the key out the window on natural selection but artificially we still have a ethical responsibility to our race and the planet not to further weaken the gene pool.
Many argue that accepting Darwinism has no moral ramifications, so religous people shouldn't get their shorts in a bunch over its institutionalization as fact. But here we have someone spouting Darwinism as a moral imperative, that we have a moral obligation not to violate Darwinistic principles. That our obligation to protect the gene pool is greater than our obligation to individual human beings. I point this out to show that maybe theists are right to be concerned about the Darwinistic, atheistic dogma into which our children are being indoctriated.
-jimbo
>>>
And the argument for overpopulation is equally ridiculous...
Well, seeing as my parents both came from families of 11+ kids with single incomes, I have to disregard this idea as ludicrous...
>>>
Right. Hey, it never caused any problems in MY specific circumstances, so the idea that it could be detrimental in any of the many other circumstances (and has been shown to be in most cases) should be dismissed as ludicrous.
Yeah, I tried cocaine twice, and _I_ never went out and killed anybody as a result, so what's the problem with the stuff, right?
Are children really choices? Does that mean that if my mother didn't want me it would be ok to throw me away, like the socks she got for her birthday but didn't want? How about you? Are you a human or are you only a choice your parents made? Maybe it is ok to do a "mercy killing" of a child that is so deformed that it will never live for very long, but wouldn't it die soon enough? Or should we speed up its death so we can go on with our selfish lives? Think about it.
Previous articles have described in horrific detail the unbearable pain of smart kids that don't fit in with their classmates. The loneliness. The derision. The mocking. The rejection. Obviously, it would be better for all such individuals if they were spared such a life of suffering from the beginning. This is why I agree with Dr. Springer. If we can just perfect genetic screening to identify those who are likely to be outcasts due to superior intelligence, we can eliminate this kind of inhuman suffering from the Earth once and for all.
-jimbo
For example, "freedom to work" usually implies that employers have less freedom to hire/fire. Similarly, the the article's pretty accurate on the freedom-of-speech issues -- but the only solution is to restrict freedoms in other areas: freedom to fire people if they expouse views that may have financial impact on my business, freedom as a business owner to publish what I want.
The Brooklyn Museum is a prime example. The real issue here is that government is forcing the taxpayers to pay for speech in the first place. The refusal to fund something is actually a net increase in freedom, not the other way around. Government patronage of the arts isn't a bad thing necesssarily, but it's decisions as to what art to patronize is in now way censhorship.
Another Katz example is the Reform party's desire to oust Ventura. Again, an example of freedom in action. Do we, as a country, want to restrict the freedom of parties to choose their own members?
The funny thing is that Katz thinks these things are new. Patronage of the arts for 200 years has been criticized for promoting the wrong art.
The government is just the reflection of popular will (according to the Declaration of Independence). Therefore, every time the government thwarts popular will, it is doing something wrong. Cutting support for unpopular exhibits, then it is bringing itself more inline with popular will. This is a far cry from restricting soembody who funds his/her own art exhibit.
I have to agree. Is there always something he must ramble about? By the way, there were three other replies to this criticizing the person who said "Huh?" Did anyone else notice that they too had no idea what Jon's point was, or at least made no indication of it?
Man are you mis-informed.
I'm always amazed how many foreigners are experts on the USA. You've been watching too much television. Read the US constitution - someday we'll get back to those roots once we rid ourselves of the European-socialistic-like democrat party. Europeans learned (or are learning) that socialism doesn't work and have been moving toward the US system. Sure, we have problems, but these are the problems you have when people have the right/freedom to screw up! You think that pittance of freedom that your parliamentary system gives you is freedom? Right.
"But Singer doesn't advocate genocide or the callous disposal of the disabled. He's arguing that in extreme circumstances, parents should have the right to terminate the life of severely disabled newborns who have no self-consciousness or chance to survive. "
...
"Singer is no monster, and the notion that he's an advocate of mass murder seems outrageously simple-minded and hysterical, a club to shut him up rather than a way to support or refute his ideas."
This really reminds me of another man who was to teach at a college, but was blocked from doing it. I just recently read the report of the case of Bertrand Russell, where he was stopped from teaching at a college, but the minute he was named, he was blasted by all of the major religious groups, as they used the most extreme arguments of his out of context to make him out to be a monster. Of course, this case isn't quite as severe, which isn't TOO surprising(of course, Russell was an atheist under McCarthyism, so there's no doubt he'd be worse), but I was very surprised of the parallel I started to see.
Sorry about the random ramblings, just figured I'd throw out my opinion here.
The premise of this article is entirely false.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
That is the text of the First Amendment. It says nothing about the prevention of 'censorship' by the private sector against itself -- only the government against the private sector. The constitution is not a license to deny a society's chosen values. If an innovator, maverick, or rogue attempts to slay a sacred cow... legally, little can prevent it. The American public does not have to embrace, accept, or even participate in it. For better or worse, the Constitution guarantees that everyone has to right to free speech.. It does say anyone has to listen or futhermore, give the speaker an audience. As for your examples -- like in the Brooklyn Museum exhibit -- the real question is whether the government should be involved AT ALL, not whether they should censor.
Mr. Singer is very free to express his ideas in whatever forum he may create or that will accept him. The Constitution does not force any one to listern to him , entertain his ideas in any capacity whatsoever, or provide any forum to promte his ideas.
Attacking the First Amendment and the United States as you do is simply no more than America-bashing. It's very easy. Maybe you should tackle a more difficult question... why society won't entertain his ideas?
Ok, listen.. to say that a country is not 'free', when the MAJORITY of it's people object to something as stupid as the New York Art Exibit (and the exibit is therefore 'threatened') is completely backwards.. That is what distinguishes us from Communist Countries, the fact that as Americans, we live in a place that we all have input and make our choices based on everyones input..IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT THEN GO TO CHINA...
People are confused...
;)
If I THINK something (or let's say, I am 'convinced' in something) - that is MINE. I can TELL it to you, and possible make you THINK about that - or you can IGNORE that immediately.
At this point, I do NOT GIVE A SH*T about what OTHER PEOPLE think of me, or my OPINION.
Basically, if I EXPRESS my opinion, it's LAME when 1000 people call me MURDERER; and they are saying one AMEN while their kids are BOMBING people in another countries (well, remember Kosovo?) - and that JUSTIFIES everything. That makes it GOOD.
As an atheist, I am OFFENDED when I see 'religious' people being much more BLOODTHIRSTY than others - and yet they are CONVINCING ME (see the difference between 'expressing the opinion' and 'convincing'?) that THEY ARE RIGHT, while I am WRONG.
And so on, and so on... The main problem is religion - it became a 'shield' for many people. Just because 'so many of us' are religious, does it make us right?!
Of course, this is VERY HOT question. However, take a look then at Windows users, and ask yourself:
As a Linux user, do you feel that you are more 'enlightened' than Windows users!? (now, you remember the stats of OS usages, where Win* beats Linux *badly*; doesn't it look like 'religious vs atheists' issue, huh?)
Now, this is very funny... Most people will say something like 'YOU IDIOT - BUT RELIGION IS HOLY THING', etc, etc, etc. When people understand that religion is just STATE OF MIND (as choice of OS is too) - then ignorance will go away, and people will probably become much more friendly.
For example, as an atheist and pure technical person, I do not give any importance to religion. I do RESPECT everybody's opinion and choice, but convincing me that 'religion' is something holy - won't work.
On the other hand, I can see (and we have all seen) problems that religion brings. BUT, absolutely the same goes for technology - they are both dangerous, if "consumed in big volumes"
At the end... go and watch 'Contact' (or read a book) again - that one really presents a clear picture of 'human nature'...
... that many of the comments to this story start off with "I know people aren't going to like this
NEVER underestimate the ability of people to ignore/cover up/suppress what is unpleasant to them. Even if it's the truth. And when it is exposed, beware the backlash.
Anyway, I guess I should try to make a comment about the article, to try to make this reply a little more relevent
"I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it
This pretty much encapsulates the idea of freedom of speech. If you want that freedom, then EVERYBODY must respect your right to speak. So why isn't America truely a free country?? Because some of its people do not have this respect!.
Jon pretty well says this in his article: "If America really were a free country, Singer would be able to talk about his ideas in the open, in a classroom without guards.".
As soon as you have people start threatening physical violence against others only because of what the other person said, then true freedom does not exist. It's a despicable thing to do, and I'm sure people would be totally ashamed of it if they weren't so caught up in their own self-righteousness.
My degree is in philosophy, and I remember all too well the month we spent on Singer and other so called 'bio-ethicists'. I wrote a paper on it called Singer's Song, in which I simply state that men like this - far from being heroes as Katz would have it - only serve the interests of a stale and entrenched institution of education. (ironic thing for a guy with a philisophy degree to say, i know) Basically, the considerations Singer gives these types of topics are only food for the thought of those too disinterested in the realities surrounding them to actually do anything about it. So they donate money, talk about it and lament the fates of the less fortunate. How about volunteering? How about working for a non-profit? How about backing it up, whatever your 'it' of the day might be.
It just makes me mad to hear people actually worry about the genetic selection and termination of human life by the technocratically superior while there is so much termination going on from something as real - and preventible - as hunger. It's as if natural selection had been turned on its head.
we speak the way we breathe --Fugazi
"Who is he to speak for me on this very spcific issue" that's the problem exactly. the fact that your money goes through a politicain IS the problem. think about it.
The subject says it all.
- Preferences: Solaris 10 (servers), Ubuntu (desktops), Solaris 11 (personal servers) -
Just a note, the names Sextus and Quintus were often used regardless of there place in birth. The daughters were named after the family name of the father. Thus the first son of Gaius Julius Ceaser might be named Sextus (more likely he would be named Gaius as well) and his first daughter was named Julia (or Julia Major), his second daughter named Jullilia or Julia Minor and the third daughter was named Julia Tertia.
"Attention Citizens, 2+2 now equals 3.947547175. Please recalibrate your equipment now" --The Computer
Let's see the argument being made is apparently:
/. is moot!
X = subgroup of Y (1)
If (X is Bad) then (all Y are also Bad) (2)
However, this logic is flawed and is not necessarily true.
For example, let X = Criminals imprisioned in the US. By definition Criminals are Bad, hence (X is Bad) is true. Therefore by relation 2, (Y is also Bad) is also true. Now, all criminals imprisioned in the US are human, so criminals are a subgroup of humans and thus Y = humans. Therefore, by relation 2, all humans are bad!
Now, obviously all humans are not bad, so relation 2 must be flawed.
Note: if the assumption that all humans are not bad is false, then the previous argument fails to prove that the logic is faulty. However, if all humans are bad then further discussion of the matter on
Who says that every creature that manages to come to life deserves to live? Who are we to decide? We are the people who are funding the hospitals and the research and who take care of them...that's who. I say put 'em out of their misery and use that money to support the people who are not terminally ill. All humans should support genetic superiority. It's our only hope of leaving this terminally ill planet and ensuring the survival of our race. In fact, that should be the number one goal of the human race...to leave this planet. One asteroid and we're history...don't forget that. We could certainly use a few more geniuses to help us out in this endeavor, since we can't even launch a probe to Mars without fuckin' it up.
You wrote:
"Inhiibiting free discussion harms everyone else's right to be exposed to ideas they may find more valuable than you"
I agree with what you have said above, but there is one point I would like to point out, and that is -
The people who have criticize Katz are exercizing _THEIR_ rights of free speech too.
In saying that criticizm is bad, you have ironically violated the spirit of what you have said, and please let me quote your own words again:
"Examining an idea never hurts. It may be wrong, but in the process of honestly determining that for yourself that you can learn important things."
Saying that those who criticize Katz is bad, you have failed to EXAMINE THE IDEAS of those who criticized Katz !!
Criticizms may hurt one's ego, but without criticizms from others, one will never learn from one's own mistakes.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
This isn't my position, but it certainly is Katz's. You can't use saving lives to justify yourself to Singerites, in their eyes that makes you have even less value to society.
Does america have less laws on the books then other countries? I once had to look up something in the Montana code annotated and I was shocked at the sheer volume of state laws I was subjected to. I was expected to be familiar with these laws which just about impossible to decipher if you are not a lawyer. Of course this was just the state laws, I could only imagine the federal statutes I was subject to not to mention city and county codes. One could spend an entire lifetime and never read the laws one is subject to.
Doesn't America imprison a greater percentage of it's citizens then any other country? Is it in top five? top ten? Shouldn't that be a factor to consider when you are trying to judge the relative freedom of a country?
Aren't corporations which house the prison population allowed to lobby congress for tougher laws (to increase product therefore profit). Is this a mark of a free society?
Doesn't America use it's prison population to provide low cost labor to corporations? Yes it does look it up. Is this a mark of a free country?
Doesn't America execute certain prisoners? How many other countries do that?
I would invite the slashdot community to come up a with a definition of a free and just country and then see if we measure up. Americans have an infinite capacity for self delusion and an immense sense of self importance. It would be interesting to see how it would stack up when judged by a relatively objective set of criterea.
War is necrophilia.
Yes, he is arguing death at certain points in human development. Its all pretty arbitrary, lets say under 18 your parents can euthanize you, and over 55 you get a govt sanctioned bullet in the back of the head. Only valid and valued contributers to society, oh utopia .... Its amazing the Nazis have as bad a reputation as they do. This is practicaly an idealogical revival.
You're right. I was a bit wound up.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
instead of aborting them, maybe mothers could give them to you.
I have an even better idea: maybe if the moms and dads kept their clothes on, there wouldn't be any babies for mommy and daddy to decide to kill! There's a thought! Self-control is a marvelous thing.
here's your own list...
This makes no sense. Are you suggesting that these wars were fought over religion? Are you suggesting that Stalin's purges were motivated by his religious principles?
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
I've read around 100 replies to this article and i have yet to see one that is related entirely to the topic at hand. Honestly, the intelligence of the slashdotters seems so low that I have a hard time beleiving that you people are the "nerds" of today (a term i've always felt should imply intelligence). I've read articles insulting Jon, saying that the article is useless, claiming that Jon must think very highly of himself. I wonder how one could be more hypocritical when you're insulting an article that has generated 600+ comments, most by people trying to discuss the issues at hand. Everyone's entitled to his or her or its own opinion and I didn't feel that Jon was pushing his beleifs or opinions on others, only presenting them for debate. Congrats to Jon on a well written article which brings up some great points. Speaking of population control, how about slashdot sanctioned euthenasia for people who post stupid stuff? Anyways, that's my story, my faith in humanity drops yet another notch today. Goodnight all...
I am not a legalist. The laws of the country
:Right to not be offended". Whether
are wholly inconsequential to my world veiw.
The law, even the constitution can say one
thing, and still be wrong.
I never said the first ammendment garaunteed
free speach or freedom from censorship. ALL it
does is say that congress can not impose censorship.
Freedom has very little to do with government
(except in that governments are instituted to
protect freedom under many philosophies)
What I say is that ANYONE has the RIGHT to say
whatever they wish at ANY time. Regardless of
what any government says. Speaking ones mind
can NEVER infringe on someones rights (speaking
ones mind meaning expressing oneself...the ONLY
things it does not include, in my eyes, are
devulging private facts about another person,
and acts of slander)
There is no
you are offended or not is your choice. Not
listening to what someone says, is your choice.
As such yes...I took too literal an interpretation
before of "your fist, my nose" (or vica versa).
If I say "I don't see any moral problem with killing babies that are disabled"
I have not "Hit your nose" yet...I have stated
_MY_ opionon on a subject.
If I say in public "This man contraced AIDS by
having sex with his homosexual partner" then...
I have slammed my proverbial fist into your nose.
(whether its true or not)
is that a better one?
All john Katz, or I are arguing for is this:
That people should be allowd to express
themselves. People should be allowed to put
forth topics for intellectual discussion.
If anyone has a problem with these topics the
RIGHT thing to do is to either ignore it and
"not listen" or...put forth a usefull argument
(you know...attack the idea not the person...
"This man is advocating murder" is not constructive)
In the end the basic human rights (which are the
basis for my worldview) are that of "Life, Liberty, and property". Safety is not a basic
right, food is not a basic right, water is
not a basic right, and if those are NOT basic
rights, then certainly the "Freedom from offence"
is not a basic right.
-- Steve
Freedom from choice is not it. Freedom from choice is slavery, which is in the end what the bulk of the Religious Right are actually working towards.
Oddly enough, one of their main groups of opponents is also working towards slavery, the same process of slavery, just a different brand.
I cite Kentucky schools as an example: one survey (actually performed by atheists, who are different to Microsoft in that they are sometimes actually able to (knowingly) publish adverse results!) discovered that 80% of Kentucky citizens believe that both systems should be taught, and even 45% of Kentucky State school teachers. Whether one side of the argument or the other is the more correct is not the important point in this issue, but the fact that freedom of choice in a public institution is being restricted on religious grounds and against the collective will of the people concerned!
While the offended Kentucky parents are genrally quite able to (and should) home educate their children (and so should the atheists; their children will be much better off even if Hellmouth weren't a factor), this is still not the point. Censorship is being practiced on religious grounds, and there's not even a social factor like "common decency" as a mitigating factor.
On a different topic (Mr Bioethics), there is now a movement pushing for "post-natal abortion" up to six months after birth on the very same grounds. That's murder, pure and simple, simply because the child's parents don't feel up to caring for them.
But is it any different to what we have now? Consider that babies up to 22 weeks premature (less than halfway) have survived to become normal people, and that babies will struggle against forcible detachment just 8 weeks after conception (ie 32 weeks before birth). They aren't just some kind of funny internal wart before they're born, they're people and already we murder then foe the sake of convenience. It kind of logical, in a sick way, that we should go right on murdering them after they're born.
Aren't you lucky? You weren't murdered for your Mum's convenience.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Yeah, its a realy problem that when we vote we are effectively choosing from a bundle of attitudes and policy positions that we have to accept as a bloc.
... what're you going to do ?
You might buy Giliani for other reasons but hate his taste in art
"I went to see the pool of wisdom but it was empty. Someone has drained the pool of wisdom." - Todd Jones
Well, I haven't been mugged this month, so I don't think my taxes should pay for police salaries. My home hasn't burned to the ground, either, so I don't think that the fire dept. should get any of my tax money. And of course, none of my money should go to social services such as unemployment/welfare/WIC etc, since I have a job, no kids, and I can afford to pay my bills. Which is the hole in that argument.
On the other hand, I think that government funds shouldn't go to the extremes that severely disabled kids can take them too. If there's a serial killer in town, that doesn't mean that everyone should get their own personal police escort until the killer is caught. It's simply too impractical, and let's face it, society is willing to take the risk that "it wont be me" until the serial killer is caught, because nobody wants to pay the extra taxes. So getting stuck with the hospital bill for several hundred thousand dollars on up isn't really something you should face after a your kid turns out to have all kinds of things wrong with them, the govt. shouldn't really be stuck either. And the govt. is us. Singer gets my vote for Good Idea Of the Year. Euthanasia, free to the public, at all ages, with a 2 month(more, less, whatever) just-to-make-sure-you're-sure wait for the non-infant cases. Check into the hospital and don't bother checking out. Sort of an in-patient thing, heh.
itachi
From the number of replies I got with themes like this I was obviously not clear enough.
I have no problem with criticizing Katz's ideas or even his presentation or logic. Many anti-Katz posts fail to do this though. They basically say, "I don't ever agree with you, shut up."
When a member of society is offended by an idea espoused by a second there are two possible solutions. One is for the offended member not to listen to things that offend them. The other is to prevent the offender from speaking. I am saying the former course is preferable. Do you disagree?
What is the effect if one of these suggestions that Katz go away is implemented? I and others who wish to listen are no longer able to. What is the effect if the complaining posters filter Katz? They are presumably happier in their new Katz-free world while those who wish to can still read Katz. I don't regard these suggestions as equivalent. Suggestions not to listen are not equivalent to suggestions not to talk.
Emotional ad hominem attacks do not promote consensus or add information, they are noise. I'm not suggesting gagging, locking up, or shooting violaters, merely pointing out that they are actually degrading the quality of the discussion. Perhaps even driving away those with good ideas but weak stomachs for conflict.
I've seen a very interesting measure of freedom in an economics text that took into account a lot of the things you mentioned. I don't remember the text or the author of the equation, but it basically scored a country on a 1-100 scale, and not a lot of places scored all that well. The US was somewhere between 50-75, IIRC.
itachi
Good article. I know Singer from one of his books and from several magazine articles about the things that happended to him (he sure shook things up, especially in Germany a while ago), and I think this man is doing the right thing.
I wish to argue the point that there is not enough freedom. I think the problem is that there is not enough of the right freedom and too much of the wrong freedom. I think a limit on freedom is necessary for a civilisation, because it would otherwise fall apart. Too much freedom would inspire - or even require, for consistency of the system - the rule of the jungle to regulate it all: the fittest survive and the rest (should) die. Now, most civilised people will find that a gruesome world to live in.
I have a rule of thumb that keeps me realising that too much freedom is just, well, too much. I think it will be especially popular in the United States, which seem to have one of the keywords written all over their national flag, but I don't wish to offend the Americans. It goes (drum roll): DEmocracy leads to DEcandence. It's really short and the parts that make it easy to remember are capitalised. Watch commercial television for a few hours and you know what I mean.
Here's my view of it:
You get the idea - I'm one of those Christians, so moderate or flame away. But this nicely explains Katz's dilemma over self-censorship increasing with "freedom".
ac.uk
Many of the groups that have been mentioned here
are minorities, whereas the WMC is perceived to
be part of a majority.
Often in discussions about prejudice it is
sometimes forgotten that a level playing field
does not exist between the various groups in our
society.
Quite often, the WMC is afforded an advantage
in western Society. Although it may appear that
there is some "reverse" discrimination going on,
or that the WMC is subject to prejudice from
other minorities, it should be remembered that
imbalances exist in our society, and that other
minorities are more likely to require support
than the WMC's.
So I'm a white, straight, catholic male. I have friends who were rejected from MIT because "They did not add enough ethnic diversity to the campus." And of course there's all sorts of Chinese organizations and Women's groups here at Caltech. So myself and some of my friends are thinking of starting SCUM. Straight Caucasian Undergraduate Males. We expect that, since we are SCUM, the women won't mind our group, and we might actually get funding. So all of you that are truly SCUM, come join us!
The question is whether fetuses or infants or whatever are people yet. Singer thinks newborns aren't people yet. This is a matter of definition, and the definition may depend on the context.
If you show an average person a microsope displaying a single fertilized human egg cell (which by definition is human, there is no debate here!), I really doubt anyone but the totally brainwashed, would say that is a person. To me that is quite absurd - and so is the idea that a single cell, on the order of complexity of a bacteria, has some kind of a "right to life". I don't know where personhood begins, but it sure ain't at conception.
Female Prison Rape in NY
Perhaps it's my interpretation, but I see another point in Katz's article:
People are scared to discuss things they don't like.
Personally, I'm hopeless at engaging in live debate, but I can articulate well when I have the time to stop and think about points raised. E-mail has allowed this, and I probably wouldn't be able to even take part in a discussion without it given the likelihood of being ignored or shouted down.
The internet, and all the technologies it encapsulates, permits reflective, reasoned discussion. Most of the time, I see that on Slashdot. It's one of the reasons I enjoy the site so much - reasoned discussion about points you probably wouldn't see in "mainstream" media.
I guess the fact that I'm not afraid to discuss anything helps too.
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. Always boom tomorrow. BOOM!
For some reason, many people seem to miss this point; it is crucial to understanding the argument against public art funding (and public campaign financing).
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
God made man, but he needed a monkey to do it.
It's in the plan, and we can prove it.
We walk like an ape, talk like an ape, we do what monkeys do.
God made man, but monkeys supplied the glue!
Yes, the boys are back and have earned hard experience in the field.
They've been to London, Paris, Tokyo and all points in between.
You will even hear them speak.
General Boy, speaking to you from DEVO Incorporated.
Yes; that's why the United States was founded as a Constitutional Republic.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
This anonymous coward is Dave McGinnis from MN -- I'm a teacher and I don't have time right now to create an account, but I will... The next writer asks, "Is it a free society if you can be socially blasted for expressing your ideas?" The response is, "Of course." You're missing the very NOTION of freedom, m'friend -- it's not that every idea will be accepted with open arms, merely that every idea can be EXPRESSED. If you are so meek that the prospect of being railed against for expressing your views is enough to silence you, then that's YOUR problem, not society's. It does not denote a lack of freedom if your ideas are met with skepticism, disagreement, or even hatred; people are free to react to ideas in any way they choose, so long as they don't harm the rights of the speaker. The only time freedom is harmed is when something is actually EXCLUDED from cultural discourse via censorship -- a prior restraint, if you will, as opposed to a negative response. In other words, the Nazis can express their weird eugenic beliefs all they want. But we have no obligation to believe them, or even pay them any attention.
We don't keep porn in Public Libraries and we don't display Mounds of Shit in Public Art Museums.
Why not?
Limits. Imposed by society. Someone is always excluded and that's just the way it is.
Is there any shortage of hardcore porn in our society? No. Only in the Public Library.
Is there any shortage of crappy, childish art in America? Nope. It's all out there for the taking.
Just not in the publicly funded art museum.
When Society foots the bill, Society gets to call the shots. The mayor acts in most cases as the voice of Society. If the majority of voters find his decisions fail to reflect their own regarding the use of public spaces, then he will not be re-elected.
**>>BELCH
I appreciate the devil's advocate role. It helps to set things in a starker relief.
And I appreciate the logic that if "X=true" and Mr. Y tries to convince the masses that "X !=true" then Mr. Y is doing those folks a disservice.
But the very nature of your proposition shows that there is still great disagreement as to whether or not "X=true". It could be argued that this disagreement would not exist if but through the malign efforts of people like Mr. Y, but I find that hard to support if you take things to a world level rather than an Early Colonial American level. At the world level there has been tremendous disagreement over this sort of thing for a long, long time, with ALL parties equally convinced of the superiority of their own beliefs Validity and Superiority.
The very nature of any Religious Thought is to exclude all other forms of Religious Thought.
Viral Memetics and all that. Ideas clings as tenaciously to 'life' as ever an animal did.
cheers,
-kent
**>>BELCH
Well stated.
**>>BELCH
Which is fine, so long as you're referring to being shot down with a gun.
Shooting down ideas verbally is the right and duty of all whose sense of decency provolks them to do so, especially in a forum (Slashdot) specially designed for that purpose.
Kats is not "asking questions of his audience". He is exploiting us for attention and peer credibility. I find that offensive and have no problems with saying so.
**>>BELCH
Right, you can't even say fuck on the radio
The problem is that these people refuse to consider an alternative point-of-view to such an extent that they threaten to murder the speaker. When one's life is threatened for speaking one canNOT speak freely. That is human nature.
Threatening death for voicing/holding a different point-of-view, that is religious nature.
Speech is NOT free in this country. And I'm not talking about the yelling-fire-in-a-crowded-theater kind of speech either.
Having actual free speech would in and of itself change the world.
Whenever I hear a viewpoint different from my own and take the time to consider it, it does change my own world view. The Internet disseminates information in a manner completely new from the past. Books can be burned, printing presses stopped, radio towers knocked out, and telephones easily wire-tapped. The Internet is by its very design able to overcome these problems (though the FBI is working feverishly to institute new guidelines in IPv6 and its infastructure such that the present freedoms will be no more).
Kintanon writes:
Not quite -- I am "a" Christian, but I don't believe or follow the teachings of that Nazarean carpenter...
This is a pretty damn inconvenient name to be saddled with, for an atheist / agnostic / whatever the hell kind of non-believer I am...
Christian R. Conrad
MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
Christian R. Conrad
mail me at iki.fi ; same user ID as here
Kintanon writes:
Exactly.
And, considering the facts -- that these men who "wrote the Bible" were members of a primitive tribe of Middle Eastern nomadic herdsmen, superstitious and without any tradition of scientific thought -- the one mistake that lies nearest to hand to suspect them of having made...
...is probably their propensity to see supernatural explanations for everything; i.e, their belief that there *is* such a thing as a "God".
Too bad so many people alive today seem to feel a need to cling to the same primitive superstition. Being a living feeling thinking human, I was kind'a thinking that The Meaning Of Liff could have something to do with being a living feeling thinking human... I dunno, perhaps those (other! :-) Christians just don't trust their own character enough to even dare consider this alternative.
Christian R. Conrad
MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
Christian R. Conrad
mail me at iki.fi ; same user ID as here
jflynn writes:
/., IMO.
/., *he* gets to take up room with his warmed-over drivel that other, more deserving members of *this* society, *don't* get to take up.
"When a member of society is offended by an idea espoused by a second there are two possible solutions. One is for the offended member not to listen to things that offend them. The other is to prevent the offender from speaking. I am saying the former course is preferable. Do you disagree?"
No, not with your arguments and conclusion.
But with the unspoken premise: In what way, exactly, is Katz a 'member of society'? Or rather, *what* society is he a member of? Not
"What is the effect if one of these suggestions that Katz go away is implemented? I and others who wish to listen are no longer able to."
Of course you'd be! You'd only have to follow him, to whatever "society" he goes to. (Something artsy-fartsy like Wired or Salon, I guess, is where he belongs.)
"What is the effect if the complaining posters filter Katz? They are presumably happier in their new Katz-free world while those who wish to can still read Katz."
No -- we'd still know that on the default unfiltered
Can you be 100% sure that if Katz didn't have top-level posting privileges, something like Chris Johnson's game engine would still have been rejected from the front page? And are you sure that pushing stuff like that, in favour of stuff like Katz's, is what *this* "society" wants?
All I know is that something I might have wanted to read didn't make the front page, while stuff by Katz does. But I can *suspect* that these things are related.
"I don't regard these suggestions as equivalent. Suggestions not to listen are not equivalent to suggestions not to talk."
Nor are they equivalent to suggestions not to provide non-members of the society with a free bully pulpit to speak *from*.
That's what *I* suggest.
"Emotional ad hominem attacks do not promote consensus or add information, they are noise."
So are well-thought-out, elegantly argued, ideas -- if they are *irrelevant*.
"I'm not suggesting gagging, locking up, or shooting violaters, merely pointing out that they are actually degrading the quality of the discussion. Perhaps even driving away those with good ideas but weak stomachs for conflict."
Or perhaps just suggesting those with more or less good ideas of the wrong *kind* go somewhere where those kind of ideas are more relevant. What's wrong with that?
Christian R. Conrad
MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
Christian R. Conrad
mail me at iki.fi ; same user ID as here
The Wah writes:
"I watched A&E's top 100 people of the millenium the last couple nights. They picked the same #1 as a couple other lists I have seen, Johann Guttenberg (no relation to Steve), and for the same reason."
Well, for starters, Gutenberg's name wasn't Guttenberg...
Christian R. Conrad
MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
Christian R. Conrad
mail me at iki.fi ; same user ID as here
Kintanon writes:
"I may be mistaken in my impression of how the KKK operates. But I am fairly certain that they are a Neo-Nazi hate group which bases their view of the 'Superior' Race on the tenets that Hitler put down. As usual, I could be wrong."
Why, you most certainly are very very wrong.
Sure, the KKK may have absorbed some of the Nazi's "scientific" justifications for race hatred. But to say it is "based" on them?!?
Hardly -- for one thing, the Klan and its tenets were around long *before* Hitler and the Nazis. So it couldn't very well be based on them, now could it?
Christian R. Conrad
MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
Christian R. Conrad
mail me at iki.fi ; same user ID as here