"You do realise you are subject to other countries laws right? And other countries can pass whatever laws they choose."
Yes, they can pass whatever laws they choose; and when those laws are oppressive and specifically deny people certain human rights, challenging them in any way possible is an action which has integrity and validity.
Let's say a country passes a law under which member of a particular racial group are all subject to execution by the state. Anyone caught sheltering or providing help to any member of that racial group will be prosecuted for it. So if some American guy decides to go to that country and smuggle out as many children from that group as possible in order to save their lives, you would condemn him for breaking the law? You would say he deserves to be executed or imprisoned for life for what he did?
In the end, it's attitudes like yours that allow totalitarian and anti-democratic regimes to flourish. Of course we need to abide by the law, but only inasmuch as the law itself does not impinge upon our human rights or the human rights of others. To uphold the value of a law that does otherwise is to uphold the legitimacy of despotism.
"And they wouldn't even be doing anything bad if they punished you as the law says!"
So, as long as something is enshrined in law, it's okay? And therefore all the people who saved Jews from the Nazis deserved capital punishment because they knew they were breaking the law?
Here's a tip: breaking laws that breach human rights is a very, very good thing to do. Breaking laws which protect children from being raped is a very, very bad thing to do.
Leaving aside the fact that yes, usually they are impeding me (Oxford has tiny sidewalks, so people standing still on them to take pictures often effectively stop anyone else from getting by), it just makes me feel antsy that I am constantly being snapped by people I don't know. I'm not saying that it's particularly rational, or that I think they should be made to stop.
Bunker analogy wasn't a straw man, really - I was acknowledging that my attitude is perhaps a little bit extreme and that if I never want my face seen in public I should probably hide somewhere.
I'm resigned to the fact that my face is going to turn up in the background of maybe hundreds of tourist photos and videos, being as I live in Oxford which is Tourist Central at this time of year. Regardless of what I'm doing, whether I'm hungover in my sweats and going to the corner shop for a pint of milk, or out on a date, or on my way to work. If I'm unlucky, I'm on my way to a formal dinner and wearing my academic robes. Then I'm not in the background - they're actually taking pictures directly of me. There are nine years of photos out there of me trying to look nondescript or putting on my "piss off you bastard with the camera" face. Okay, I know none of the people who see those photos is likely ever to recognise me - but it still feels like an invasion of privacy. And yes, if I don't want my "privacy" invaded in that way I should lock myself in a bunker. But can you not understand why it's annoying, even if it's not actually illegal or even immoral?
Uh-uh - no "ignorunt Americanz" crap, please... It's not that they haven't heard of the author; they're making fun of your egregious misspelling of her name.
"...to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs"
You think we should be legally required to show tolerance for all beliefs? It's an old story, but there are many religions whose beliefs run directly counter to the rights of groups such as women, gay people, and members of other religions. I have no intention of showing respect or tolerance towards someone who pickets the funerals of dead servicemen shouting how this is God's punishment for the gays, or someone who believes he has the right to throw acid in a woman's face because she didn't cover herself properly. Such people deserve contempt, ridicule, and any legal action that can validly be brought against them; they do not deserve the protection of the law simply because their actions are backed up by some crackpot (mis)reading of a religious text.
Absolutely. On the whole, stopping people from making criticisms of other groups is not a good thing. But if what this resolution calls for is something similar to the anti-incitement laws many countries already have, maybe it makes some sense.
BTW, how in the hell did this get modded Troll? Someone's finger slipped, right?
why should I allow anyone to regulate how I can interact with my friends.
Uh-huh. So you don't go to bars because they won't let you show your friend your new foreskin piercing. You don't go to libraries because they won't let you have a loud conversation about football with your friend. You don't go to restaurants because they won't let you play your own music on your stereo when you're having dinner with your friend. You don't go to a clothes store because you and your friend can't sit down and have a picnic in the middle of the t-shirt section.
Unless you're in a private residence, there are always regulations about your interaction with others. Even in a private residence, you can't legally help your friend commit suicide, or take drugs with them, or any other of a range of illegal activities. Facebook feels like a private space, but it isn't, so hold it to the same standards as a grocery store, not your living room.
"Bad genes" aren't anything like a 100% predictor of the development of medical conditions. It's not like letting these people die will wipe out sick people, leaving us with a perfectly healthy society. So an awful lot of people who would have lived to a healthy old age will die or go bankrupt because of appendicitis, or injuries sustained playing sports, or any other condition that has nothing to do with their genes. Meanwhile those with no genetic predisposition keep developing cancer and keep getting treated for it despite the fact that this will cost more with much less likelihood of a successful outcome than the kid with the sports injury.
When it comes down to it, allowing people to die in agony without medical treatment is barbaric - I don't believe that's a particularly sentimental position.
Yup, I'm with you. In the end, breastfeeding in public isn't something I would really want to see, but whatever. But posting pictures of yourself breastfeeding just seems like being deliberately provocative.
Those aren't the kind of pictures you need to share with everyone - if you want people to see them, there's always email... but I can guarantee you that the majority of those 400 Facebook "friends" you have really don't want to see that, any more than they want to hear about your newborn's growing poo-poo production or the consistency of his vomit. Parents need to accept that there are a hundred little things that are "cute" to them but pretty distasteful to the general populace.
I installed Chrome, and forced myself to use nothing else for a week just to give it a fair try. Since then, I've not used anything else. I love the layout and the functionality - the way it uses tabs, and the fact that one tab crashing doesn't crash the whole browser, is great. Sounds like I'm in a minority, though. Ah well.
I think it's more likely to be viewed as the color of the earth, sand, wood, that kind of natural stuff. But if you want to think about gay sex instead, don't let me spoil your fun...
I think the thing you have to recognise about religious thought is that time means something different from what it means in the objective historical sense. The Abrahamic faiths are based around a God who is timeless, and a sense of history in which much of what happens is seen as symbolically prefiguring other events. Every historical moment is a living part of the salvation history of that particular religion, and a continuity is assumed between Christians/Jews/Muslims then and Christians/Jews/Muslims now.
It's like the philosopher's axe: replace the handle, then replace the head, then replace the handle again - is it the same axe? Secular society may be beginning to move away from blaming people for the crimes of their ancestors, although we still have apologies for slavery from people who have never seen a slave in their lives, or apologies for war crimes by people who were barely born when they were carried out. Still, hopefully not too many people would think it sensible to blame the new generation of German people for the Holocaust.
In the religious hermeneutic, however, people can be cursed through their descendants until the end of time, and if that's the case, why can't the descendants (literal or figurative) of the Crusaders also be a focus of anger for the descendants of their victims? (Note that I am speaking rhetorically here, not expressing my own opinion.) Especially when those descendants appear to have an analogous hatred and desire to eradicate Islam?
I'm not saying that all religious people think this way, of course, but that religious modes of thought are favourable to a model of history which emphasises symbolic continuity rather than the autonomy of successive generations.
Yup, and if you'd looked you'd have seen that I'd already fixed it for myself. It goes to prove my point that everyone makes linguistic mistakes sometimes, for example when it's 3 a.m. and they've been sitting up checking footnotes for five hours.
Fantastic - I mistyped "then" instead of "than"! Way to undermine your entire point and make yourself a laughing stock, Mr. "look at me, I teach at one of the best Universities in the world"! It's late in the UK (or early, actually). I apologise.
My comment about arrogance related to the fact that English speakers often don't bother to pick up the native language of countries they visit, they just expect everyone they meet to speak English. And yet when they're in their own country, they expect foreigners to have a perfect grasp of English.
...or dyslexic, or badly educated because your teachers didn't care, or the child of illiterate parents, or just plain tired after a long day, or a potentially hyper-intelligent foreigner who just hasn't mastered English yet...
I'm not a fan of poor English either - I teach the subject at Oxford, so I'm probably more aware of mistakes then the average reader. But when someone is obviously a learner rather than a sloppy native speaker, let's give them a break, huh?
Would you rather participate in an inward-looking forum where only native speakers with the requisite educational level are allowed, or one where you have a far broader range of opinions and ideas which are sometimes marred by poor (but nonetheless understandable) language usage?
Have you been to Spain recently? There are more British expats in some parts than native Spanish people, and they really do expect to have their every whim catered for. English speakers are one of the most arrogant groups in the world, linguistically. The fact that our language is dominant in many areas puts us at a natural advantage.
But let's get this into perspective. Slashdot is on the Internet; it's not a country. Someone who posts here with less-than-excellent English might be posting from Mexico, or Lithuania, or Uganda. They're not refusing to learn the language of their country of residence, they're just not great at the language Slashdot chose for its website.
Clearly, the guy who wrote post No.1 needs to be introduced to the wife of the guy who wrote post No.2. He clearly has lots of lovely stories about nice animals to tell her...
Slashdot Mirror
"You do realise you are subject to other countries laws right? And other countries can pass whatever laws they choose."
Yes, they can pass whatever laws they choose; and when those laws are oppressive and specifically deny people certain human rights, challenging them in any way possible is an action which has integrity and validity.
Let's say a country passes a law under which member of a particular racial group are all subject to execution by the state. Anyone caught sheltering or providing help to any member of that racial group will be prosecuted for it. So if some American guy decides to go to that country and smuggle out as many children from that group as possible in order to save their lives, you would condemn him for breaking the law? You would say he deserves to be executed or imprisoned for life for what he did?
In the end, it's attitudes like yours that allow totalitarian and anti-democratic regimes to flourish. Of course we need to abide by the law, but only inasmuch as the law itself does not impinge upon our human rights or the human rights of others. To uphold the value of a law that does otherwise is to uphold the legitimacy of despotism.
"And they wouldn't even be doing anything bad if they punished you as the law says!"
So, as long as something is enshrined in law, it's okay? And therefore all the people who saved Jews from the Nazis deserved capital punishment because they knew they were breaking the law?
Here's a tip: breaking laws that breach human rights is a very, very good thing to do. Breaking laws which protect children from being raped is a very, very bad thing to do.
I'm new to the Telegraph url meme - can someone explain it to me?
I think it should be a real word - let's coin it!
Leaving aside the fact that yes, usually they are impeding me (Oxford has tiny sidewalks, so people standing still on them to take pictures often effectively stop anyone else from getting by), it just makes me feel antsy that I am constantly being snapped by people I don't know. I'm not saying that it's particularly rational, or that I think they should be made to stop.
Bunker analogy wasn't a straw man, really - I was acknowledging that my attitude is perhaps a little bit extreme and that if I never want my face seen in public I should probably hide somewhere.
Yup - and, you know what? It's horrible.
I'm resigned to the fact that my face is going to turn up in the background of maybe hundreds of tourist photos and videos, being as I live in Oxford which is Tourist Central at this time of year. Regardless of what I'm doing, whether I'm hungover in my sweats and going to the corner shop for a pint of milk, or out on a date, or on my way to work. If I'm unlucky, I'm on my way to a formal dinner and wearing my academic robes. Then I'm not in the background - they're actually taking pictures directly of me. There are nine years of photos out there of me trying to look nondescript or putting on my "piss off you bastard with the camera" face. Okay, I know none of the people who see those photos is likely ever to recognise me - but it still feels like an invasion of privacy. And yes, if I don't want my "privacy" invaded in that way I should lock myself in a bunker. But can you not understand why it's annoying, even if it's not actually illegal or even immoral?
Oh, okay... I don't understand! I'm an idiot too, probably :)
Uh-uh - no "ignorunt Americanz" crap, please... It's not that they haven't heard of the author; they're making fun of your egregious misspelling of her name.
Heh - that ship has looong sailed!
"...to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs"
You think we should be legally required to show tolerance for all beliefs? It's an old story, but there are many religions whose beliefs run directly counter to the rights of groups such as women, gay people, and members of other religions. I have no intention of showing respect or tolerance towards someone who pickets the funerals of dead servicemen shouting how this is God's punishment for the gays, or someone who believes he has the right to throw acid in a woman's face because she didn't cover herself properly. Such people deserve contempt, ridicule, and any legal action that can validly be brought against them; they do not deserve the protection of the law simply because their actions are backed up by some crackpot (mis)reading of a religious text.
Absolutely. On the whole, stopping people from making criticisms of other groups is not a good thing. But if what this resolution calls for is something similar to the anti-incitement laws many countries already have, maybe it makes some sense.
BTW, how in the hell did this get modded Troll? Someone's finger slipped, right?
Interesting that this is modded "funny" - considering the recent change of president, I wonder whether it's actually just racist?
why should I allow anyone to regulate how I can interact with my friends.
Uh-huh. So you don't go to bars because they won't let you show your friend your new foreskin piercing. You don't go to libraries because they won't let you have a loud conversation about football with your friend. You don't go to restaurants because they won't let you play your own music on your stereo when you're having dinner with your friend. You don't go to a clothes store because you and your friend can't sit down and have a picnic in the middle of the t-shirt section.
Unless you're in a private residence, there are always regulations about your interaction with others. Even in a private residence, you can't legally help your friend commit suicide, or take drugs with them, or any other of a range of illegal activities. Facebook feels like a private space, but it isn't, so hold it to the same standards as a grocery store, not your living room.
"Bad genes" aren't anything like a 100% predictor of the development of medical conditions. It's not like letting these people die will wipe out sick people, leaving us with a perfectly healthy society. So an awful lot of people who would have lived to a healthy old age will die or go bankrupt because of appendicitis, or injuries sustained playing sports, or any other condition that has nothing to do with their genes. Meanwhile those with no genetic predisposition keep developing cancer and keep getting treated for it despite the fact that this will cost more with much less likelihood of a successful outcome than the kid with the sports injury.
When it comes down to it, allowing people to die in agony without medical treatment is barbaric - I don't believe that's a particularly sentimental position.
Yup, I'm with you. In the end, breastfeeding in public isn't something I would really want to see, but whatever. But posting pictures of yourself breastfeeding just seems like being deliberately provocative.
Those aren't the kind of pictures you need to share with everyone - if you want people to see them, there's always email... but I can guarantee you that the majority of those 400 Facebook "friends" you have really don't want to see that, any more than they want to hear about your newborn's growing poo-poo production or the consistency of his vomit. Parents need to accept that there are a hundred little things that are "cute" to them but pretty distasteful to the general populace.
I installed Chrome, and forced myself to use nothing else for a week just to give it a fair try. Since then, I've not used anything else. I love the layout and the functionality - the way it uses tabs, and the fact that one tab crashing doesn't crash the whole browser, is great. Sounds like I'm in a minority, though. Ah well.
I think it's more likely to be viewed as the color of the earth, sand, wood, that kind of natural stuff. But if you want to think about gay sex instead, don't let me spoil your fun...
I think the thing you have to recognise about religious thought is that time means something different from what it means in the objective historical sense. The Abrahamic faiths are based around a God who is timeless, and a sense of history in which much of what happens is seen as symbolically prefiguring other events. Every historical moment is a living part of the salvation history of that particular religion, and a continuity is assumed between Christians/Jews/Muslims then and Christians/Jews/Muslims now.
It's like the philosopher's axe: replace the handle, then replace the head, then replace the handle again - is it the same axe? Secular society may be beginning to move away from blaming people for the crimes of their ancestors, although we still have apologies for slavery from people who have never seen a slave in their lives, or apologies for war crimes by people who were barely born when they were carried out. Still, hopefully not too many people would think it sensible to blame the new generation of German people for the Holocaust.
In the religious hermeneutic, however, people can be cursed through their descendants until the end of time, and if that's the case, why can't the descendants (literal or figurative) of the Crusaders also be a focus of anger for the descendants of their victims? (Note that I am speaking rhetorically here, not expressing my own opinion.) Especially when those descendants appear to have an analogous hatred and desire to eradicate Islam?
I'm not saying that all religious people think this way, of course, but that religious modes of thought are favourable to a model of history which emphasises symbolic continuity rather than the autonomy of successive generations.
Yup, and if you'd looked you'd have seen that I'd already fixed it for myself. It goes to prove my point that everyone makes linguistic mistakes sometimes, for example when it's 3 a.m. and they've been sitting up checking footnotes for five hours.
Fantastic - I mistyped "then" instead of "than"! Way to undermine your entire point and make yourself a laughing stock, Mr. "look at me, I teach at one of the best Universities in the world"! It's late in the UK (or early, actually). I apologise.
My comment about arrogance related to the fact that English speakers often don't bother to pick up the native language of countries they visit, they just expect everyone they meet to speak English. And yet when they're in their own country, they expect foreigners to have a perfect grasp of English.
:) rwy'n cytuno'n llwyr!
...or dyslexic, or badly educated because your teachers didn't care, or the child of illiterate parents, or just plain tired after a long day, or a potentially hyper-intelligent foreigner who just hasn't mastered English yet...
I'm not a fan of poor English either - I teach the subject at Oxford, so I'm probably more aware of mistakes then the average reader. But when someone is obviously a learner rather than a sloppy native speaker, let's give them a break, huh?
Would you rather participate in an inward-looking forum where only native speakers with the requisite educational level are allowed, or one where you have a far broader range of opinions and ideas which are sometimes marred by poor (but nonetheless understandable) language usage?
Have you been to Spain recently? There are more British expats in some parts than native Spanish people, and they really do expect to have their every whim catered for. English speakers are one of the most arrogant groups in the world, linguistically. The fact that our language is dominant in many areas puts us at a natural advantage.
But let's get this into perspective. Slashdot is on the Internet; it's not a country. Someone who posts here with less-than-excellent English might be posting from Mexico, or Lithuania, or Uganda. They're not refusing to learn the language of their country of residence, they're just not great at the language Slashdot chose for its website.
Then my work here is done.
Clearly, the guy who wrote post No.1 needs to be introduced to the wife of the guy who wrote post No.2. He clearly has lots of lovely stories about nice animals to tell her...