A ‘Houle’ in the moral fabric of Ottawa University

March 22, 2010 — xanthippa

Goodness knows, I am not a fan of Ann Coulter.  My dad thinks she’s cute – I’m unconvinced.  Rather, I find her offensive, ill informed, un-objective and, well, not very bright.

Still, a person’a a person, no matter how brash!

This week, Ann Coulter is going to be embarrassing conservatives in Canada by speaking at 3 Universities.  You’d think that after the ‘Bash-a-Jew’ week most Canadian Universities held in March, they’d let up a bit on the anti-Jewish rhetoric on campus…

But no, no such luck!

Ms. ‘Jews-are-unperfected-Christians’ Coulter has been invited to demonstrate her ‘selective intelligence’ at 3 Canadian Universities this week.

And why not?

Why should ALL the anti-Semitism at our Universities come exclusively from the left of the political spectrum?  A little right-wing anti-Semitism brings ‘diversity’ to those institutions we entrust with shaping our young, bright minds!

Still, I do think that it is great that she gets to give her speech, do her bit.  I may not like her views – and diss her mercilessly for her open contempt for anyone not Christian, but, she has just as much right to speak her mind (if you can stretch the meaning of the word ‘mind’) as you or I or anyone else.  Freedom of speech must be given the greatest possible precedence because, just like with an infected cut: when you hide odious ideas out of sight, they don’t just ‘go away’ – they fester.

Therefore, anything short of immediately and directly inciting violence (notice I did not add ‘hate’ there) must be permitted. If – and only if – the speaker had already said/written things which were ‘slanderous/defamatory’ or in breech of a law in another way (revealing state or trade secrets, etc.), legal action (criminal and/or civil) can and should be taken against him/her.  Not before!

What is interesting, though, is the reaction from the Universities themselves!

While all care was taken to ‘protect’ the left-wing ‘JewsZionists-are-baby-killers’ anti-semites who were left-wing and/or Muslim from any criticism of their rhetoric and from putting limits on their freedom of speech, making sure nobody was permitted to say anything which might hurt their feelings as they call for the murder of citizens of Israel, the right-wing Christian anti-Semite has been threatened with legal action – should she not self-censor her words sufficiently to some unspecified level – before she even got here!

A Houle in the moral fabric of Ottawa University – François Houle, Vice-recteur aux études / Vice-President Academic and Provost, Université d’Ottawa / University of Ottawa, 550, rue Cumberland Street, Ottawa (ON) K1N 6N5, téléphone / telephone : 613 562-5737, télécopieur / fax : 613 562-5103, e-mail: francois.houle@uottawa.ca – that Houle, to be specific, has sent Ms. ‘Jews-have-to-obey-religious-laws-but-Christians-don’t-because-Jesus-will-Fed-Ex-their-souls-right-to-heaven’ Coulter, bullying her with the threat of lawfare if he does not approve of her message.

I’m not sure if you have picked up on my subtle hints:  I think that Ms. Coulter is a personification of  much of what is wrong with the ‘right wing’.  Voices like hers drown out sane voices, like, say Thomas Sowell, and cause many, many people to reject any and all messages coming from the right’.  But…

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech!

Posted in debate, freedoms, opression, religion. Tags: , , , , . 7 Comments »

Genetic Modification: What defines you as ‘human’?

March 17, 2010 — xanthippa

This is a discussion we really, really ought to have had long before we developed the technology to do this.

It is not a good situation when ‘public debate’ – for whatever reasons, be it cultural, religious or just because it is easier to control an ignorant population – does not keep up with our technological abilities.

This all comes down to the whole ‘knowledge’ versus ‘wisdom’ thing…

What prompted this?

We have long been served plant-foods which contain artificially spliced in genes from other plants – or, possibly, animals.  And, we are not permitted to know (legally) what is what.  Now, we are about to be presented with meat which contains the genes of several animals…. (H/T: BCF)

We may know what we are doing – technologically.  But, do we understand what we are doing, both morally and legally?

* * *

We can no longer even agree on what defines ‘male’ versus ‘female’.

Really – do think about it.

It used to be easy:  the external presentation was sufficient.  And, any hermaphrodites were either so successful at passing themselves as one or the other sex that the question was really mute.  Even that really, really weird case in some isolated pacific islands where ‘every generation’,  some ‘clearly female children’ would, during puberty, develop into males.  To the islanders, it was clear:  while the child ‘appeared’ female, it was ‘a female’.  When the external presentation changed and the child began to look like a man, the (now) youth became ‘a male’!

But, now….

It is no longer so simple!

At first, it looked like our scientific knowledge actually simplified things:  females have two X chromosomes while males have one X chromosome and one Y chromosome.  Simple, right?

Except that….

Back in the late 1980’s, we learned that there are many men who have the required XY combination – plus another X chromosome!  Sometimes, as many as 5 or more ‘scrunched’ looking X chromosomes were found!  (Not important here, but they also found that the men with the extra ‘scrunched’ X chromosomes had a propensity for becoming very, very violent criminals.)

The question then becomes:  is a person with two X chromosomes legally female?

Or, is the presence of a Y chromosome that which defines a person as ‘male’?

We never really had that public debate….when we learned that one’s self-perception as ‘male’ or ‘female’ is set by specific hormones affecting our brain development while we are still fetuses!  If a particular chemical gets released during a very specific point of our fetal development, we will think of our selves as ‘male’.  If it does not get released – or gets released late, or in too small amounts, we self-perceive as ‘female’, regardless of our genetic makeup or our sexual orientation!

Then we learned how to perform ‘sex change’  operations….

…which opened a whole new debate!

If a person is born female – double X chromosomes – and undergoes a sex-change operation, that person is now legally male:  regardless of ‘genetic makeup’.  So, we are back to ‘external presentation’ as being the key defining element.

Except for the case of Caster Semenya…

(Aside:  this case would be mute if we did not practice strict sexual apartheid in sports – another issue we should really, really take a look at … but that is not the focus of this post.)

What I am trying to point out is that where  ‘male’ and ‘female’ used to be defined easily (more or less), using ‘common sense’, the scientific advances we have led to technology which muddles the debate, to the point where different countries around the world have irreconcilably different legal definitions of ‘maleness’ and ‘femaleness’!

* * *

Still, this is a minor debate compared to the ‘what defines ‘humanness” debate!

In my never-humble-opinion, this debate is more charged with religious pitfalls than just about anything else!  After, all, the whole ‘abortion’ debate is only a sub-section of this greater debate of  ‘where’ we draw the legal – as well as moral, as it is wrong to legislate morality, so the two ought not necessarily be the same – line of what defines who/what is or is not human!

(This is NOT meant to be an ‘abortion debate’ –  please, don’t turn it into one!  I only mentioned it because I wanted to underlie both  just how important and charged this debate is ….and how bizarre it is that we are NOT having this ‘greater’ public debate!)

For many years, I had a neighbour whose daughter was born missing a pair of chromosomes.  Still, she was completely human!  Disabled, yes.  But, she WAS a human being!

Yet, because she was missing two whole chromosomes, she was genetically more different from ‘average human’ than most primates are….and we certainly don’t consider THEM human!  ALL primates are used as ‘live meat’ – without any regard to anything else – in all the vaccination-producing and other ‘medical’ labs in the world!

So, what defines YOU as ‘human’?

Just how much genetic damage and/or mutation do you have to suffer before you and your children  are no longer defined as ‘human’?  Legally or morally?

We share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees – yet, legally, they are ‘live meat’.

And people missing  way more than 2% of human DNA, like my ex-neighbour,  are still ‘human’!

This is a really, really important public debate we ought to be having now!  OK – we should have been having it long ago….  Still, delaying it now is dangerous to the very core of our society!

Why?

Because now that we have the technical ability to swap genes between species, we are putting our ability into practice without having defined how we will ‘consider’ the ‘results’!

We can take genetic material from one species, splice it into another – and have the ‘spliced’ genes passed on to the next generation!

And,  we have not had the public discussion about this.  About what makes one species unique – and how that uniqueness is or is not affected by splicing in genes from another species!

Yes, this has been going on for a long time.  Animal genes were spliced into plant genes, genes from one animal are being spliced into another – we have the technical ability!  Yet, we have not really – really – had the public debate about it…

Oh, sure – we have talked about ‘Franken foods’!  About plants which have been genetically modified in one way or another.  Still, much of the  public debate has been stifled – and, perhaps more ominously, there is actual legislation that forbids produce labels which would identify whether the food one is about to purchase has – or has not – been genetically modified!

WHY?

“To prevent  prejudice against genetically modified foods!’ – we are told…

No – I don’t mean to get into weird conspiracy theories here.  I think the answer is very simple:  money.  If a genetic manipulation is financially beneficial to the ‘genetic manipulator’, that ‘genetic manipulator’ will consider investing in ‘product-favourable legislation’ to be no less important a component of their investment in ‘bringing the product to market’ as  ‘scientific research’  how to do it actually is.  That is not a ‘conspiracy theory’ – that is simply ‘good business sense’.

Again – the mechanics of this are not the point of this post.  Let’s just accept the current state of things as they are now – not as they ‘ought to be’ – and get to the greater issue.

Just how MUCH genetic material from one species does a living organism have to contain (or be missing) before it is legally considered (or no longer considered) a member of a particular species?

We do now have mice which have had ‘human breast cancer’ genes spliced in – and pass them on to their offspring.  That means that human genes (OK – ‘broken’ human genes, but human genes none-the-less) are present in sentient beings which do not enjoy any of the rights and freedoms of fully-human beings.  Just how MUCH of our ‘human’ DNA should a creature contain before it is ‘human’?

Legally?

Morally?

What about my neighbour, born missing a few chromosomes?  If a child is born with ‘sufficiently large’ genetic disorder, will it no longer have the legal protections of other humans?

* * *

OK – let’s consider the story I linked: ‘ pork’ which contains mouse genes is now being proposed for sale, without any labels informing the customers that they are buying (presumably for consumption) meat which contains both pig and mouse genes.  We also know there are ‘genetically designed’  mice out there, which contain human genes…

And fish are about to enter our food markets which contain ‘beef-genes’…tip of the proverbial iceberg!

How long before we are being served ‘animal meat’ which contains ‘some’ human genetic material?

How MUCH human genetic material does a meat have to contain before it is considered ‘cannibalism’ to consume it?

Will it be illegal for us to even know we are consuming ‘flesh’ which contains ‘some’ human DNA?

What I am trying to say is….before we physically blur the lines between species – something our technology today permits us to do with impunity – we ought to remember that we, humans, are just a species ourselves!

Any ‘genetic pollution’ we permit, any ‘genetic-line-smudging’ we allow, will, necessarily, set a precedent for all ‘species-specific’ blurring of lines – even the lines of the human species.

I do NOT pretend to have any of the answers.  I freely admit I am deeply conflicted on the issue….

Really – we ought to talk about this!

Posted in debate, science, society, technology. Tags: , , , . 4 Comments »

IPCC references – I’m checking them out

March 11, 2010 — xanthippa

I did it!

I signed up to be a part of the group of ordinary citizens which does some due diligence on the IPCC 4th report’s references!

We’ve been bombarded with assertions that the IPCC review is based on ‘solid, scientific studies which were published in reputable scientific journals after undergoing a thorough peer-review which ensured only ‘sound’ science gets published.

Right.

Yet, it is exactly this claim that the IPCC review is using peer-reviewed (peer-review is ‘quality control’ in scientific studies) – and therefore high-quality and somehow ‘unassailable’ scientific studies – it is this claim that is being widely used as a shield to any criticism of the report and the political policies it is attempting to mandate.  In short, the IPCC ‘crowd’ is deriving the authoritativeness of their report from the claim they used peer-reviewed science!

And – even after their earlier predictions have clearly not come true (their own top scientists have testified that there has been NO statistically significant WARMING in the last 14 years – and the total warmingfrom 150 years ago to-date just over 1/2 degree Celsius:  well within the ‘noise’ one would expect due to natural variation) and every respectable scientist would admit their hypothesis is faulty, these people are still claiming that the IPCC report is accurate ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and that we should all approve shady schemes which will make them rich!

So, we are checking nothing but the veracity of this claim – just how much of the report is based on solid science and how much is based on ‘gray literature’ !

Volunteers who sign up  each take a chapter and see which references are actually peer-reviewed scientific studies.  Each chapter’s references will be reviewed by at least 3 different volunteers, to minimize errors….and if there is any doubt as to the count of ‘peer-reviewed’ versus ‘other’ references, the number most favourable to the IPCC will be used.

And, we’re not even digging into the whole ‘pal-review’ instead of ‘peer review’ – all we are ‘tagging’ are references to government policy reports, WWF publications (yes, I HAVE come across one of these in the first 100 references I checked), random websites (yes, I saw one of them, too), self-references, EU or UN press releases, various government policy statements (yes, I saw many of these, too), and so on.

This project is not ‘examining the validity of the science’ – that is complex and people who are imminently qualified are already doing a great job doing that.

Nor are we taking a look at ‘what studies were included’ versus ‘what studies were available’.  That is, we are not checking if the report is based on ‘cherry-picked’ studies – ones that only show one side of the issue – also a very important factor which could be a source of a bias.

No – not going there.

In other words, we are not auditing the science in the IPCC report.

Instead, we are testing the assertion – nay, claim! – that the IPCC report is based on peer-reviewed, scientific studies published in reputable scientific journals!

That is all!

Still, it is a big task:  the chapter I am checking has over 600 references…. it takes time to check them!

But, it is a little ‘walk-on-part’ in this war of scientific skepticism against politicized subversion of science….and that is important.

Once the good folks (Donna and her helpers) from NOconsensus.org get all the well documented results and meld them together, they will let us know just how much the IPCC report is based on scientific studies vs. ‘gray literature’!

Stay tuned….

Posted in debate, science, scientific fraud. Tags: , , , . 1 Comment »

Agnostic: what it does – and does not – mean

February 19, 2010 — xanthippa

One term misused in debates about ‘religion’ almost as often as the term ‘atheist’ is the term ‘agnostic’.

Perhaps it’s the Aspie in me, but I think that if people are going to make passionate arguments, often using some terms in an authoritarian or patronizing manner, they ought to have taken the time to learn what those terms actually mean.  (Of course, not everyone does that – but, many do…)

The term ‘agnostic’ does not describe a person’s ‘belief in’ or ‘non-belief in’ or ‘belief-in-the-non’ existence of god(s).

Not even a little bit.

An ‘agnostic’ can believe in the existence of god(s).

An ‘agnostic’ can believe in the non-existence of  god(s).

An ‘agnostic’ can hold no belief in either the existence, or the non-existence, of god(s).

Still, many people use the term to mean ‘someone who does not believe one way or the other if god(s) exist’…..

Sorry – that is NOT what the word ‘agnostic’ describes!!!

Certainly, some agnostics fall into the category of ‘not holding a belief in either the existence, or the non-existence, of god(s).  But, that is only because there is an overlap in ‘groups’ or ‘states of belief’ that various definitions describe.

…kind of like there is an overlap between ‘long arms’ and ‘long hair’.  Both revolve about something being ‘long’.  And, some people with ‘long arms’ also have ‘long hair’.  But the terms each describe a different ‘long’ – so they cannot be used as if they meant the same thing!

Yes – I am getting bogged down in words.  To re-phrase:  the term ‘agnostic’ may include theists, non-theists, atheists or any other -theist group because it does not describe the state of one’s belief in the divine.

Rather, it describes one’s belief about the ‘ability to have knowledge’ of the existence of the divine.

Let’s look at the root of the word:

‘Gnosis’ means ‘knowledge’ in Greek.

The term, when used in English, refers to ‘spiritual enlightenment’ – as in, the type of ‘mystical enlightenment’ a person receives during a ‘spiritual  rapture’ or ‘spirit quest’ or another altered-state type meditation or similar experience.

For example, Gnostic Christians do not recognize the authority of any church or clergyman, because they strive for direct spiritual knowledge – gnosis.  This they regard as much more important than any dogma…

The prefix ‘a-‘ simply means ‘apart from’.

Thus, ‘a-gnostic’ – taken bit by bit – literally means ‘apart from (spiritual) knowledge’.

Once ‘put together’, the term ‘agnostic’ means ‘belief that it is un-knowable ‘ if god(s) do or do not exist.

Thus, this is a statement of belief.  Yes, to be an agnostic, one must hold this belief!

But this belief is not about the existence of the divine: it is a belief about existence of knowledge of the divine!

Specifically, an agnostic actively believes that we cannot know whether god(s) exist.

This does not preclude choosing to believe, anyway.  Many people have concluded that they cannot know for sure if god(s) exist, so, to be on the safe side, they decide to believe!  This is the very point of Pascal’s Wager.

Blaise Pascal argued that we cannot know – through reason, so really, really know – if God exists.  Therefore, we ought to consider the 2 possible scenarios (God exists and God does not exist) and our 2 choices of action (believe in God or not believe in God) and do a risk-assessment:

Scenario 1:  God does not exist

Choice 1:  behave as if God does exist

Result – more effort during life, but, nothing gained.

Choice 2:  behave as if God does not exist

Result – nothing lost and nothing gained.

Scenario 2:  God exists:

Choice 1:   behave as if God does exist

Result – more effort during life, but huge gain at ‘the end’! Eternal Salvation!

Choice 2:  behave as if God does not exist

Result – less effort during life, but then… everything lost! Eternal damnation!

Therefore, Pascal’s reasoning goes, the cost to one’s soul of ‘not believing’ in God is much greater (eternal damnation) than the cost of believing in God while alive (obeying the church).  Therefore, the only reasonable choice is to believe!

(OK – there could be an argument made whether Pascal actually said ‘choose to believe’ or ‘live as if you believe’:  the first one would be an agnostic who chooses to be a theist, the second one would be an agnostic who is an atheist, but chooses to behave as a theist.  But, that – as well as just how ‘voluntary’ it is ‘to believe’ – is a whole different discussion!)

Aside:  this same argument has been used by some people to justify spending tons of money on ‘preventing the disaster of global warming/anthropogenic climate change’.  That ought to suffice in helping us recognize that the whole ‘ACC’ movement is a religion, not science, and that ‘carbon credits’ are its ‘indulgences’.

But – back to the main point…

Summary:  The term ‘agnostic’ does not refer to one’s ‘beliefs’ about the existence of God.  Rather, it is the positive (‘actively present’) belief that it is impossible to know if god(s) exist.

Thus, it is a belief about the nature (presence) of knowledge.  Specific knowledge, in this case, but knowledge none the less.

It is not a statement about one’s state of belief in the subject of that knowledge – the existence of god(s).

Agnostics can either believe that god(s) exist – or not.  They just believe they cannot ever actually know…

Posted in atheism, debate, religion. Tags: , , , , . Leave a Comment »

‘Atheist’: a definition

February 9, 2010 — xanthippa

Before I get started on defining ‘atheism’ or ‘what  makes someone an atheist’, it is important to say some things about what ‘atheism’ is not.

‘Atheism’ is not a formal or codified doctrine, like, say, Christianity, or even Humanism, is.

There is no set of ‘beliefs’ or ‘values’ which ‘atheists’ share or subscribe to.

That is because in order to have a shared ‘doctrine’ or ‘dogma’,  a label must describe some types of ‘held’ beliefs or convictions of the people being thus labeled.  ‘Atheism’ does not describe a set of ‘held’ beliefs – or even just one belief.

Instead, it describes ‘absence of belief’:  a very specific absence of one specific belief – the belief in the existence of deities.

Atheist:

An atheist is a person who does not ‘hold the belief’ that God(s) and/or Goddess(es) exist.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Some people refer to monotheism (not believing in the existence Gods or Goddesses – except one) as ‘selective atheism’:  people who believe in just one deity necessarily disbelieve in the existence of all deities but one.

Atheists may still belong to a religion:  not every religion has deities in it!  From ‘the big 5’, Buddhism is a religion which does not address the question of deities.  And, no, Buddha is not a God – not in any way, shape or form – and never was.  And – Buddhism is not the only atheistic religion.

Communism, for example, is another example of a religion which does not have any deities:  it requires the ‘belief in’/’submission to’/’acceptance of’ certain principles (of collectivism, in this case) instead.  And, there are countless more!

Describing something as ‘atheistic’ means that it does not address the question of the existence of God or Gods or Goddesses.  Therefore, any and every thing, conversation, organization and so on, which does not specifically proclaim the ‘belief in the existence of deities’ is, by definition, atheistic.

To lump all ‘atheists’ together as if they all subscribed to a common doctrine or school of thought would be even less accurate than lumping all ‘theists’ together:  while all ‘theists’ actually have a positive belief in the existence of one or more deities, defining someone as an ‘atheist’ does not define any actual belief.  It just says what these people do not believe.  It’s like identifying a group of people by saying ‘people who do not die their hair’…this can include anyone from people that have no hair to die, to people who like their ‘natural’ haircolour…all the way to people who would change their hair colour, if only they could (or, if it were easier).

OK – this is getting muddled. Let me try another approach.

Though there are ‘shades in-between’, these are several distinct ‘types’ or ‘major classes’ of atheists.  In order to describe them, please, indulge me and play a little thought experiment with me:

Let’s say that I tell you I have a neighbour. Let’s say that I now show you a picture of a woman with blond hair and say this is my neighbour..  Do you believe my neighbour is a natural blond?

***

Having never thought about my neighbour – much less a blond one – before now, it it not likely that you

  • believe my neighbour is a natural blond
  • believe my neighbour is not a natural blond

Therefore, you are ‘apart from belief’ whether my neighbour is a ‘natural blonde’.

This roughly approximates what I think of as the ‘what are gods and why should I believe in them’ atheists.  Not only do they not hold a belief either way, they don’t see the point of even thinking about it.  They simply do not care – and most of them don’t want to care.

***

Having looked at the picture, you may find there simply isn’t enough information there to make you

  • believe my neighbour is a natural blond
  • believe my neighbour is not a natural blond

Therefore, even though you have taken the time to investigate (you looked at the picture) and to think about it, yet, you don’t ‘believe’ one way or the  other.  You may think it is likely – say, 80% likely – that she might be a natural blonde.  Or not.  Who could tell?

This roughly approximates what I think of as ‘considered atheists’.  They have considered the question of the existence of deities, looked at the religions ‘out there’, thought about it, and did not become convinced enough to hold a belief one way or the other.  They may still be searching for ‘belief’, hoping to find it.  Or, they may not be.

***

Or, having looked at the picture, you may have noticed that the woman in the picture has blond hair with black roots… Therefore, you

  • believe my neighbour is not a natural blond

This is actually REALLY substantially different from the above two types of ‘apart from belief’ groups:  you actually believe in the truthfulness of one of the choices!  You just happen to believe in the ‘not’ option…

While you still ‘do not believe’ that my neighbour is a natural blond, but, in addition to ‘disbelieving’ that her blond-ness is natural, you actively believe that it is not.  Therefore, you have ‘an absence of belief’ in  the first proposition, and active/positive ‘belief’ in the second one.

Many people today refer to this group as ‘strong atheists’.  Frankly, that is not just wrong, it is silly.

The ‘atheist’ label refers to ‘absence of belief’ – and associating it with a belief (the belief in the ‘non-existence’) is inaccurate and misleading.  Unfortunately, the term ‘atheist’ became used in this very sense from very shortly after it was created, because many people find it difficult to understand that ‘absence of belief in Gods’ does not imply ‘belief of absence of Gods’…

…which does not mean that continuing to misuse the term is a good idea.

Plus, it seems to me that holding ANY ‘belief’ is a weakness – NOT a strength.

Therefore, referring to a ‘purist’ non-beliver as a ‘weak atheist’ and to a person who actually holds ANY form of a belief as a ‘strong atheist’ seems, to me, stupid at best. (OK – I’m not being particularly eloquent:  but I am being honest!)

***

Of course, there are many people whose reactions – given this thought experiment – would be quite different.  Like…

  • I believe the woman in this picture is a ‘natural blonde’ – but I don’t believe she is your neighbour!
  • What woman?  You are showing me a picture of a car!
  • Whatever her hair colour is, how natural it is – that is irrelevant.  She should cover her hair!
  • Hey!  This is a crayon drawing!  You drew this yourself!  You are trying to trick me!

….plus about a hundred other possible responses.  But, this post is NOT about THEM.  It is about showing that ‘disbelief’ is different that ‘belief’ – even different from ‘belief in  not’….

Of course, there are people – even self-identified as ‘atheists’ – who just don’t get this.

They did not do their homework.

They are  confusing any and all discussions on this issue.

And, that is too bad…

Posted in atheism, debate, language. Tags: , , , . 3 Comments »

At a loss for words…

February 4, 2010 — xanthippa

A bit ago, I wrote a post ‘Winning back our liberty: the ‘religious right’ threat’.

This was one post in a ‘Winning back our liberty’ series based on a ‘freedom of speech’ seminar I went to in December.  Earlier posts included ‘Winning back our liberty: the ‘commercial’ threat’ and its afterthought and ‘Winning back our liberty: the ‘international’ threat’ .

It took me a long time to write this post – the ‘religious right’ one – because I was afraid that people on ‘the religious right’ would either not take it seriously – so I had to strongly support my point – or that they would focus solely on the ‘supporting evidence’ and miss my actual point completely.

Well, it seems that my fears were not misplaced.   Please, just scroll down past the LEAF bit to get to where ‘Binks, the Webelf’ goes medieval on my post.

To say that I was disappointed would be an understatement.

And, ever since he posted it – a bunch of days now…hence no posts from me – I have been trying to compose a response to his criticisms.

However, I am having trouble with this.  In my typical Aspie fashion, I get lost in the details:  I wish to pick apart the fallacies in his reasoning, the errors or incomplete comprehension of the historical facts, or the misunderstanding/misrepresentation of some of the key concepts in the debate.

Either I get caught up in the minutiae.

Or I get sidetracked into correcting some serious errors in his statements.

Or I explain myself, but, I don’t think I support my arguments sufficiently.

Or – I accomplish all of the above….and my post is at over 10K words…so I delete the draft and start again.

I’ll have to work on this some more.  In the meantime – any help would be appreciated!

P.S.   I wonder if his remark about the ‘buzzing of a bee’ was an allusion to Gnostic Christian dogma, with which Binks, the Webelf knows I have been familiar with since early childhood.  Because, if it is, it means at least another 10K-words-worth of a response will be required!

Posted in debate, politics, religion. Tags: , , . 3 Comments »

Thank you for all your excellent comments!

January 20, 2010 — xanthippa

First, I would like to thank all of you who come here, read and comment.

Some of the comment-threads that develop are very interesting and I usually not just enjoy them, but I also learn from them.  A lot.  Thank you.

The comments on my recent post ‘Are Canadian cops following illegal orders?’ are a good example of the comments I mean.  CodeSlinger even went out and researched the laws, and, using specific references answered that in one of the instances I raised, the cops were indeed upholding the laws, and acting correctly.

Then, Lieutenant Calculus and CodeSlinger got into an excellent discussion on the nature and origin of human rights.  Now, I know I have posted this video before, but, I think it is relevant to this thread and I like it, and this is an excellent excuse to re-post it.

From STOPandLOOK,  here is ‘The Nature and Origin of Human Rights’:

(The video is part 1 of a series.  Here are part 2 – ‘Group Supremacy‘, part 3 – ‘Coercion vs Freedom’, part 4 – Equality and Inequality under law and part 5 – ‘Proper Role of Government’ …  That last part is having trouble with the audio, therefore I recommend two longer videos which contain all that ‘part 5’ does, but in greater detail: ‘The Truth About Big Government part 1’ and ‘The Truth About Big Government part 2’. )

While I have mentioned only CodeSlinger and Lieutenant Calculus by name here – and I do thank them for their comments, this is because I was responding to their specific comment thread and it does not mean I do not appreciate all the other most excellent comments from each and every one of you.  I do!  And, I thank you all!

Posted in debate, freedoms, society. Tags: , , . 1 Comment »

Catching up…

January 10, 2010 — xanthippa

Again, I apologize for the lack of new posts lately:  it seems that just before I manage to actually recover from some bug, I catch another….  This last one included high fevers, so while I did a lot of ‘philosophising’, I didn’t even open up my computer for days on end.  And while there is a real danger in trying to post before all the fever is fully gone (things make WAY more sense in my feverish brain than when I read them later), there is SO much that needs to be ‘caught up’ on, I do not quite know where to start.

I’ll just try to touch on at least a few diverse topics…

  • Irish blasphemy against free speech

1. January, 2010, the new Irish anti-blaspemy law came into force.  This one is straight out sur-real….   Just  months after the Irish representative stood up in the UN to lecture the Islamic nations on the fundamental incompatibility of laws against blasphemy with our Western culture, rooted in the freedom of speech, thought and religion, Ireland goes and imposes just such a law….and, not to appease Christians, but from fear of Islamist retribution!

  • Swine-flu Swindle

I have been very, very restrained when commenting on the whole swine-flu thing:  from the fear-mongering, partial information, the vaccines released before the results of the studies to see if they are safe were even collected – much less analyzed, the recall of ‘ineffective’ vaccines most of which had already been administered to hundreds of thousands of children….  Well, the list of outrageous ‘stuff’ is long – and, I was very, very good and restrained myself from commenting on almost all of it while it was happening.

Why?

I was waiting for the inevitable!

OK – one day, may be, I’ll write a little bit of what I know about the serious decline of proper scientific procedures in medical research:  the scope of it is truly, well, shall we say, ‘uncomfortable to contemplate’….   This ‘swine-flu swindle’ thing is just a little pimple on its bottom.

  • Caledonia

If you are unfamiliar with the events, you may find it difficult to believe the depths of depravity that this affair had sunk to.  A native group disputed some land, claiming that despite a valid deed, the land ought to be theirs – fine, that is their right.   What followed – not so nice.  The native terrorists – that IS what this particular group of thugs was, and is – occupied the disputed land AS WELL AS NEIGHBOURING AREAS.  As in, areas which were not disputed to be their land.  And, they terrorized the inhabitants, limited their access to their homes – well, the details are unbelievable….but, testified to in courts!

What was, perhaps, the most shameful chapter in this has been the conduct of the OPP.  They failed, over and over, to uphold the law.  They refused to answer 9-1-1 calls for help from residents in the occupied territories.  And, when law-abiding citizens who happened to be white-skinned wanted to go to their homes against the wishes of the occupying forces, they arrested the citizens, instead of upholding their right of free travel to their property!

My husband and I have had heated discussions about the role of individual OPP officers in this situation:  while he thinks that if the order comes not to interfere with the native protesters, their hands are tied into inaction, I maintain that any order not to uphold the laws of the land is an illegal order, and every single police officer who obeys an illegal order is guilty as hell and MUST be prosecuted to the fullness of the law…

Now, the OPP commissioner himself, Julian Fantino, has been charged with trying to influence elected officials (bully the town council)…  What a nightmare!

  • Torture

This is the `Canadian`story, not the ‘American’ one….

Perhaps what we need – before we engage in a constructive discussion on this topic – to define what ‘torture’ means….here, there, everywhere….  Because until we do, this discussion will be nothing but a peeeing contest between the various parties, with our troops stuck in the middle.  And, when someone gets stuck in between a few sides having a peeing contest, they are bound to get wet!

There  is SOOOO way much more that I ought to be commenting on and bringing up….there is correspondence and comments I ought to be replying properly to….  Yet, it seems that whenever I have long bouts of fevers, I start to go all philosophical.

All in its time!

Posted in debate, freedoms, human nature, philosophy, politics, society. Tags: , , . 3 Comments »

Winning back our liberty: the ‘international’ threat

December 22, 2009 — xanthippa

Just like only total seclusion will provide the environment in which an individual can exercise 100% of their personal freedoms, countries/nation-states must also find ways to ‘get along’ with its neighbours and the all the other ‘countries’ out there.  Therefore, countries must develop rules:  treaties, agreements, etc. to govern their interactions.

This is kind of like the matryoshka dolls!

Families have ‘rules’ which govern how individual members interact, villages/towns/cities have by-laws that govern how people and families in that municipality behave and interact,  provinces/states have the next level of rules that govern how all the people in the municipalities that form that province/state behave and interact…. and so on, and so on…

Through this very process – through agreeing to rules how ‘communities’ at each ‘level’ interact with each other, we are necessarily building the governance framework of government at the ‘next higher level’. The treaties and agreements governments enter into become binding rules which their industries and citizens must abide by.

And THAT is where a very great danger to the ability to exercise our individual rights and freedoms is coming!

We have, to a better or worse degree, worked out rules about what rights we can exercise, and to what degree.  This we have done within our borders, all the citizens agree (or, at least, respect) in the form of constitutions and the body of our national laws.  Right?

But, our countries do not exist in seclusion.  We need to trade and interact in all kinds of ways with ‘other’ countries.

To do that in as peaceful and amicable way as possible, we enter into international agreements about ‘things’.  All kinds of things. But, the primary focus of most international treaties is ‘trade’.

When our legislators propose laws, we examine them publicly for all kinds of ‘things’ – including any infringements on the ability of us, the citizens, to exercise our freedoms.  And so it should be.  But, when countries enter into binding, international agreements with other countries, there is nowhere this level of scrutiny!

These agreements and treaties are negotiated by a limited number of representatives (all bureaucrats) from each side, usually in secret, giving in here to get an advantage there…  And the aim of these treaties is usually one form of economic interaction or another:  ‘freedoms’ are not usually even ‘on the radars’ of those doing the negotiating.

Please, do not misunderstand – I have nothing against international treaties and agreements in principle.  They are necessary.  All I am trying to do is highlight something many people do not consider very seriously:  whenever our government signs a treaty or similar international agreement, its rules are just as binding on us as the laws our government passes, but do not undergo anything like the scrutiny…

A recent example relevant to Canadians is the EU-Canada Trade Agreement…

To make this work, some of our laws – and even attitudes – would have to change.

For example, our ideas about our ‘property rights’ might need a serious adjustment…

Right now, if we purchase a painting – or another other piece of art – most of us think that we own it.  That we can hang it on our wall, store it in the attic or even use it as kindling… Or, perhaps, that if we wish, we can sell it.

That might be just one of the laws and attitudes we would have to change:  according to a leaked chapter of the EU-Canada Trade Agreement now under negotiations, the EU is pushing for a royalty to be paid to the artists EVERY TIME their work is re-sold, FOR EVER!

This post is not about that particular trade agreement.

It’s about the fact that so many of the people who are valiantly and tirelessly fighting to preserve our freedoms are focusing only on ‘government policy’ and on the laws which our governments are passing.  And that is important!

But, our rights and freedoms can be lost ‘through the back door’, so to speak, when our governments enter into binding international agreements which are very large ‘packaged deals’ which our countries may be forced to enter into in order to remain a member of the international community…

And THAT is something we should be thinking and talking about!

Posted in debate, freedoms, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , . 7 Comments »

Winning back our liberty…where to start?

December 13, 2009 — xanthippa

Internet indeed moves at the speed of light:  my thinking, however, does not.

Some people have written reviews and excellent and insightful commentary on that ‘Freedom thingy‘ (‘Freedom of Speech and Liberty Symposium’ and ‘The conservative movement at a crossroads’ is such a mouthfull!) I went to last Monday (7th of December, 2009), some even with links to the speeches themselves.

I’m afraid I did not, because, well, I am still mulling it over….  By the time I will have thought through the individual speeches (I’m nowhere near done), any write up will be embarrassingly ‘stale’.  My apologies.

My absence of commentary, however, does not mean that I did not find attending both the day and evening sessions interesting, useful and fodder for a lot of constructive thinking.

Had I gone simply to listen to the speakers, I would have heard much of what I knew, and a bit that I didn’t.  However, that was not my primary purpose for attending.  As is my nature, I – you guessed it – I went so that I could ‘observe‘.  And when things seemed too dull or scripted (private discussions – not presentations), I’d lob in a ‘conversational grenade’ – so I could, yes, observe…

I was equally fascinated by what was said and discussed as by the how.  But, I was even more interested by WHAT WAS NOT….

It was that ‘what was not’ that I think is really important:  whether because we are not aware that these bits are missing, or because we are too afraid to discuss them, is irrelevant.  Not addressing them is something we cannot afford to do!

Since I have the attention-span of a gnat, I know I’ll probably never finish the full series, but….

In the next couple of posts, I would like to look at at least a few of these ‘missing bits’ which we need to fill in before this grass-roots, pro-liberty movement is viable.  And, I think it CAN be – but not without some considerable self-examination by us all in the ‘bits’ we’d rather not talk about…

How come I am talking about this, when so many better qualified people did not mention it?

Well, I often think ‘outside the box’ because I am always having trouble ‘seeing the boxes’….

I am an immigrant – so, my observations tend to be with respect to a slightly different frame of reference…alternate cultural experience during formative years and all that.

Plus, my ‘reading list’ is not the same as most of the people’s who were there:  they are knowledgeable in political history and theory stuff – I have no clue about that, have not read any of those books, have not been in Canada for many of the ‘formative events’ they describe.

Instead, I studied physics in University.  In my free time (and spare courses), I studied sociology and anthropology of religions (any dogma, really, whether theological or not). I read books about how specific beliefs and attitudes will arise out of particular societies, and how dogmatization of these beliefs will then shape the society’s future evolution: there is a whole feedback thingy there.  I took time to learn various religions (both from books, and by attending services and discussions with theologians and laymen (except for the Wiccan Church of Canada:  in Wicca, every practitioner is a priest or priestess by definition), to make sure I understood both the theory and practice).  I also studied the bits of psychiatry of that deal with archetypes and religious belief/faith…  I know, rather silly, but fascinating!

So, I suspect that even if I do see some ‘boxes’, they are not likely the same ones as most of the people who attended see….  I just hope that my observations and suggestions will be of help.

(I’ll update this with links to the pertinent posts, if I remember…)

UPDATE: Winning back our liberty:  the ‘commercial’ threat

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Posted in debate, freedoms, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , . 3 Comments »
« Older posts
Newer posts »