Benjamin Franklin: “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.”
Germaine Greer: Security is when everything is settled. When nothing can happen to you. Security is the denial of life.
So, how far are you willing to go?
The National Post looks at a new poll and how Canadians feel about security.
A new poll on attitudes toward terrorism suggests many Canadians think preserving national security is more important than protecting civil liberties. And the feeling is strongest amongst the sizeable minority who fear that they themselves could be victims of terrorism.
ET:
Frankly, your ‘intellectual honest’ is to be highly commended. This is the best of what the ‘net’ offers. His statements are to be studied and scrutinized and possibly presented to government as they are gleaning now for ‘just concepts’ to achieve majority status.
SHOWING OF INTELLECT AND CONSCIENCE IN BALANCE
No, skip, I stand by my point. Tyranny by a minority is not the definition of a terrorist group. That’s too limited a definition. After all, a set of mafia bosses can tyrannize their underlings, but neither they nor the underlings, are terrorists. A corrupt deputy minister or CEO can tyrannize his office staff, but, was Radzwanski a terrorist?
vitruvius has two definitions. Notice the axioms. It’s unlawful, it’s violence, it’s against civilians, it’s to coerce a gov’t and/or its people, by intimidation, to do something outside the normative laws. Nothing to do with a ‘minority of people’. A gov’t is involved. And it IS ‘unlawful’; it’s irrelevant that it’s not unlawful ‘according to them’. They don’t make the laws.
No, the biggest stick doesn’t win. You are promoting tyranny, which is rule by force. That’s not what a good gov’t is about.
And don’t denigrate into insults. It’s juvenile to try to insult me with your ‘when I was young’. I don’t buy into childish name-calling.
daniel, I accept your concern about the gov’t and authorities knowing ‘everything about us’. But, we live in a different world than even a decade ago.
Our new world is electronically networked. More and more, what we do, is via these electronics. We bank by the internet; we communicate, send papers, have conferences electronically. We don’t sit at our desk to do these tasks; our blackberry goes with us; our digital camera/email/phones take pictures and send them instantly all over the world.
This electronically networked world means that the type of privacy we ‘thought’ we had, is gone.
But, did we have privacy? In our previous small towns and neighbourhoods, somehow, everything was known about everyone, by everyone. I have always found small towns unsettling for this reason. Go into the neighbourhood store, purchase a different magazine, and the clerk will say – Oh, but you don’t usually buy this!
So, how’s that for privacy?
In our modern electronic world, criminality, which is an ever-present economic mode, has moved into this world. The criminals find out our credit card numbers and attempt to use them. I’m very glad that my bank is watching and can stop those criminal purchases.
We can’t go back to an un-networked world. And I think that means that we can’t go back to a ‘silent world’. We are all networked.
ET barrels on:
My display of ignorance about the writings of Popper??? Sure. I know his works, all of them, far better than you do, dawg; in fact, his Open Society was the major textbook that I, yes I, assigned in my upper level class on ‘Social Architectures’.
And yet you had never heard of his “methodological nominalism” and “methodological essentialism” dichotomy.
Nominalism versus essentialism???? That’s not Popper! Where do you get that from?
Well, from pages 31ff of the first volume of Open Society, for starters. Do you always assign texts that to this day you have apparently not read yourself? You are an intellectual fraud, Sir.
Vitruvius:
I take your point. There could be cases in which security or safety might trump liberty. But I haven’t seen them in Canada post 9/11.
ET: But you surely denigrate with arrogance. Your position is arrogant and demeaning. You are churlish and dismissive when taken to task, and you have not defined yourself as an authority.
Clearly, you don’t grasp the concept of law. All law is relativistic. It is only axiomatic for a particular culture, for a particular place in time.
And, you are putting words in my mouth. At no point did I “promote tyranny”. Law IS rule by force, the force of the majority, and yes, it often is, tyrannical.
It’s juvenile to try to insult me with your ‘when I was young’. I don’t buy into childish name-calling.
Apparently you do. This comment is just pompous.
Hmm, hmm, well, I do think that it is something like the case that the big stick wins. For some value of stick. Force, indeed violence, can be sticks, but so can knowledge and wisdom. In practice, it’s all a fine balancing act. Sun Tzu discusses the problem at some length. (For some value of discuss.)
To some degree it depends on one’s goals (how do you define winning). For example, if one’s goal is volitional isolation, then it doesn’t take a stick at all, just a good hiding place.
Pompous? And what’s wrong with a little pomp? Indeed…
What good is sitting
Alone in you room?
Come hear the music play.
Life is an S D A, old chum,
Come to the S D A.
Put down the knitting,
The book and the broom.
Time for a holiday.
Life is an S D A, old chum,
Come to the S D A.
Come taste the wine,
Come hear the band.
Come blow a horn,
Start celebrating;
Right this way,
Your table’s waiting.
No use permitting
Some prophet of doom
To wipe every smile away.
Come hear the music play.
Life is an S D A, old chum,
Come to the S D A!
Terrorism, tyranny, govt, law, are all applications of force, one to another – which they are, depends entirely on where your perspective, or the perspective of your clan (at whatever level of definition you want for that) is taken from. Force simply defined is the application of coercion. The means may be through wisdom and knowledge (law, ostensibly), through violence, through ideology, through culture. You will not get universal concurrence on a definition of terrorism; as the popular saying goes, “one man’s terrorist, is another man’s freedom fighter”. Volitional isolation could be considered nihilistic. When you find one, let me know 🙂
I was thinking of the old romantic notion of the prospector or the trapper, Skip, not nihilism. I’ve always thought that there’s a piece of those gentlemen in my nature. And, to be sure, web log comments often tend to be like prospecting, one has to slog through miles of mud to find the occasional gem.
I do think it is an oversimplification to define force simply as the application of coercion. While the application of coercion is arguably force, force can be other things too, such as mass times accelleration.
I think people should be forced to stop at red lights, in order to prevent them from colliding their mass times accelleration into me when I’m travelling through a green light. There is no terrorism or tyranny involved.
Terrorism is an empty signifier. There are two excellent papers on this available on-line:
http://www.auditorium.ru/conf/conf_fulltext/gololob.pdf
http://www.republicart.net/disc/empire/formwalt01_en.htm
The central point that both authors are making is that the signifier “terrorism” does not signify anything except a lack–of Western civilization, of All That We Hold Dear, of the American Way, etc. Around that lack is built the entire apparatus of the warlike, expansionist ideology of the New World Order.
1) There is such a thing as state terrorism (e.g. Khmer Rouge), thus necessitating a wider definition of terrorism.
2) ‘Essential liberty’ would, I hope, for most people mean right to property, right not to be put in jail forever without charges, and a right to an open trial. This we do not have in Canada.
3) I would prefer more liberty (incl the essential liberties we do not have today in Canada), and that more people subscribed to the “we are not afraid” approach to terrorism. I’ll take my risks, for the benefit of freedom.
4) The Canadian government today deliberately kills people (hundreds, thousands) by not letting them seek (and pay for) the treatment they would need to survive. This, called ‘Canada health act’, is supported by all parties, who thus all participate in mass murder. I call that state tyranni.
5) The Canadian government also provides different sets of laws to different sets of people (aboriginals vs the rest, Quebec vs the rest, etc) and chooses not to to defend the laws when it suits the political masters. I call this a failed and arbitrary legal system.
Vitrivus, your red light example is weak. It is just an example of not being allowed to injure other fellow individuals. It has nothing to do with essential liberty.
This poll is less dire than seems at first blush. If a person takes it to mean: “Security in war, is more important during a war, than civil rights.”
That’s how I took the question at first as the meaning. How many other did is open to conjecture.
That does not mean our love of liberty is dead. It sure isn’t in Alberta. I can say with conviction!
The trick is to preserve as many rights as we can during wartime, & MAKE sure we get ALL of them back after this war.
Much the same as was done in both World wars.
Think of all the restriction, including gas rationing et al.
The thing is not to panic. Make sure our Constitution is Iron clad as well. Including property rights. As well as the right of self protection. AN effective, elected, Senate. In order to be a watch dog as well.
This is why liberals we need to grow up into the 21st Century & realize Canada is not young anymore & needs an overhaul of real security in Individual universal freedoms. All persons Equal before the law. No one exempt for any reason. No one above the law, no matter what station or lack of. The reverse holds true as well. All have the same protection.
I have a lot of admiration for this younger generation coming up. I doubt they will allow others to decide there fate. Not the ones I meet.
These will safe guard this Nation, & make us truly. Strong & free.
Terrorism, tyranny, liberty, security, freedom: they are not empty signifiers, they are words. They have definitions, imprecise though they usually are. Natural language is like that. Some people use them to communicate. Some don’t.
On the other hand, I suspect that Dawg’s phrase “entire apparatus of the warlike, expansionist ideology of the New World Order” is entirely a context-free subjectivism, its incomprehensibility rendering it largely irrelevant to the topic at hand, namely, “Security, Liberty, and the Denial of Life”.
I almost completely agree with Johann’s penultimate comment above, but “deliberately kills” and “mass murder” are, in my opinion, excessive hyperbole. They may win you a drink in a pissing match, but they’re unlike to win the hearts and minds of the electorate.
Finally, I agree that traffic laws are not about Essential Liberty. Rather, that was my point. It is ok for people to supress some liberty in the name of the operation of the commons, and to be forced to comply or get out of the commons otherwise. It is not ok to be forced to give up essential liberties.
So what, then, Vitruvius, would you call essential liberties? Since I believe in freedom through responsibility, not freedom from responsibility, I’d suggest:
* Every human has Freedom of identity as a singular human being.
* Every human has Freedom of life, liberty, death, and self defense.
* Every human has Freedom of thought, of speach, and of action.
* Every human has Freedom of association, assembly, and privacy.
* Every human has Freedom of trade in their resources and property.
* Every human is Responsible for not prejudging individuals.
* Every human is Responsible for not using disproportionate force.
* Every human is Responsible for not being fraudulent or slanderous.
* Every human is Responsible for not engaging in collective tyranny.
* Every human is Responsible for not having irresponsible property.
dawg – Popper’s methodological nominalism, of which I’m well aware of, is his own terminology for a ‘mechanical particularism’. Nominalism, just that one term, without the adjective, as used by all in philosophy, refers to the rejection of the universal. Since Popper is Aristotelian, then he obviously doesn’t reject the universal. And, again, since he’s anti-Plato, then he certainly rejects essentialism.
skip – no, law is not relativistic. You are moving into ethical and moral relativism – and I reject that. There ARE universal principles of human rights – the basic few are well articulated in the US constitution, as equality, life and the pursuit of happiness. These are not relativistic.
Now, when you move into economies and different economies (agricultural, non-industrial, industrial, etc etc) then the laws referring to these economies are contextual to that. That doesn’t mean ‘relativistic’. It means conextual to the reality.
Law is required, and most naturally it is the law of the majority. What else should it be? If it moves into tyranny, then it is no longer the will of the majority.
Perfect example, vitruvius, of the red light rule. Every aggregate operates within normative habits of behaviour. These enable stability. Nothing to do with tyranny or terrorism. These normative habits develop, always, within a group, whether it’s a social or biological collective.
dawg – surely you don’t accept that ridiculous definition of ‘terrorism’ as ‘the lack of western civilization’. Or, maybe you do. It’s still ridiculous.
What warlike, expansionist ideology of the New World Order? Do you mean Islamic fascism?
johan in Canada. I don’t see that an open trial is an essential liberty. I accept your right to property (which we don’t have) and right to trial.
I’m 100% against our current public health system; I think we should enable private health care, but, I don’t think that the Canadian gov’t deliberately kills people. The ideology of public health care is just that, an ideology, a definitive icon of ‘being Canadian’. You, either the gov’t or the people, don’t demolish icons easily. But, it’s starting to crumble, along with the demolishment of Tommy Douglas as ‘Good’.
I certainly agree with you about the arbitrary legal system. The Caledonia natives should have been charged as terrorists, and McGuinty should be impeached.
I’m an intellectual fraud? What about someone who self-assigns themself with a ‘Dr’ to their name?
“From the start it was clear they came for a fight and the situation escalated as the newcomers began physically confronting Caledonia residents“
June 19 Western Standard
On May 21, some very interesting groups went to “support” Six Nations in Caledonia.
Al- Awada (The Palestine Right to Return Group ) organized 6 buses to make the pilgrimage from Toronto.
Triple (w).al-awda.ca/
Other groups taking part:
-U of T Arab Students Collective -mission statement: We focus on, but do not limit our activities to, anti-imperialist struggles in the Arab world
Triple (w).arab.sa.utoronto.ca/
-Ontario Coalition Against Poverty, motto: We believe in the power of resistance.
Triple (w).ocap.ca/
-Ryerson University CKLN community radio –motto: OUT.LOUD : Fearless Queer and Trans Programming
Triple (w).ckln.fm/
-Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 3903, upcoming events- National Aboriginal Day, Summer Solstice, Pride Week
Triple (w).cupe3903.tao.ca/
-Pro immigration group -No One is Illegal
Triple (w ).toronto.nooneisillegal.org/
As they say: With friends like this….
Good point Cal. We must never forget the role of the professional ambulance chasers. It reminds me of the last gay parade I saw pass the window at the deli while I was having breakfast. The banner signs were carried by the Canadian Auto Workers and the Communist Party of Canada announcing, wait for it, themselves. What does that have to do with sexuality? But I digress.
dawg – Popper’s methodological nominalism, of which I’m well aware of, is his own terminology for a ‘mechanical particularism’. Nominalism, just that one term, without the adjective, as used by all in philosophy, refers to the rejection of the universal. Since Popper is Aristotelian, then he obviously doesn’t reject the universal. And, again, since he’s anti-Plato, then he certainly rejects essentialism.
There is seemingly no limit to your intellectual dishonesty.
From my post, to which you responded with your “That’s not Popper!” comment:
Methodological nominalism versus methodological essentialism, Aristotle versus Plato?
You will note that I used the correct qualifier “methodological” in my original comment. Here you deceitfully attempt to indicate that I had not done so.
As I said before: you are a fraud. An intellectual poseur who has just been caught out.
dawg – surely you don’t accept that ridiculous definition of ‘terrorism’ as ‘the lack of western civilization’. Or, maybe you do. It’s still ridiculous.
I would suggest actually reading the papers, if you can get through them. The second one is particularly tough going. But whether Laclau or Lacan is the source of the notion, the case is solid. “Terrorism” signifies a lack. It doesn’t signify any specific thing by itself.
What warlike, expansionist ideology of the New World Order? Do you mean Islamic fascism?
I was thinking, rather, of the incessant imperial American invasions and threats on the world stage that now have a new foundation–that empty signifier I was talking about. It’s a goody, too: this “war on terror” has no end.
This from citizensofcaledonia.ca
There are a number of letters posted, from members of the community.
————————————————————-
A letter written to the leading members of the Liberal government dealing with the issue:
I am employed full time in Burlington as a Nurse Manager and part time in Hamilton as a Registered Nurse in ICU. I am also a part time student at Ryerson University. I have 2 children, aged 12 and 6, who attend Notre Dame Elementary School. My home borders Douglas Creek Estates in Caledonia.
The occupiers drive around my home and neighbourhood, armed with bats, clubs, tasers, machetes and guns that they defiantly wave in plain sight, while they scream obscenities and threats of bodily harm at me, my family and my neighbours, all while law enforcement turns its back. This directly violates my autonomy as well as violates the rule of law.
ATV’s race around my home all hours of the night, some with their mufflers removed, as the driver’s yell and scream. Heavy equipment vehicles move large materials throughout the night while construction takes place all hours of darkness behind Braemar. The sounds of hammering, banging and gunshots can always be heard. Sleep deprivation has impacted my ability to provide optimum nursing care in my profession. My concentration level has decreased significantly when I am at work, as I obsess about my children’s safety while they are at school. My employer has had to cancel surgical procedures on several occasions to accommodate my need to return to Caledonia to ensure the safety of my children and home.
My phone line has been cut, I have had occupiers run into my back yard and bottles of gasoline left behind my fences. Occupiers with bandanas covering their faces, drive up to the concrete barriers in vans and trucks, step out of the vehicles, and then proceed to stand and stare at the residents or take our pictures. Occupiers have come onto my property and my neighbours. I approached them with open arms and asked what they wanted; I was threatened and told not to come any closer. Some of my neighbours were physically assaulted. There was no police presence at this incident as they had been called away to deal with an incident involving OPP officers on Sixth Line.
My children have had to witness fires, burned bridges, threats, blocked highways, anarchy and lawlessness. I try to protect them but due to the location of our home and their school they are subjected to this 24 hours a day. Lock downs are now part of their academic highlight. They have learned true fear, witnessed lawlessness and felt imprisoned in their school and homes. There has been no attempt to relocate our children. My suggestion, relocate the children from Notre Dame to Unity School and position the OPP command post to Notre Dame. Children are entitled to an education in a non-threatening environment.
This occupation has created a hostile, fear-driven environment, which I have been living in since the beginning of the protest. I fear for my life, the life of my children and neighbours, as well as my home. I remain terrorized …-
voy forums
Vitruvius,
“Every human has Freedom of identity as a singular human being.”
Does this mean we all have the right to unique number?
“Every human has Freedom of life, liberty, death, and self defense.”
No idea what this means.
“Every human has Freedom of thought, of speach, and of action.”
Unfortunately, these rights are severely restricted in Canada. Cmp language laws, gag laws, forced support of political parties, Zundel etc etc).
“Every human has Freedom of association, assembly, and privacy.”
Unfortunately, these rights are basically non-existant in Canada. There is no freedom of association (cpm mandatory union membership), there might be freedom of assembly (except when trying to assemble behind a union barricade), there is no privacy (try to avoid filling in the census forms).
“Every human has Freedom of trade in their resources and property.”
In Canada this right does not exist (cmp CWB, internal trade barriers etc), and, further, we have no right to our property in the first place.
“Every human is Responsible for not prejudging individuals.”
Whatever, what the heck does that mean?
“Every human is Responsible for not using disproportionate force.”
Sure, but who decides?
“Every human is Responsible for not being fraudulent or slanderous.”
Sure, but who decides what is slanderous?
“Every human is Responsible for not engaging in collective tyranny.”
Collective tyranny is alive and well in Canada.
“Every human is Responsible for not having irresponsible property.”
What is irresponsible property? Who decides? Is there such a thing as irresponsible property? Perhaps only irresponsible use?
There is no way ET is a fraud, Dawg. If you had been paying attention over the last couple years in the Canadian political blogosphere, instead of just venting your spleen on it, you would know quite a lot about who ET is, and ET is no fraud. Trust me, lad, least ye make a fool of thyself.
That said, I have noticed that a certain degree of beligerence does tend to grow on these channels, much like that nasty green alge grows on things in marine climates.
“Every human has Freedom of life, liberty, death, and self defense.”
No idea what this means.
Yeah, I stopped at the “freedom of liberty” bit.
There is no way ET is a fraud, Dawg.
On the contrary, I have just finished demonstrating it. He was talking about a work with which he obviously had no familiarity (The Open Society and Its Enemies), since a major concept that runs through the work was evidently new to him. He compounded the felony by claiming that he had assigned the work in question as a major text to a senior class somewhere.
At first he denied that the dichotomy I raised even existed in the text. Then he tried to wriggle out of it by deliberatly obfuscating what I had originally stated.
He is a fraud and a poseur, and your fawning admiration for him doesn’t change that one whit.
Recalling first that I generally agree with your comments hereto, Johan, I’d just like to note that I’m not going to go into an in depth discussion of your above questions here. We would have to lose track of the “Security, Liberty, and the Denial of Life” topic, which our illustrious hostess Kate would prefer we not do. Please consider my top ten to be just my opinion, not my argument, at least not here, not now.
Vitruvius,
In any case, all your rights, freedoms, and responsibilities boils down to the principle of Self Ownership.
I.e. you, nobody else (especially not the state), owns your life, liberty, and property.
Very nice list, vitruvius. I agree with all; the only one I don’t get is ‘every human is responsible for not having irresponsible property’. What’s that?
Johan in Kanada – those are a ‘wish list’ of Vitruvius, not an outline of ‘the way it is in Canada’.
good god, dawg, do you archive all your posts? Do you care?
We had been discussing universals and nominalism. Not Popper’s ‘bricolage’ style piece by piece mode of governance (methodological nominalism). That was my answer.
Again, you know zilch about my credentials or work. Therefore, your conclusion that I’m an intellectual fraud is a bit specious. But, you are the one who self-defines themself as ‘Dr’. Hmmm.
maz2 thanks for the outline. Again, the Ontario gov’t has behaved reprehensibly and ought to resign. And McGuinty ought to be impeached.
At this point, we should commence the revolution, but first I have to eat dinner, so I’ll see ya’ll later.
good god, dawg, do you archive all your posts? Do you care?
Translation: “Whoops!”
We had been discussing universals and nominalism. Not Popper’s ‘bricolage’ style piece by piece mode of governance (methodological nominalism). That was my answer.
No, we had not. That’s a flat-out lie.
Incidentally, the exchange was archived right here on SDA. Unfortunately for you.
the one who self-defines themself
I see that your grammar is about as sound as your knowledge of philosophy.
I suppose there may be some Marquis of Queensbury rule against this in a debate, but I *completely* agree with you Johan that “The principle of Self Ownership” is the key. For there are only two things I know for sure, (1) existence exists, and (2) I (and only I) am me. There lay my axioms, everything else is as I see it a deduction, Dr. Watson.
The “responsible for not having irresponsible property” clause, ET, is designed to guard the case where someone uses freedom of property to behave irresponsibly, even if they didn’t themselves use excessive force &c, via the property as proxy. For example, having a high pressure boiler in a place that might be occupied by more than yourself without getting it tested by a competent steam engineer or a regular basis according to current known best practice within the profession. That’s just irresponsible.
Well, pretty much. I certainly think you should be free to live by yourself in a room with an unsafe boiler in the middle of a 1,000 acre property, as long as you put up big orange signs all around the periphery clearing stating: “Warning, idiot lives here, unsafe high-pressure steam boiler, do no approach.”
Or maybe not. After all, what happens if an innocent EMT comes to save your life after your cat accidentally dials 911 and your booby-trapped property injures him? Like I said, it’s all a fine balancing act.
Oh, and in passing, Dawg is being silly.
“Right now, the spotlight is on Caledonia, but in reality all of these others parcels of land will be affected, including much of Brantford.”
The flags at the corner of Gretzky Parkway and Henry Street has been mounted on a permanent flagpole. The purple Six Nations flag flies above a red Mohawk Warriors flag.
Native flags flying over properties in city
http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentID=82790&catname=Local+News
Speaking of terrorists……
Now it will really start. The other Bands are watching. Of that you can be sure.
canadian in turban? makes me sick)
canadian that hates US makes me sick))
do you love Canada?
Gosh, with a little fine-tuning at this point, I could be some left-wing version of “george.”
I apologize to all for allowing myself to be provoked. It won’t happen again.
I’m not sure about “existence exists,” though, Vittie. Sounds a little word-saladish, no? Bad enough to claim that existence is a predicate. Well, no matter. Have at it.
A is A. Is is. Existence exists. The alternative is a singularity. It’s just my opinion, but I’m not buying that. Nature abhors a singularity. You can’t divide by zero. I could talk about it all night, but we would be off topic, so I’ll leave it at that.
I see that your grammar is about as sound as your knowledge of philosophy.
Totally gratuitous, snarky and out of bounds.
Guilty as charged. But this from the person who, this very month, addressed the following comment to me:
Are you brain-dead?
S/he that is without sin among you, let her first cast a stone at him. 🙂
Iraqi Reformist on Arab Society and Social Schizophrenia
June 21, 2006
http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD119006#_edn1
In an article titled “Arab Society and Schizophrenia,” Iraqi reformist Dr. Abd Al-Khaleq Hussein, who writes on several reformist websites, argues that Arab society suffers from “social schizophrenia,” – the symptoms of which are similar to those of individuals suffering from actual schizophrenia. He further argues that the Arab governments must immediately launch social and political reforms which will gradually lead to democracy in the Arab world. If significant reforms are not carried out, he says, disasters will continue to strike the Arab word, and democracy will ultimately be imposed upon it through violent upheavals, as occurred in Iraq. In the article, he also called upon the Arabs to accept the help offered to them by the West – and especially by the U. S. – with the aim of facilitating positive change that will permit them to integrate into the international community.
The following are excerpts from the article: [1]
“This Split Personality Disorder Characterizes Not Only Specific Sectors of Arab Society, But [Also] the Governments, the Institutions of Civil Society, and the [Political] Parties”
“‘Schizophrenia’ is a word in ancient Greek that means ‘split personality’… but it is also used in the social sciences to describe societies afflicted by severe duality in their behavior and their [moral] standards. In fact, if we carefully compare the medical and social forms of this disorder, we will find that the symptoms are very similar…
“Iraqi social scientist Ali Al-Wardi was the first to characterize the Iraqi people as suffering from this severe social illness, which he labeled ‘split personality.’ According to his theory, Iraqis suffer… from a conflict between the Bedouin values that have been passed down through the generations and the cultural values that the Iraqi society has acquired…
“As an illustration, he presents the example of a young Iraqi who wishes to choose his own wife, just like an enlightened Western man, and to exchange love letters with her,… but when he hears that some other man has similar relations with his sister or cousin, he immediately turns into a ‘Bedouin’ and murders his beloved sister and her lover…
via voy forums
Let the one who lives not in a glass house cast the first stone.
My goodness I’m being concilliatory tonight, I’m sure it will pass 😉 But enough with the politically correct version. If I may take some liberty (does that make this on topic?) on Kate’s dime…
There was this king on this tropical island who lived in a majestic palace, made of grass, with a grand grass throne. Indeed, the king got into the habit of collecting grass thrones, ’till the place was filled to the rafters.
One day the fire got out of the pit, and the whole edifice collapsed in a horrible conflagration.
Which only goes to show, people who live in grass houses shouldn’t stow thrones.
Unless you’re on a beach throwing pebbles at seagulls. Leave no tern unstoned. Or lying on the beach at high noon sans bathing suit. No stern untoned…
Enough. Beer and TV beckon.
I’ll leave that stone unturned.
Personally,I am sick to death of polls.They are no more than manufactured news and in many cases are manipulated or biased in choice of questions.
Besides…does polling Canadians,basically,about how SCARED they are of terrorists,really accomplish anything?I would suggest that this only undermines our resolve agaist this threat and gives terrorists feedback on their performance…Same goes with polling about the support of the Afgan. mission.I’m not telling anybody here they have to support this mission,however,since our parliament has OK’d our continued presence there,do we not have a responsibility to unite behind our troops and stand defiant against our enemy?
It disgusts me when I see people put their own selfish interests ahead of the security of their country.(A LPC trademark,I might add}
“We’re being challenged by 9/11. Al-Qaida and the al-Qaida-like organizations that exist in various countries are fully aware that their actions put our kind of civil society in a dilemma. And I think they want us to be in that dilemma.”
I think that the only dilemma for Al-Qaida is how to get from one rats hole to the other, as befits those who do not have the Courage to confront their enemy in an honourable manner. The dilemma for our civil society is how to give congratulations to out security forces.
You’re mixing apples and oranges here. Rights are not laws. Laws are the products of ethical and moral relativism. Intuitively so, if you think about it. Principles are not laws either. Laws embrace principles, but laws are amoral – laws can be written to speak to either side of a principle. It is legal to abort/it is illegal to abort. Which you chose is entirely a product of your moral and ethical relativism.
Huh? anything that is contextual must, by definition, be relativistic. There is no context without relation.
skip – you are right.
Rights are not laws. But I don’t think that laws are totally the products of ethical and moral relativism. My point is that there are some basic human rights; the laws that affirm those rights can’t be ethically and morally relativistic.
Agreed, other laws are internal or relativistic to the society – whether it is legal to abort or not to abort depends on the decision of the society. This then asks the question whether or not that law ought to be moved into a universal rather than relative connection.
You may think I’m quibbling, but I don’t agree that a law that is contextual is ‘relativistic’. It is relational and ‘relation’ does not mean the same thing as ‘relative’.
My view of ‘relative’ is an understanding that the evaluation of the law is subjective and is made without reference to objective reality.
A ‘relational’ or contextual law is one that operates within the context of an external situation. So, a law that says that milk products must be refrigerated is relational. It operates within the context of an external situation.
But, a law that says that people must bow their heads as the national flag is brought by, is relative to the internal ‘psyche’ of the nation.
ET read maz2 @ 6.56PM. Here is a person who is terrorised first by 6 nations and then by the Ont gov and then by the fed gov by not protecting her/him. This makes all three of them terrorists.
Thanks maz2 for the assist.
CAW. No, you are wrong. Because I feel ‘in terror’ at the actions of X Person, does not make X person a terrorist.
Defining reality by subjective experience is an invalid method. After all, I could feel terrorized by the relentless snowstorms. Does that make the weather a terrorist? The definition has to be within the actor, not the recipient of the action.
Because I feel threatened by the lack of response of the Ontario gov’t does not make the Ontario gov’t a terrorist agent.
Terrorism is the use of unlawful violence against persons and/or property to coerce a gov’t into compliance with a mode of behaviour that is not valid within that society. So, the Caledonia natives were terrorists. The Ontario and Federal gov’ts were not terrorists. The Ontario gov’t may have been deficient in its actions, irresponsible, even criminal but not terrorist.
Russian Diplomats Executed
CNN … via free republic
…-
Ivan the Russian pled for their release:
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Russian diplomats ‘to be killed’
Russia “did everything for Iraq not to find itself in the situation that it is in today”, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said, referring to Moscow’s …
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5102532.stm – 44k –
ET, I almost always agree with everything you write, but, CAW has a point even though he was being flippant. Terrorists need an environment where the media will get their atrocities on the airwaves in a timely fashion and a vacuum without law and order as their optimal environment. Both criteria have been met in Caldonia. It is long overdue for the authorities to stop the little native terrorist gig going on in Caledonia. The authorities aren’t terrorists, but, it isn’t a stretch to admonished them for complicity by inaction at this point.
Very good article in NY Times Magazine:
“After Londonistan”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/magazine/25london.html
Mark
Ottawa