| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/23/2008 03:56:25 AM · #1351 |
Last month the BC Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a City of Victoria by-law against temporary shelters in city parks.
Justice Carol Ross found it is unconstitutional to prevent homeless people from sleeping on public property or erecting shelter to protect themselves when there are not enough shelter beds available for the number who are homeless.
The city fought back by setting a new enforcement policy requiring the shelters to be removed between 7am and 9pm, probably with no legal basis, as the by-law they are trying to enforce was ruled invalid.
Legal question raised over cityâs anti-camping policy
An article in this week's Victoria Street Newz seemed very applicable to our discussion here. In part, it says;
"Amid all the hysteria and nonsense, I thought it was particularly disturbing that so many people claimed that since they appeared to be in the majority, it was their "democratic right" to keep the homeless out of the parks. These people seemed completely oblivious to the vitally important difference betweein genuine democracy and majoritarian tyranny.
It didn't seem to occur to them for even a moment that in a true democracy, the majority doesn't get to exercise unbridled power. Instead, of course, the majority must rule within the context of respecting the fundamental rights of all citizens."
-written by Gordon Pollard, MA, journalist, teacher. |
|
|
|
11/23/2008 07:05:44 AM · #1352 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by sfalice:
I took the test as if it was on a par with the 'feel good' tests provided by oh, say, Reader's Digest. |
Wow. That's pretty brutal to take a guys career and equate him with Reader's Digest. I'm not saying the test is the be-all of social morality, but I'm guessing some work has gone into it through validation techniques and the like.
... |
Brutal? Oh, dear, Jason. I hope I didnât hurt the guyâs feelings.
When I read through the questions, like others, I mostly decided they could be answered by âit depends.â After getting over the feeling that I had accidentally stepped into an old-folks undergarment commercial, I gave answers that made me feel good.
Itâs my opinion that if the researcher wants the test to be taken seriously and perhaps more accurately, he might profit by spending some time in that other Readerâs Digest stalwart: Improve your Word Power.
But still, others no doubt found the test to be fair and transparent.
Thatâs what makes the world go âround. Diverse opinions.
|
|
|
|
11/23/2008 07:38:52 AM · #1353 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
I took the test as if it was on a par with the 'feel good' tests provided by oh, say, Reader's Digest. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Wow. That's pretty brutal to take a guys career and equate him with Reader's Digest. I'm not saying the test is the be-all of social morality, but I'm guessing some work has gone into it through validation techniques and the like.
... |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Brutal? Oh, dear, Jason. I hope I didnât hurt the guyâs feelings.
When I read through the questions, like others, I mostly decided they could be answered by âit depends.â After getting over the feeling that I had accidentally stepped into an old-folks undergarment commercial, I gave answers that made me feel good.
Itâs my opinion that if the researcher wants the test to be taken seriously and perhaps more accurately, he might profit by spending some time in that other Readerâs Digest stalwart: Improve your Word Power.
But still, others no doubt found the test to be fair and transparent.
Thatâs what makes the world go âround. Diverse opinions. |
You go, girl!
I feel that I have a fairly extraordinary vocabulary, yet I also consider myself doing just fine if I know 18 of the 20 words in Word Power.
I think it's a slur to sully the Reader's Digest name by equating that silly morals test with it......8>)
|
|
|
|
11/23/2008 08:40:09 AM · #1354 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by sfalice:
I took the test as if it was on a par with the 'feel good' tests provided by oh, say, Reader's Digest. |
Wow. That's pretty brutal to take a guys career and equate him with Reader's Digest. I'm not saying the test is the be-all of social morality, but I'm guessing some work has gone into it through validation techniques and the like.
I'm also interested in why tnun is so completely negative to the thing. Again, we don't have to put the test on a pedestal, but I think his reaction is interesting in itself. Sanctimonious axis. Heh. I like that. |
Reading the test, I was actually thinking to myself, "Some grad student is going to get ripped apart for this mediocre work!" |
|
|
|
11/23/2008 09:38:38 AM · #1355 |
But getting back to the matter at hand, is it morally correct to deny basic rights to a significant percentage of our citizens?
In the home:
The right to marry the person they love?
In finances, e.g. taxation:
The right to complete a tax form the way the rest of us do?
___Married, filing jointly
___Married, filing separately
|
|
|
|
11/23/2008 10:00:59 AM · #1356 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
But getting back to the matter at hand, is it morally correct to deny basic rights to a significant percentage of our citizens?
|
Uh, NO. Duh. :P
Seriously, the interesting thing at this point is whether anti-gay marriage laws should be overturned on equal protection grounds or establishment clause grounds. I say both. |
|
|
|
11/23/2008 10:53:31 AM · #1357 |
Originally posted by tnun:
If anything, the academic world is as responsible for a complacent reliance on social statistics for accessing the truth as is a literal interpretation of the Bible for complacent moral judgment. |
I hope this was hyperbole, because if it's meant to be taken seriously, it's an outrageous statement. Data is a means to an end, and dogmatic positions of beliefs are ends in themselves.
Originally posted by tnun:
Is it enough that the survey is "interesting?" Is "conversational fodder" what we are after here? |
Are we here in this forum to solve all the world's ills? Or are we here to eke out a modicum of understanding between people, one postulate at a time? Can we do so with endless discussions in a vacuum consisting of the tunnel-vision of one's world view? Or can "social statistics", or more properly in this instance (to dispense with the disparagement), can a carefully thought out scientific model of social and political views that has so far been fairly accurate in representing the outlooks of so many people, even here, assist us?
Originally posted by tnun:
Not an easy thing, when everyone is ready to jump in with their favourite philosopher or text, or even authority, and hardly a conversational topic except perhaps in the albeit contrived dialogues of Plato. |
I can't quite parse what you've said here, but I did pick up the sidelong disparagement of using other people's words in lieu of one's own to better assist with composing or supporting an argument. There's nothing wrong with having more qualified, more elegant thinkers speak on one's behalf. Academics use this device all the time. Here in the wonderful world of the forums, it's more expedient to offer entire chunks of text instead of their interpretation. Quotes carry more weight with people in this situation than analysis. |
|
|
|
11/23/2008 11:34:31 AM · #1358 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by tnun:
Is it enough that the survey is "interesting?" Is "conversational fodder" what we are after here? |
Are we here in this forum to solve all the world's ills? Or are we here to eke out a modicum of understanding between people, one postulate at a time? Can we do so with endless discussions in a vacuum consisting of the tunnel-vision of one's world view? Or can "social statistics", or more properly in this instance (to dispense with the disparagement), can a carefully thought out scientific model of social and political views that has so far been fairly accurate in representing the outlooks of so many people, even here, assist us? |
To be fair, please note that Tnun was QUOTING me me with the words in quote marks, and taking exception to my statement. Apparently the fact that the survey IS helping us to examine the accuracy/underpinnings of liberal/conservative labeling is insufficient basis for calling it "interesting" in his eyes.
R. |
|
|
|
11/23/2008 01:06:26 PM · #1359 |
| OK, the thread has officially come to an end. Louis and I, briefly, were arguing on the same side. ;) |
|
|
|
11/23/2008 02:20:12 PM · #1360 |
This thread ain't ending until I have full and equals rights as a taxpaying US citizen.
|
|
|
|
11/23/2008 02:20:54 PM · #1361 |
|
|
|
11/23/2008 04:03:36 PM · #1362 |
Lost a post last night that I was making in response to Bear's little sad face. I have been riding my high horse because I think the kind of thinking behind such surveys ultimately precludes and obfuscates the process of genuine understanding. (If anything, I am guilty of understatement, not hyperbole).
I have purposely refrained from quoting my favourites (lessee, I think there are 2: Jesus and Kant), because in matters of morality I feel obliged to find my own heart and voice. And how am I to recognize "more qualified, more elegant thinkers" than I unless I be equally qualified and elegant? Louis is using the academic world as a shibboleth just as much as the thumpers their Bible.
Each of us IS in fact confined to his or her tunnel view of the world. Throwing data at it may or may not affect it. Recognizing that it IS a tunnel view is crucial. And it is a recognition we must constantly make. (Okay, that's sort of from Plato, and maybe the teachings of Buddha, and all the traditions of prayer that involve quieting the mind that the heart may speak).
That's about it. Yes, the survey was interesting, and did incite discussion, and Bear is a reasonable man, and I am still grateful to Mousie and the others for reaching out and reaching me. And this latter is a testament to the efficacy of story or witness. We have a dream.
|
|
|
|
11/23/2008 04:32:30 PM · #1363 |
Originally posted by tnun:
Yes, the survey was interesting, and did incite discussion, and Bear is a reasonable man, and I am still grateful to Mousie and the others for reaching out and reaching me. And this latter is a testament to the efficacy of story or witness. We have a dream. |
Thank you. Count me amongst those who have a dream. I appreciate the apology (which is how I take it).
R.
|
|
|
|
11/23/2008 05:36:31 PM · #1364 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by tnun:
Yes, the survey was interesting, and did incite discussion, and Bear is a reasonable man, and I am still grateful to Mousie and the others for reaching out and reaching me. And this latter is a testament to the efficacy of story or witness. We have a dream. |
Thank you. Count me amongst those who have a dream. I appreciate the apology (which is how I take it).
R. |
LOL!! Robert, I read that last comment and heard it in the voice of Stephen Colbert to non-intended apologies, "Apology accepted!" :P |
|
|
|
11/23/2008 05:38:52 PM · #1365 |
Originally posted by JMart:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by tnun:
Yes, the survey was interesting, and did incite discussion, and Bear is a reasonable man, and I am still grateful to Mousie and the others for reaching out and reaching me. And this latter is a testament to the efficacy of story or witness. We have a dream. |
Thank you. Count me amongst those who have a dream. I appreciate the apology (which is how I take it).
R. |
LOL!! Robert, I read that last comment and heard it in the voice of Stephen Colbert to non-intended apologies, "Apology accepted!" :P |
You caught that, huh? jejejeâ¢
R. |
|
|
|
11/23/2008 07:11:01 PM · #1366 |
Achoo asked how I scored - I took the test when I first saw the video a few months ago. My score is very much like Bears. But I wondered at the questions, so I looked at it again, with my husband taking it. He scored higher in authority and loyalty than most, slightly lower in fairness and harm, lowest in purity. But we discussed the questions after he answered them, because I though his answers on some questions odd. As others have stated, there are many ways to look at each question and, depending on what first pops in your mind is how you answer it.
One thing I had trouble with was the disgusting questions, which I guess relate to purity. My first thoughts were of food (I love food). People eat really disgusting things and, as long as they don't make me eat it, I'm fine with it. So I score low on purity. Strange. With regard to chastity, it didn't ask me about my sex life - it asked what I thought about that of others. Since it is none of my business, I rated it low. It has nothing to do with how I regard chastity nor purity with regard to myself. At any rate, the test is lame, as others have stated.
Here is a quote for you:
"Let yourself be open and life will be easier. A spoon of salt in a glass of water makes the water undrinkable. A spoon of salt in a lake is almost unnoticed."
and another:
"The thought manifests as the word. The word manifests as the deed. The deed develops into habit. And the habit hardens into character. So watch the thought and its ways with care. And let it spring from love, born out of concern for all beings."
I'm not too hot on Plato - he didn't have much regard for women as humans...
I have to edit to add: I think I figured it out. Some regard purity as relating to the body - sex. I regard purity as relating to the spirit. Guess that's why I think people engaged in gay relationships and working towards gay marriage can be pure and chaste - as pure and chaste as anyone in a heterosexual relationship. The sex of the person is not related - what is in their heart is.
Message edited by author 2008-11-23 19:26:42. |
|
|
|
11/23/2008 08:11:44 PM · #1367 |
[thumb]741421[/thumb]
No surprises here. |
|
|
|
11/23/2008 09:21:11 PM · #1368 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
I'm not too hot on Plato - he didn't have much regard for women as humans...
I have to edit to add: I think I figured it out. Some regard purity as relating to the body - sex. I regard purity as relating to the spirit. Guess that's why I think people engaged in gay relationships and working towards gay marriage can be pure and chaste - as pure and chaste as anyone in a heterosexual relationship. The sex of the person is not related - what is in their heart is. |
I'm definitely on the same page here.....purity is a state of mind and spirit.....not of base physical things.
Though I do agree on Plato, the man as he regarded women, I find it amusing that most of my best relationships with women were because we ventured into a platonic relationship first, to see where we were as people, and if it evolved into different territory from there, so be it, but first, it's about two people.
|
|
|
|
11/23/2008 09:50:56 PM · #1369 |
I don't know. I thought I'd take a look at the survey, so I did but I found the questions too repellent to look further. So maybe it wasn't "interesting" to me. (I hope Bear does not ressemble that statement). My zeal in castigating the survey does not so much stem from this albeit genuine distaste as from an abiding abhorrence of mental and moral and spiritual oppression. It seems to me that trying to answer these repugnant question is a sort of personal violation; it also seems to me that seeing how we rate on the scales vis a vis others/groups is a misguided exercise. Our humanity is not to be measured or understood in terms of categories; every time we do this sort of labeling and measuring of ourselves and others we create a prison, even if only in our own thought patterns. (Exactly dahkota's second quote). This is an effective quenching of the spirit.
( dahkota, I have reservations about Plato that include but extend beyond his blithe misogyny; in fact, some of his good stuff comes from the stories he retells, at least one from a female source). |
|
|
|
11/23/2008 11:57:09 PM · #1370 |
Originally posted by tnun:
Louis is using the academic world as a shibboleth just as much as the thumpers their Bible. |
No, I'm using reasonable people with reasonable arguments to support and illustrate and poeticize my world view. |
|
|
|
11/24/2008 01:50:31 AM · #1371 |
| Whoo. Here I go again. Louis, I am not so sure I agree that these are "reasonable people with reasonable arguments," though I am sure they are well intentioned and have a training of some sort. I happen to think that this sort of social research is misconceived. It is true that I am not privy to what you say is their "carefully thought out scientific model of social and political views" nor am I equipped to ascertain "that so far [it] has been fairly accurate in representing the outlook of so many people." Judging from the questions I am tempted to quip 'garbage in, garbage out.' Whether this kind of research has a truly scientific basis has always been questionable. The history of all social sciences is littered with very questionable methods and results, not to mention egregious trespasses on human dignity. |
|
|
|
11/24/2008 10:55:55 AM · #1372 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
But getting back to the matter at hand, is it morally correct to deny basic rights to a significant percentage of our citizens?
In the home:
The right to marry the person they love?
In finances, e.g. taxation:
The right to complete a tax form the way the rest of us do?
___Married, filing jointly
___Married, filing separately |
Yes and no.
The problems come in the description and use of such terms as "morally correct" and "basic rights". Each of these are dependent on the definers definitions. For example, some using scripture as the definition of morality could easily deny the right to marry to those whom engaged in same sex activities - but my contention is that there are more "sins" than just that one, that could qualify as grounds for denial of marriage vows to couples. The term "rights" (at least to my common use) denotes something that is inherent in God's will or some other entity (read Constitution/Bill of Rights). For those claiming God as the originator of rights or those who deny the existence of God, then when those 2 sides enter into discussion, then definitions become problematic. Some here believe that the "right" to self defense (ie firearms ownership) is inherent in both God's laws and man's laws - yet others here have no qualms about infringing upon those rights. Some of those in favor of restricting firearms are very sensitive about their "right" to marry whomever they choose and argue their rights are being denied. Is the denial of that right any more or less valid than the denial of another? If one can be denied, then why can't another? The reasons are varied - but the result the same. Is it a right or a priviledge? That is a definition that is at the crux of the discussion.
Regarding taxes, any commited legally bound couple should benefit from filing jointly. |
|
|
|
11/24/2008 11:06:51 AM · #1373 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by sfalice:
But getting back to the matter at hand, is it morally correct to deny basic rights to a significant percentage of our citizens?
In the home:
The right to marry the person they love?
In finances, e.g. taxation:
The right to complete a tax form the way the rest of us do?
___Married, filing jointly
___Married, filing separately |
Yes and no.
The problems come in the description and use of such terms as "morally correct" and "basic rights". Each of these are dependent on the definers definitions. For example, some using scripture as the definition of morality could easily deny the right to marry to those whom engaged in same sex activities - but my contention is that there are more "sins" than just that one, that could qualify as grounds for denial of marriage vows to couples. The term "rights" (at least to my common use) denotes something that is inherent in God's will or some other entity (read Constitution/Bill of Rights). For those claiming God as the originator of rights or those who deny the existence of God, then when those 2 sides enter into discussion, then definitions become problematic. Some here believe that the "right" to self defense (ie firearms ownership) is inherent in both God's laws and man's laws - yet others here have no qualms about infringing upon those rights. Some of those in favor of restricting firearms are very sensitive about their "right" to marry whomever they choose and argue their rights are being denied. Is the denial of that right any more or less valid than the denial of another? If one can be denied, then why can't another? The reasons are varied - but the result the same. Is it a right or a priviledge? That is a definition that is at the crux of the discussion.
Regarding taxes, any commited legally bound couple should benefit from filing jointly. |
For those who claim God as the basis of rights, I have five words for you: Separation of Church and State.
Those that press the issue simply seek to violate the intent of the founding fathers to establish a country where people are free to worship as they see fit and the church has no role in government. That was one of the primary reasons people came to America in the first place to get out from under the thumb of state religion.
Message edited by author 2008-11-24 11:10:11. |
|
|
|
11/24/2008 11:45:59 AM · #1374 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
For those who claim God as the basis of rights, I have five words for you: Separation of Church and State. |
The separation of church and state refers to having no state sponsored religion. That is, one faith cannot be favored over another. It doesn't, however, mean nothing derived from religion can be discussed/implemented in state government.
Last week we had a talent show at our kid's elementary school. Both my kids participated. My son did this mentalist mind reading trick and my daughter, the only kindergartener in the show, got up and sang "Jesus, Lamb of God". It was really sweet. She picked the song herself and I was worried that someone would get upset, but we cleared it with everybody and nobody had a problem. The key, I believe, was that anybody was able to do what they wanted and no specific faith was favored. It wasn't that nobody could do anything religious period. There was a really cute little Sikh girl who did a dance in full get-up. The song was in Hindi so I can't vouch for whether it had religious lyrics, but the Sikh's are devout enough I wouldn't have been surprised at all.
Anyway, the point being that laws derived from religion aren't automatically invalid. They need to be weighed on their own merit and whether they amount to State sponsored religion. |
|
|
|
11/24/2008 12:16:29 PM · #1375 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
For those who claim God as the basis of rights, I have five words for you: Separation of Church and State. |
The separation of church and state refers to having no state sponsored religion. That is, one faith cannot be favored over another. It doesn't, however, mean nothing derived from religion can be discussed/implemented in state government.
Anyway, the point being that laws derived from religion aren't automatically invalid. They need to be weighed on their own merit and whether they amount to State sponsored religion. |
Cute anecdotes aside, basing a law on "Well, the bible says..." is wrong and does amount to the state endorsing one religion over another. Citing the bible as one source among many as the basis for a law is another thing. The sad thing about the bible is that people use it far more to justify terrible things than they do to justify good. For me, any moral justification based in it is automatically suspect. |
|
