Posts by Rob Stowell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Ben and Neil- I think there's a little more to it than that (tho I admire the smart way you've wrapped this up!) Empathy seems to lie at the heart of most ethics (as opposed the "handed down from on high" morality- and yeah, that's something which undoubtedly had survival advantages. (A single bipedal ape is a tasty treat; 30 of them are a problem).
While empathy isn't a principle, it does seem to me to underly most of the core of ethical intuitions- and thus, behaviour- I'd personally like to endorse. I'm sure you'll come up with a counter-example pronto, Ben! It sounds like you've looked at the "experimental philosophy" approach?
(There's some great work on groups, and how they behave, that make a lot more sense of "morality" than studying the behaviour- or intuitions- of individuals. The "in-crowd/out-crowd" dynamic of tribes is also one of our worst features- we're not simple critters.) -
But Peter! that wouldn't fit the narrative that here in Canterbury we're all one-eyed racist orcs! Don't worry though. We can get around to refuting- sorry, reframing- that whole sad business when we've finished eating all the babies.
And Sara: I'm feeling a lot calmer, too, taking the pills. But you're not the only one who felt dismissed in suggesting the police stepped over the line in Ruatoki. Though you are, perhaps, the gutsiest of us! -
From Slate's series on sex, Your Grandmother's Vibrator. Probably not safe for all workplaces...
-
I'd say the man at the consulate told you exactly what they told me at the embassy in Wellington, years ago. It's not the whole legal truthy thing. But then, WE don't torture anyone- do we! Actually, I think the law has moved on and most people don't know it.
The wikipedia entry is interesting. Seems Arnie is still a citizen of Austria.
One of the things you're supposedly explicitly NOT supposed to do is swear allegiance to another country.(Becoming a Kiwi, you have to swear allegiance to the Queen, "God" bless her). But this State Department link states quite clearly that to lose US citizenship, you have to intend to renounce it- and that there's an assumption you don't intend that in simply becoming a citizen of another country. It's the most clearly I've seen it stated- thanks Rick! -
I'm not sure that's true any more, Danielle- I think there was a supreme court case in the 80s relating to draft-dodger who took out Canadian citizenship, and then successfully sued to get his US citizenship rights as well.
But I'm too lazy to find out for sure.
Voting for Pres in Texas is the same waste of time as my voting in Vermont.... just from the other direction. -
Thanks and best wishes from another random white boy. You'll be missed. We liked your voice. May you continue to fly swift and true.
-
But what say they're calling themselves terrorists? And explicitly discussing and acting on models for contemporary terrorism?
Perhaps it's simplistic, but I'd say don't feed their fantasy, don't buy their model, and put them in prison if there's any good evidence of a criminal conspiracy. But with other criminals of all stripes, not a "special" prison for terrorists.
Conspiracy to murder is horrible, pretty much whatever one's motives. Making a special catagory for those with political motives- "terrorists"- still seems to me to be heading down the wrong- dangerously wrong- road. -
Plotting to kill people is dreadful. It's a crime and those who seriously intend to commit it are nasty criminals. I think everyone can agree on that.
I'm with Sara regarding the power of symbols here. Calling alleged nasty criminals terrorists and giving us images of "commando style" police with assault rifles is precisely the wrong way to deal with them.
It induces- I think unnecessarily- fear, and fear polarises people; it draws sharp lines across divides where many of us would wish to extend hands; and it glorifies nasty criminal behaviour.
There's an "insider/outsider" element to the evidence, that itself has become divisive and which also breeds suspicion. Most of us have no idea whether what we're hearing is solid evidence of serious intent or stupid bluster. What we can clearly see is how it's been dealt with, so we're commenting on that.
Craig, if I were to trawl through all your references to politicians on this blog, strip them of irony and context, and present them to people unaware of your- hm, hyperbolic style, I bet I could make you look a little unhinged too ;-) Perhaps you tone it down significantly when talking in private with people you trust?
There's a difference between serious plotting and loud-mouth blather. If some of those charged were involved in a genuine plot to kill people, they are nasty criminals and are best locked up. If they are loud-mouthed idiots, they need to learn to shut their mouths...
In the meantime, the news cycles move on, the politicians have fallen silent, and many of us are left with a deep, uneasy feeling that the ties that bind us as a nation, the "social contract" if you will- the default goodwill between New Zealanders- already strained and attenuated- has been further weakened and undermined.
That makes me sad. -
Yeah. And I should add- only after evidence enough of a crime.
The "war on terror" is a rhetorical stupidity taken tragically in the wrong direction at every intersection. Calling it a war, calling the criminals responsible terrorists... we know the rest.
Bringing that to NZ is just lunacy in red pyjamas. Like one of those nightmares where you know what's going to happen, you scream at the driver- look out! look out! and he turns and smiles calmly at you and still smiling calmly he swerves into the on-coming truck. -
Me too.
And the pictures of "commando-style" police, with assault rifles, at the ruatoki checkpoint and elsewhere, make me feel we've made a serious mis-step in walking this tight-rope.
If some people do- or did- fancy themselves as terrorists, the best defence, the sanest and soundest approach seems to me to treat them as criminals where that's warranted. And very much NOT to ramp things up and play to their idiotic ideas.
(I'm not saying that's what's happened. I suspect it's not even that much.)
Reading the Dom Post quotes again, it's pretty evident why the S-G didn't press terrorism charges. A "plot" involves at the very least some serious planning. You do this, at point A, he'll do that, then we'll proceed to B....
There's nothing like that in the quotes so far. It will be interesting to see how the "bush-training camps" evidence plays out. Some people probably were entertaining some pretty stupid ideas. (I know I have!) Regrettable, but...
This saga has left a curious and bitter taste. It's been mis-handled by almost everyone involved. It's left the country in worse shape- more distrust, more animosity, more grand-standing, worse laws. There was a time I felt Helen Clarke was "statesperson" enough to take a broad view, a deep breath, and settle everything down. Haven't seen that leadership from anyone yet.