Tridimity

Thomas Hardy: Behind the Mask (biography)

Now it turns out that the NSA planned to 'discredit radicals over their web-porn use': http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25118156 Serious issues here: i. The complete lack of privacy for ordinary law-abiding citizens. Mass collection of web usage and communications data means that the US authorities have the capability to find a perceived flaw with anybody they so wish to and to persecute that person. Nobody is perfect; we all make mistakes, and now those past or present mistakes are readily available to fuel the immoral actions of the NSA. ii. If you are going to disparage terrorists - then the fact that they are terrorists ought to be enough! The hunt for web-porn usage makes it seem as if one is trying to find a fault where there already is (a much larger and more important) flaw. It's like looking for grammatical mistakes in the orders written by Hitler so that you can stitch him up! iii. I do not condone pornography but so long as both the viewer and the person involved in the pornography are consenting adults then I do not see as it is mine or anybody else's business. If no harm is being committed in the process then the people's privacy ought to be respected. The infringements on our privacy are getting quite scary. It might be worth moving East just to escape the glare. I think in the future citizens are going to have to seek alternative communications providers based in different countries and to encrypt their messages, or silence themselves, in the meantime. The state is getting heavy.

The point of the comparison to Nazi Germany was to illustrate the fact that individuals and institutions within that regime and, likewise, within our contemporary capitalist systems in the West, may be operating within the limits of the law (e.g. tax avoidance by MNCs) and yet may still result in evil outcomes (impoverishment of the lower classes). Legality does not guarantee morality. The 'pointless truism' comment was separate to the above and was made in reference to your statement that 'law abiding citizens... do not break the law'.

Sorry, I was using the term ‘good conscience’ as shorthand for ‘of a similar moral disposition to myself’ – which, in this scenario, would mean not killing militants and civilians indiscriminately – but, rather, targeting the leaders/main perpetrators of evil. Undoubtedly henchmen will have certain capabilities – any lacking capability will quickly be removed from the system by opposing forces. I meant ‘smarter’ in the sense that, even if you had been subjected to an entire childhood of religious indoctrination, I think that you would be intelligent enough to independently question the force-fed information and to either reject religion or else settle upon a religion for your own well considered reasons. I think that the inequity between males and females is a reflection of differences in domestic and child-rearing investments. The average female contributes so much more to domestic wellbeing and child-minding that, frankly, extra provision of resources for the tasks by males is the only way to keep us from immediately eating you males post-conception. I do not think that the situation is fair and especially so for females who genuinely have no carnal desire for a husband or children of her own – she is left to struggle on her own, lacking in resources, due to the outdated societal structure into which she had the misfortune to be born. As for your comments on competitiveness and co-operativeness, I think that both males and females have each of these capacities and while the male version may be overt (outward aggression in competing with other males for females and resources) – do not be deceived. Competition occurs fiercely between females but tends to take a verbal/social format. Teams only work if all participants in team A recognise that they must work together in order to beat team B – in reality, in the workplace, the set-up is such that individuals within the same team are forced into positions in which they are competing with one another far more than they are any external institution. Hence why intra-team co-operation fails under these circumstances. I suppose it is a bit like sibling rivalry – like it or not, love them or not, one is competing with one’s sibling for resources – despite the fact that the family may be considered a “gene propagator” team. In this sense, working and living alone has its advantages: one can be relatively secure in the knowledge that one is not exploiting others nor being exploited by others. Here you have rendered the meaning of ‘conscience’ completely arbitrary; subject wholly to the whims of society. There are some fundamentals that can be agreed upon, for example, “an it harm none, do as ye will” (the fun comes in determining what constitutes harm). I would argue that the thing to which we are answerable is society and that this, in turn, is a result of biology. We are evolutionarily programmed to be alternately competitive or co-operative (the latter, although perhaps seeming selfless, may be nothing more than reciprocal altruism, or sexual selection for partners who will spawn offspring who will in turn mesh into society and so pass their genes down the generations). That’s perhaps why, when you ask somebody, ‘why is it wrong to kill another person/to harm another person?’ they will almost always answer that it is ‘self-evident’ or will refer to human rights (a concept, thankfully, that we have invented to express our intrinsic feelings). “A man conscious of the world around him, and responsive to its will” I do not think that this definition suffices because it would also include those who harm others e.g. executioners operating in a genocidal totalitarian regime; they may well be conscious of the world around them and responsive to its will but they are obviously harming others and so cannot be considered to be of good conscience.

TAR, Granted, in some situations there is no prospect for rational discussion as initiated by a lone individual, and under these circumstances it is in the best interests of the persecuted to leave the country and seek refuge elsewhere asap (if possible). I am aware that indoctrination sometimes does have this effect on children and adults but really I think that you are smarter than that. Perhaps. I would wish for diplomatic intervention, and if that proved impossible, then I would hope for targeted military intervention by soldiers of good conscience.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25088960 http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0871104.htm

Well, I can't really relate to their not wanting to work in the Lab: during my summer studentship I often worked 9am-8pm, and slept from 2am (actually not such a good idea in hindsight but it was fun!). However, this was working on a project that I was very interested in and had 1:1 support from a post-doc. There are many possible reasons for lack of engagement with Lab work. One of the main challenges for a supervisor is to set work that is sufficiently challenging as to be stimulating but not so challenging as to lead the student to give up in despair. That's a really difficult judgment call to make - each individual student will be at different levels, and will learn at different speeds. The support that each student requires will therefore be unique to them as individuals. I was lucky in that my mentor was a very good teacher and also knew how much supervision to provide so as to be neither negligent nor claustrophobic. I would say, teach them the essentials of the theory and techniques that are pertinent to the project - then let them get on with it unsupervised to begin with, and be responsive to their subsequent appeals for further support/supervision. Also bear in mind that the students, depending on their level of study, may feel very nervous and apprehensive about their own performance. They are liable to be extremely sensitive so kindness is essential. Running a gel correctly or incorrectly at that stage can feel like a huge victory or career-ending tragedy... I remember when I first performed TC with my mentor watching over, I was so nervous about doing it wrong, when I was pippeting my hands were shaking like crazy! So be gentle with them And if all else fails, you could leave a trail of Oreos leading to the bench

“Every law abiding citizen does [not break the law]” Pointless truism – it is true by definition. I’m saying: legality does not always equate with morality. Legal systems can beget evil outcomes as in Nazi Germany in the form of persecution of the Jews and as in our capitalist societies with the increasing disparity between wealthy and poor. Perhaps you should look into learning about the electromagnetic spectrum. There is more than black and white. More humane as in increasing the current extent of humaneness. Aspects of the current capitalist system are inhumane - see the very opening case in point at the beginning of this thread. Now RBS are being investigated to see if they willfully destroyed the prospects of small businesses: Your outrage is misplaced - you ought to be outraged on behalf of the victims of these capitalist schemes not shooting the messenger. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25082512 The exchanges between you and I are pointless anyway.

Well, true. Your childhood sounds lovely. Come to think of it, my childhood friends and I would play in the street: football, telling ghost stories, making a cardboard 'tunnel of terror', playing kerby, riding our bikes/scooters/skateboards/rollerblades, modelling/dancing/singing, tag, hide-and-seek. The decision as to what to play was necessarily made by consensus. Still, this mode of decision-making when it comes to adult individuals leaves the minority vulnerable to the whims of the majority. With the adult equivalents of playground spats - "I want to be the mummy" "No I'm being the mummy" And what if you find yourself in a genocidal totalitarian state? Are you meant to try and fit the demands of the regime, which may include tolerance of genocide, rather than have the relevant leaders and citizens consider your peaceful philosophy?

The infinite monkeys Brian Cox and Robin Ince are back! http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03j9lvb/The_Infinite_Monkey_Cage_Series_9_Through_the_Doors_of_Perception/ And catch previous series here http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+infinite+monkey+cage+series+9&page=1

And the executioners in Nazi Germany were not breaking the law of their own regime. So what’s your point? I’m not suggesting an overthrow of the current capitalist systems in the West – just modifications to make the systems more humane. That regulation seems to be currently lacking. FYI Gordon Brown may be socialist by your standards (anybody would be), but he was not a hardcore leftist, in reality it would be more accurate to describe his policies as centre-left. I think New Labour was an attempt at kind capitalism but it turned out to be insufficiently kind in practice.

I really didn't understand danston's point (was there a point?) one bit but alas (s)he has been banned

Alternative: for a start, have the major multinational companies pay a fair rate of tax - let's face it, for the likes of Starbucks, any payment of tax whatsoever would be a huge improvement http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23019514

It sounds like you are willing to give up on trying to make positive changes in the world and to allow needless suffering to continue; to stay warm and comfy in your bubble while the rest of the world goes to the Deuce. We are not able to change the world single-handedly as individuals but it is possible for individuals to unite and to together change the world. I think there is more room for global consensus on ways of life and morality than you admit.

This is made more difficult by the likes of the Conservative Party in the UK who have recently deleted from online archives their speeches and press releases dating from 2000-2010 - in an attempt, as some perceive it, to prevent people from checking if their pre-election promises match up with the reality of a Tory government. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24924185

Excellent TED talk on crony capitalism and the increasing disparity between wealthy and poor presented by Chrystia Freeland http://www.ted.com/talks/chrystia_freeland_the_rise_of_the_new_global_super_rich.html

The Young Turks do a pretty good job of dismantling Fox News http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlhSyB7ouJ8

Tell me the world is ending in a smooth enough voice and I probably won't mind

That's true. A lot of people also do not recognise the difference between 'no data have been found that support X' and 'data have been found that do not support X'. The former remains true even if the search for the necessary data has not been performed! Switch 'data' with 'sources' and the same is applicable to news reporting. [Ed: Oh but Sky News has Stephen Dixon as presenter which makes it immensely watchable]

What do you mean? Kristalris, Why don't you use quotes? Is it because you prefer the aesthetics of writing 'Q' and 'EQ'? Otherwise, to quote just write the quoted text, highlight and press the speech bubble icon above.

Thanks StringJunky, I agree, I mostly rely on the BBC for news updates - I too like the way in which they present factual accounts and keep the subjective interpretations/moral overtones to a minimum. Sky tends to be too shouty and too much like a pantomime for my tastes - they tend to present a lot of news features and commentary as well which, although valuable, I would rather seek out at leisure than have forced upon me in the morning when I am just waking up to check if the Earth is still spinning, how the economy is doing and if we are about to be hit by an asteroid. However, even when the content is kept to the dry basics, it is near impossible for any of us viewers to be able to verify the 'facts' that we are led to believe are true.

Quite apart from the sometimes blatant, sometimes subtle spin of media presenters, how do we know that the facts being sold to us as truth, are in fact true? The only way to know for sure would be to visit the areas in question and see for oneself - but this, of course, is not feasible. Like it or no, we are dependent on news agencies to provide us with an accurate account of current affairs. Here is some advice provided by the BBC on how to verify images that are purported to reflect major world events: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-24956762

The objective is not to generate people who are suited only to R&D but to develop in all people (even if they wind up in manufacturing or sales) the critical thinking skills that will allow them to live their life in a considered way and to avoid being exploited by others during the process. It has nothing to do with changing personality traits and everything to do with developing the ability to think independently. This is the only moral option; otherwise people wind up living unconsidered lives and being duped into subservience in a system that harms, directly or indirectly, themselves and their neighbours. This is one of the reasons why the intervention is wanted. It is just as easy to effectively teach critical thinking skills as it is to teach Mathematics or How To Ride A Bike - there is nothing alien about the concept of teaching these life skills.

Thanks StringJunky for your support, I received the same. I think the issue may have reached a critical mass and be gaining traction. Just think: our humble efforts may, some day, prevent a vulnerable female child from being subjected to this physically and psychologically scarring abuse. If nothing else, it will have been worth it for that one child.