Equality of Freedom of Speech

post by Em.

This may shock and affront anyone who has met me, but I actually agree with Mark Steyn on some things. Ok, one thing: freedom of speech. But don’t worry, this is only a general agreement, when it comes to anything like specifics, I am back to my old disagreeing-with-everything-Mark Steyn-says self. Recently, Steyn and his buddy Ezra Levant (of publishing those darned Danish cartoons fame) spoke in front of the justice committee concerning freedom of speech in general and Section 13 of the Criminal Code (the prohibition against hate speech) in particular. [For more from Steyn click here, or most recently, here]

Anywho, about a year or so ago, I was looking for a thesis topic. Around the interweb, I noticed that Steyn and Levant were ranting and raving about freedom of speech and I thought to myself, “You know, Self, freedom of speech is really interesting”. And thus a year of research and writing commenced.

What follows is a de-academicalization (read: drastic oversimplification) of an academic paper. I do plan to do some further work on freedom of speech, so if you steal my ideas, I will cut you. On another, less threatening note, I do have some serious research and argumentation that I will not include here, but feel free to ask. And as always, feel free to heartily (or unheartily if you must) disagree with me.

pretty in plastic

Post by westwood.

Yeah, maybe I’ve been absentee for awhile. Maybe it’s because I was leading children the wilderness for the summer. Or I had six seasons of The L Word and Joseph Boyden books to finish. Maybe a little of column A, a little of column B.

However, my most recent occupation has been dealing with the fallout of some rather serious facial lacerations. The bonus… a seriously sexy plastic surgeon at my disposal. If I decide I’d like some work done on the scars, I could easily get him to do a little more – some firming here, reshaping there. If Ashlee Simpson thought she needed it at her age, I suppose I do, too.

But before I freeze up my face and start going by ‘Joan’, let me take a step back for a moment.  I think, or at least dearly hope, that most of us have an internal ‘yuck factor’ (yes, that is a valid philosophical term) reaction to the idea of young people going in for plastic surgery for purely cosmetic reasons. But why? What’s the difference between this:

And this?

You know, other than the latter having uglier results.

The Same Thing But Different

Post by Em.

Here in Canada, it’s beginning to look a lot like election time. And while it’s not yet a done deal, that hasn’t stopped the ads or the renewed discussion of voter apathy. Oddly enough, I don’t think these two things are unrelated, at least not as far as that ever elusive youth vote is concerned.

Now, on most subjects, I’m just your average under-informed blogging type rambling on about things I know nothing about; however, when it comes to the coveted 18-24 age group, I’m pretty much the Encyclopedia Britannica (only I look better on a bookshelf, zing!). Of course, everyone and their uncle seems to have written a thesis about us 18-24’s and media. We’re over-saturated. We’re addicted to social networking. We’re unable to absorb information through traditional mediums. We’re single handedly destroying family values. Also, we kick puppies.

So what do political parties do? They take to Twitter (which has yet to really catch on with 18-24 year olds who aren’t Lindsay Lohan). They make facebook groups (which you have to first join before you can be indoctrinated via status updates). And they release ridiculous advertisements that fail to do anything but show us how they’re all exactly the same and have no idea at all what 18-24’s are like.

Take for example this conservative ad, aimed directly at us:

(If you can’t read it, it says “Freak out your prof. Join the Conservatives) First I chuckled. But then, after thinking a moment about how none of my professors would care one way or another, I thought about what it actually says. And then I yawned. Seriously? Conservatives attempting to convince us that they’re the polar opposite of those softy, privileged liberal academics again. Then there’s the Liberal’s latest ad featuring Ignatieff in the Shire with wardrobe courtesy of Mark’s Work Warehouse. And why is Jack Layton sitting at my Kitchen Table? Wait. Who’s the Most Averagest Canadian again?

Oops, he did it again

Post by Em.

But no one’s surprised. Not really. I’m moving on to my fourth week without television, and I can tell you, even the infinity of the internet starts to get dull after a while. There is one place which never fails to provide some amusement, however: MacLean’s.ca, where Mark Steyn, has written this, which, if read in a certain light (or any light at all) is rather offensive.

That being said, I have a high tolerance for offense, so mostly I just chuckled and then felt guilty about it. But by the time I read the last line, I felt slightly empty. Isn’t it Steyn’s job to be obtuse, politically incorrect and indelicate in order to prove a point? Or at least shock us into listening to the far right? This piece didn’t do any of that. It wasn’t ironic or satirical either, not that Steyn has ever displayed that kind of subtlety. In fact, I was disappointed. Of course, I disagree with everything Steyn writes (with exception for the freedom of speech stuff, kind of), but I appreciate an intelligent, if purposely and excessively belligerent, opposition. As I’ve discovered in my limited experience blabbing into the silent abyss of the interweb, most people are, well, stupid. Which means that most of the people with whom I disagree, whose arguments I’d like to test against my own, end up being irrational and prone to  empty rhetorical flourish and ad hominem attacks. I learn nothing from these exchanges, other than that people are, well, stupid.

How sad then, to see Mark Steyn sinking to the same posturing, albeit with a better vocabulary and far superior grammatical skill. (He may be wrong about everything, but the man can turn a phrase). But perhaps not all is lost. Maybe, amongst the self-congratulating brandishing of verbal weaponry, Steyn has managed to put forward an argument.

On Conservatism and Same-sex Marriage

post by Em.

I was reading this (actually interesting) piece in the Times about a conservative lawyer who is about to argue the case against Proposition 8 (the California law which reversed the legalization of same-sex marriage) in front of the Supreme Court. For the most part, it’s a profile on Theodore Olson and his career, explaining how it all came about. But here’s the thing: its apparently quite shocking that a conservative is in favour of legalizing same-sex marriage.

But should it be so shocking? (Full disclosure:  I suppose, if I must fit myself into a political/ideological spectrum, I’m a liberal and I sit just a little bit left of centre; however, lately I’m attempting to approach every issue in a post-partisan way.) Especially since Olson sounds like a standup guy with a sense of fairness, even if he was the lawyer who argued for Bush in Bush v. Gore, in 2000. In fact, reading the article, Olson didn’t really seem all that conservative.

To have or not to have…

posted by Em.

An issue of MacLean’s recently had this article about the ever growing movement of the voluntarily childless. More recently is this, an article outlining some of the letters sent in response.

Now, the article in question didn’t really take a stand one way or another, it merely sought to examine this group, throw in a few provocative quotes without endorsing or condemning them and go on its merry way. Of course, such trivialities as what was actually written has never stopped people from feeling personally insulted and so vehemently defending their own position, regardless of whether it had actually been attacked. (As a side note though: reading the comments on the website yielded a surprising result as the majority of people were in favour of respecting individual choice, either way. Go people!).

For example, at dinner, my sister inquired about the article and the following conversation ensued:

Me: It doesn’t really give a case for anything, it’s just saying that there is this group of people…
My mother: “People who don’t have children are self-righteous”
Me: “That sounds like a rather self-righteous thing for a mother of three to say”

End Scene

The conversation was rather muted after that until my mother changed the subject to (insert thing I am currently doing wrong here). Anyways, unfair generalizations are usually categorized as unfair exactly because they include people who ought not be included and exclude those who ought to be.

…nor any other part belonging to a man

post by Em.

There’s this. Which raises an interesting idea. Why is it that we (the big, general, all encompassing, societal we) tend to refer to women by their first names whereas men are called either by both names or by the last name?

At first glance, it seems a trifle of an issue, until you consider that some of the areas in which this commonly occurs are those in which the status of women continues to be a vital and pressing issue (such as politics, law etc). So what, if anything, does it mean? And, is it, in the vaguest sense of the word, bad?

Well, the meaning of this phenomenon I leave to be determined by much more intelligent people (read: those who care enough to do research). As to the goodness/badness aspect, I am, as per usual, undecided but nonetheless willing to ramble on about it.

You Can’t Handle the Truth

by Em.

So, there’s this. And so much more, because of this. I wasn’t going to say anything because, frankly, torture is a depressing topic. But then, I noticed that the bleeding hearts were getting rather militant and I remembered this pearl of wisdom from Jonathan Swift, “When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.”

First, let’s be clear: I am not pro-torture. I do not kick puppies, take candy from babies, hate lolly-pops and wither in the sunshine. There is, however, an argument to be made that there may be a place for torture. Feel free to ignore it, if you so choose, but, personally, I prefer only to make educated decisions. So, let’s see what the confederacy is up against, shall we?

What does an argument against an outright ban on torture look like? First and foremost, any argument needs to define its terms. What constitutes torture? Are there some interrogation methods that may fall into the category of torture which are nonetheless deemed acceptable? And perhaps more importantly, who should we let decide? It hardly seems sensible to give the power of definition to either prisoners or those imprisoning them. But then again, who are we, the general public, inexperienced and unfamiliar with such dire straights to impose our oversimplified moral compasses on a system which is recognized as being inherently distinct from our own reality?

polygamy is the new gay marriage

by Em.

Mark Steyn wrote this. And people, they’re talking. I love Mark Steyn, if only because he’s entertaining, but, I don’t mean to agree with Steyn’s (totally bollocks) argument that legalizing gay marriage put us on a slippery slope to the legalization of (gasp!) polygamy. What I mean is, the polygamy debate is poised to become the new gay marriage debate. I wrote this a while ago, and never posted. But now seems like as good a time as any.

Next to what used to be my favourite hidden table at the library, there is a book called Isn’t One Wife Enough? On it, someone had written: “No!”. Even though my school used to be Catholic and is still overwhelmingly Christian, I doubt that “No!” was written in genuine protest to the implied endorsement of monogamy. More probably it was an example of college boy math: more women = more chances to score (and in this guy’s case, probably more chances for rejection)

We are currently seeing polygamy brought before the courts and polygamists in turn issuing their own Charter challenges. Opponents of gay marriage who had argued quite ridiculously that once we let the gays marry all hell will break loose are likely thumping their chests and saluting their shrines to Rush Limbaugh. That particular argument, however, has always made about as much sense as Limbaugh (that would be precisely none at all). The debate about gay marriage and its widespread acceptance might indeed have something to do with setting the ground for new debates about polygamy and it’s about time. Anything at all that forces people to re-examine their preconceptions is good. And it’s about time that Canadians took a step back and thought about marriage.

First, there is a legitimate Christian claim against polygamy: Jesus was not for it. In fact, Jesus took Jewish law marriage law to the max. But, dear Christian friends, that means divorce. As in, divorce is totally unacceptable. So, let’s keep that in mind, before we start insisting on returning to these ancient ‘laws’. Still, while Christians can use the religious argument as a reason not to practise polygamy themselves, it’s an argument that, in a supposedly secular country such as ours, has no place in policy making. While Christians may oppose laws allowing polygamy on religious grounds, it is not likely that those same Christians would endorse the religification of Canada’s legal system as a whole. Arguments against legalizing polygamy need better grounds than Jesus could ever offer.

Raising the dead

by westwood

You raise two disparate points here.

1. The presence or absence of disability services in ancient Greece.

2. Whether philosophy was ever alive to being with.

I’ll let you have the benefit of the doubt on the first one, but you’re not getting off so easily with the second. Your arrogance is staggering. You assert that philosophy is not dead because you use and consider it in your daily life. Perhaps you are an aberration, just adding yourself to the ranks of those who don’t want to get a ‘real’ job.

But, really, what evidence is there that philosophy was ever alive and thriving? Most of what people consider as philosophy can be summed up in moldy tomes and the espousing that comes out with the smoke of opium/weed/whatever vice you prefer. If philosophy is more than just ideas, if it is a lifestyle, then this perception of it as a collection of airy concepts is wrong. I will define philosophy here as including theories that come from our mental investigation into the world and ourselves, but more importantly, it is that investigation itself. It is the application of critical thought, logic, and analysis to everything around and within us. So did philosophy by this definition exist in the world in the past? Was critical thinking alive and well?

Let us examine the place of reason in history (and pardon my mostly Western bias).

• the Trojan War. Logic: engaging in a decades-long bloodthirsty battle over one man’s romantic delusions.
• the Crusades. Logic: annihilating presumably innocent people because an invisible man apparently told someone that is what he wanted, although he is considered to be all-loving and merciful.
• World War I. Logic: a number of monarchs enjoyed oppression, gossip and petty disputes and their subsequent escalations. Young men from both these countries, and countries uninvolved, eagerly died to prove something-or-other.
• George Bush Jr. Logic: after racking up an unwinnable war and an unprecedented debt, he was re-elected into office.

Of course, this is oversimplifying the issues. Even so, consider the sheer magnitude of suffering that could have been averted if people had just thought about it. The examples where critical thinking have triumphed are staggeringly few. In fact, so few that I can hardly think of any. Nuclear weapons/power? No. Free-market economics? No. Oh, the expansion of human rights to allow a wider group of humans to be defined as persons, that is a good one. It’s too bad it took thousands of years of slavery and subjugation to get to this point.

Even so, there is some hope. Reason may not have dominated in the empires of the past and present, but it can be found in some element now. Democracy promotes a certain level of debate. More entities that are awarded rights than ever, and the very definitions within our ethics have been altered. There is arguably more potential for free thought than there ever has been. We can now speak meaningfully of animal rights, gay rights, and are even considering the rights of robots that don’t even exist yet.

Most of our decisions are informed by some knowledge of the world, which science is increasing at an astounding rate. Free speech is rampant and enforced in many countries. Even the surge of bloggers attempting to poke holes in the concepts of others speaks to the rise of philosophy.

I will leave the question of whether all of this is good or bad aside. But when you consider the context, philosophy seems poised to break upon us. Analysis and consideration of the world around us and our actions are definitely on the rise. The mainstream nature of concepts such as the precautionary principle and sustainable development speak to this. We are at a crucial point in time. Incorporating philosophy into our every day lives, internalizing critical thinking, seems like it could be overwhelmingly positive. But how do we get from the naivete and ignorance of the past to a freethinking future? The ancients may have laid crucial groundwork, but traditional methods will only get us so far. We can memorize every syllogism and fallacy, every rule of logic, but until we make the drive to question, understand, and strive for a better way part of ourselves, study will do us no good.

Traditional philosophy, with its incomprehensible language and often shaky arguments, gives us direction. It tells us which way not to go. The work that has been done may have influenced societies across the world, but it has not brought philosophy to life within each of us, where it should be. Yet, the global consciousness seems to be changing. To bring reason to the forefront of this change, philosophy needs a facelift. It needs dedicated surgeons.

gapingwhole intends to sharpen the knife.