tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10557263.post113093502256471425..comments2024-01-26T10:20:37.836+00:00Comments on Diary of a Goldfish: Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.The Goldfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15213378454070776331noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10557263.post-1131382365404205042005-11-07T16:52:00.000+00:002005-11-07T16:52:00.000+00:00As a atheist, I find myself in a curious position ...As a atheist, I find myself in a curious position with regard to the incitement to religious hatred bill, in that I support it to some extent. You can choose your religion but then some would say that you can choose your sexuality and that does not make it OK to express hatred against a group of society. And crucially, Jews are already protected by race hate laws but Muslims are not. We also have rarely used laws on blasphemy that protect Christians but no other religious groups at all.<BR/><BR/>Hatred is about expressing violent dislike towards people, not towards institutions or ideas. This bill will not ban people from criticisng the sexual politics of religious fundamentalism but perhaps it will force them to acknowledge that not all religious people can be tarred with the same brush. Maybe they will even see that there is no real difference between Christians, Muslims and atheists who oppose sexual equality. What they have in common is their misogyny not their religion.<BR/><BR/>I used to believe in freedom of speech but the problem is that it has become framed in such a way that you cannot even criticise the speaker without supposedly infringing it. David Irving infamously claimed that to call him a 'Holocaust denier' for denying the Holocaust was a breach of his fundamental rights. In modern society it is generally frowned upon to call someone an 'evil neo-Nazi c***', even if it is true, which gives the people to whom that applies too much freedom to express hatred without being criticised.<BR/><BR/>I believe that laws do not always exist to be strongly enforced but to express the values of the society in which we live. For instance, I would not want a 14-year old to be prosecuted for having sex with a 13-year old girl but I do not support the lowering of the age of consent. Children need to be protected from over-zealous moralising but they also need to be protected from exploitative sexual relationships at a young age. The age of consent does not always acheive this but it surely has at least a small beneficial effect.<BR/><BR/>I don't expect the charge of incitement to religious hatred to be prosecuted very often and those whom it is used against will almost certainly deserve it. However, I hope that it will express the values of the nation. The tolerance of other cultures is fundamentally British just as the tolerance of other religions is fundamentally Christian.James Medhursthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15953493585646108206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10557263.post-1131048788084571932005-11-03T20:13:00.000+00:002005-11-03T20:13:00.000+00:00Well as I see it, free will creates moral responsi...Well as I see it, free will creates moral responsibility. To ourselves, to other people, to other non-human animals and the environment; to all those who might be effected by our actions. <BR/><BR/>Why are <I>you</I> such a decent fellow?<BR/><BR/>I realised Philosophy wasn't for me when I had to write an essay about if I was the last man on Earth and knew for certain that there was no-one else alive, whether it would be okay to take a blow-torch to the Mona Lisa. <BR/><BR/>It wasn't that I couldn't write the essay, I just despaired of having to do so.The Goldfishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213378454070776331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10557263.post-1131047279320402512005-11-03T19:47:00.000+00:002005-11-03T19:47:00.000+00:00Goldfish, I see where you are coming from, but I m...Goldfish, I see where you are coming from, but I myself find it difficult to agree to the term "responsibility", because that rather begfs the question, responsible <I>to whom</I>?<BR/><BR/>I prefer to think in terms of humans having, uniquely as far as we know, free will, ie choice of action. I can <I>choose</I> to be altruistic or not, my cat cannot. You may feel this is a bit of semantic quibbling.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10557263.post-1131037518987758262005-11-03T17:05:00.000+00:002005-11-03T17:05:00.000+00:00Brilliant! R.O.F.L. as they write. ;-)Made my day!...Brilliant! R.O.F.L. as they write. ;-)<BR/><BR/>Made my day!petehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11162001029968518442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10557263.post-1131036484796529922005-11-03T16:48:00.000+00:002005-11-03T16:48:00.000+00:00Pete,"If you really loved me you'd eat a plate of ...Pete,<BR/><BR/>"If you really loved me you'd eat a plate of spinach." <BR/><BR/>I don't think I have ever heard that one before, but it has provoked my dirty joke for the day;<BR/><BR/>Bill and Ben the Flowerpot Men were sitting in the garden.<BR/><BR/>Bill said to Ben, "Flobbadobba-blobbadob."<BR/><BR/>Ben replied, "If you really loved me, you'd swallow."The Goldfishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213378454070776331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10557263.post-1131036183694324742005-11-03T16:43:00.000+00:002005-11-03T16:43:00.000+00:00Charles, I think you misunderstand. I don't believ...Charles, I think you misunderstand. I don't believe it is a matter of <I>innate superiority</I> but <I>innate responsibility</I>. <BR/><BR/>For example, there is an injured cat at the side of the road. It is in great distress and has been rendered unable to walk.<BR/><BR/>Lassy the dog walks past, then Flipper the dolphin and finally Skippy the bush kangaroo. How do they respond to the injured cat? How is it right for them to respond? There's no right or wrong about it. Sometimes non-human animals behave in what we'd call an 'ultruistic' fashion, but they are not 'evil' for failing to do so.<BR/><BR/>Charles the man walks by, and commits a <I>moral offence</I> if he trundles past and ignores a distressed animal. Knowing this particular man, he will probably personally take the animal to the vet, and if it turns out to be a stray, it may well find itself with a home and food for the rest of its life. If it was me, the best I could do was contact the RSPCA and keep it safe until they arrived. But I couldn't not do anything.<BR/><BR/>This is the crucial difference between people and (as you rightly correct me) <I>other</I> animals. <BR/><BR/>Please don't confuse this argument with the idea that we are <I>better</I> than other animals because we are good and faithful to our mates (!) and read books; there is no superiority because the two things are inappropriate to compare. <BR/><BR/>Only we have <I>responsibility</I> <BR/>for the other animals we interact with because through our powers of reason (or intelligence), communication and our technology we have the power to chose to do relieve their suffering, cause their suffering or just let them get on with it either way. That is both th extent and limit of our unique position.<BR/><BR/>Otherwise, as you say, we're nothing special. Well, except for some of us. ;-)The Goldfishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213378454070776331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10557263.post-1131034038901909612005-11-03T16:07:00.000+00:002005-11-03T16:07:00.000+00:00Hi Goldfish, I really eat only a few things and th...Hi Goldfish, I really eat only a few things and this has caused many contretemps with past partners.<BR/><BR/>I detest all manner of green leaves cooked or no, whom am I to deprive veggies of their foodstuffs. This woman who shall remain nameless presented before me (as way of a challenge) a whole boiled Birds Eye briquette of spinach with an egg on top and called it eggs Florentine. I would have rather drank from the Arno! She said if I loved her I would eat it. Spinach is the work of the Devil! Don't get me started on Brussel Sprouts. However as an aside there is a brilliant flash sketch named Parp on the eclectech site. Cannot beat beans though;-)petehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11162001029968518442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10557263.post-1131029416090719442005-11-03T14:50:00.000+00:002005-11-03T14:50:00.000+00:00GoldfishIt's not so much that animals are people t...Goldfish<BR/><BR/>It's not so much that animals are people too, as that people are animals too.<BR/><BR/>Man makes a big deal about possessing intelligence - other species managed to dominate for millennia without, as far as we know, anything like human intelligence. It took a meteor to wipe out the dinosaurs and most other species around at the time; our intelligence looks like to achieve the same end without any help from outer space.<BR/><BR/>So what price intelligence?<BR/><BR/>I am old enough to have observed repeated redifinitions of what puts us above other animals. At one time it was language - then proper observation of other species proved that some do, in fact, possess language. Then it was tool-making. Again, that was based on pure ignorance of the natural behaviour of other species, not only primates. I wonder what the definition of innate superiority involves now?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10557263.post-1131010027573984692005-11-03T09:27:00.000+00:002005-11-03T09:27:00.000+00:00Marit – you are quite right. Unfortunately people ...Marit – you are quite right. Unfortunately people don’t it applies to them because most of us are unlikely to voice anything that counts as an extremist view – at least not now. And I’m afraid it counts for something that the terrorists who are particularly feared are supposedly Muslim and likely to have a different colour skin. The idea of being held in custody for ninety days without charge is a fairly terrifying prospect, but nobody’s going to do that to <I>me</I> because my skin is white as snow (actually it is today, yuck!). <BR/><BR/>I hate to use the term ‘politically correct’ because people often apply it to perfectly egalitarian policies, however there is a growing culture where however deeply feelings run, we are being forbidden from expressing views that <I>offend</I> other people. I do believe that we should respect one another and try to get on, but all is lost if we lose the right to piss one another off.<BR/><BR/>Marmite - I too have met Catholics and other Christians (though it must arise in all religions) who are similar to your ex. For such people, religion is a kind of security blanket. They are the most vocal yet inarticulate defenders of their faith. <BR/><BR/>But then there's folks like my Mary and also my paternal Granny who are very conscientious in their beliefs. They talk about them openly, allow them to be challenged. They never pass judgement on other people and they have both supported me on my path in life which includes my living in sin with a divorcee. In fact much more than my own atheist parents did at first. They are both prepared to entertain the idea that there are many different ways of living a good life. <BR/><BR/>However, like you say, absolute belief that is never challenged is a very dangerous thing. The very extremism that this government is anxious about is likely to be promoted by a situation where arguments are forbidden. Even though this bill refers specifically to <I>hatred</I> people are likely to shy away from any open criticism of religions.<BR/><BR/>It would have an effect similar to forbiding the discussion of the social or medical model on Ouch! <BR/><BR/>Pete – the trouble with a diet of baked beans is that on the one hand you are preserving living things and on the other you are likely to be adding to the hole in the Ozone layer that threatens us all. ;-)The Goldfishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213378454070776331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10557263.post-1130972304764843352005-11-02T22:58:00.000+00:002005-11-02T22:58:00.000+00:00Charles – I agree with you and have never bought t...Charles – I agree with you and have never bought those argument. The same kind of crap was used to justify slavery and still is used to justify the subjugation of women throughout the world - like you say, often by those who have nothing much else to do with the God who awarded such privileges.<BR/><BR/>I found the entire subject of Animal Rights a difficult one when I came to study it (I was trying to do a Philosophy degree). Nobody seemed to think as I thought. On the one hand you had Singer and others who were saying “Animals are people too” and on the other hand you had folks like <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Scruton" REL="nofollow">Roger Scruton</A> who in one essay stated that horses loved to race especially when they won pretty rosettes. <BR/>I came to the belief that I was much cleverer than any of the great minds whose work I was reading because I was the only one who realised that <I>animals are not like people</I>. A fox can no more be murdered by dogs than it can be described as a cunning and sadistic chicken-killer. These words belong to us, to our behaviour and experience. <BR/><BR/>I am inclined to take a virtue ethics approach. <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham" REL="nofollow">Jeremy Bentham</A>* said, "The question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?" Since it is obvious that animals do suffer, and suffering is A Bad Thing, then we must not cause it unnecessarily. Beyond this lies the complex matter of what is and is not necessary, and how bad a Bad Thing the suffering of animals is relative to other Bad Things. But that is my starting point.<BR/><BR/>* Jeremy Bentham had so much sympathy for the fact his cat had been born a cat with only limited capacity for pleasure that he allowed it to sit in the chair by the fire while he sat in a draft. His favourite was a cat called Langbourne, who was then renamed Sir John Langbourne, and still later the Reverend Sir John Langbourne, D. D. Which suggests the father of utilitarianism was a few bricks short of a load.The Goldfishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213378454070776331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10557263.post-1130962487395567532005-11-02T20:14:00.000+00:002005-11-02T20:14:00.000+00:00My ex-girlfriend was and almost certainly, stil is...My ex-girlfriend was and almost certainly, stil is a very pious Catholic. It was her very being and touched upon everything in her life. I once said to her that her religion was an important part of her life and she snapped back (rather forcefully I might add) that it WAS her life. <BR/><BR/>Now I have no particular problem with that but the teaching (some may call indoctrination) she received did not leave any scope for anyone elses belief. She once gave me an ultimatum that I attend church with her. I went twice even though I'm a complete non-believer and she could understand why I didn't believe. It wasn't a moralistic view point either she was just completely phased by it. It impinged on everything in our relationship,from sex before marriage to her never having any money to buy food or pay the rent 'God will help me' she used to say, well his mysterious ways can be easily explianed by the mugs i.e. me and her friends who had to bail her out. <BR/><BR/>This kind of believe isn't exclusive to the cathoilc church but it is very dangerous. Poeple with that amount of piety just believe some higher being will help them itn their hour of need and therefore thank their Lord when they are hepled out and not the person helping them. Maybe I'm being unfair because of my experiences but what some religious people do in the name of there faith is quite appalling. I don't need to go on about the wars fought about who's religion is right and who is in league with the devil.<BR/><BR/>As for the BNP well Nick Griffin is in court today for inciting racial hatred. Lets hope he goes down. He does not proport free speech. f he was in power only white Northern European Protestants would get it, provided who believed in exactly what he did. He is a dangerous man and should be treated as one.<BR/><BR/>Blimey Goldfish you have started us all off. Cheers ;-)marmiteboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06727386811098683743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10557263.post-1130959504572786692005-11-02T19:25:00.000+00:002005-11-02T19:25:00.000+00:00Frankly, Blair and his acolytes terrify me. Anybo...Frankly, Blair and his acolytes terrify me. <I>Anybody</I> with a sense of mission and a conviction that he is right, in his position, would terrify me.<BR/><BR/>My dislike of killing animals for food is, in part, based on the suffering inflicted on the animal before and during death, but it is also kinda theological. If you think about it historically, what are human beings? We have existed as a species for only a few million years, and as a dominant speices for only a few hundred, with the advent of technology. In marked contrast to other animal species, such as the dinosaurs, who dominated for hundreds of millions of years, and didn;t even have pop-guns.<BR/><BR/>I accept that it is <I>expedient</I> for us to domesticate and kill other animals, but I do not accept that it is because we have some kind of a right to do so through our superiority. What superiority?<BR/><BR/>This idea is based on Jewish theology, subsequently taken over by Christianity and Islam, that Man was made, uniquely, in a God's image, and was given the earth as his property. Fine, if one believes that <I>and</I> if one accepts the duties and obligations that membership of such religions places upon him/her.<BR/><BR/>What makes me unhappy is those who assume these God-given rights over other creatures, while blithely ignoring or flouting everything else inconveniently connected with that God. Heads I win, tails other animals lose.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10557263.post-1130945132895840342005-11-02T15:25:00.000+00:002005-11-02T15:25:00.000+00:00Blimey Goldfish that was some post. It has given m...Blimey Goldfish that was some post. It has given me plenty to think about and I have never read anything by this P. Green bloke but I will do now.<BR/><BR/>I am an on and off non-meat eater. But it is hard when you are a fussy eater in extremis. Only eating very few things that grow in the ground, under 5 to be precise. All hail to Heinz beans and tomato soup.petehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11162001029968518442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10557263.post-1130939526315151752005-11-02T13:52:00.000+00:002005-11-02T13:52:00.000+00:00I have long suspected (based on my meager knowledg...I have long suspected (based on my meager knowledge of history and the nature of the powers that be) that this would be an opportune moment to infringe our liberties and impose some restrictions. While we are busy worrying about terrorists and fundamentalists, they sneak in a few laws that tie our hands behind our backs. I mean it’s not like they don’t have the media in a tight grip already, is it? <BR/><BR/>In the seventies and early eighties doctors still performed surgery on infants without anesthesia, based on the argument that infants couldn’t feel pain. They claimed that the reason they cried was that they were cold and hungry, not because they were cutting into them with scalpels! People believe all sorts of things. In some parts of Africa it is believed that if a child, whilst being born, touches the mother’s clitoris, it will die, hence the need for female circumcision. Hey, don’t get me started. Personally I’m not racist at all, I just despise narrow minded bigots of all creeds and colours, regardless. If they could create a law that cured plain old fashioned stupidity I’d be all for it >:)Marit Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07752560288158735373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10557263.post-1130939401693039732005-11-02T13:50:00.000+00:002005-11-02T13:50:00.000+00:00I am indeed a great fan of your blog, my child. I ...I am indeed a great fan of your blog, my child. I especially enjoy the poetry. I must however object to your portrayal of the Catholic Church. We mean well, you know? <BR/><BR/>You are quite right however about the importance of freedom of speech. As a former member of the Luftwaffe, I know all too well about the dangers of totalitarian ideologies.<BR/><BR/>And when in 1996 I said that Heavy Metal was the instrument of the devil, I meant as in, the devil has all the best tunes. That was until I listened to Ozzy Osbourne's <I>No More Tears</I> album, at which point I realised that there is much to be said for an eternity of Cliff Richard.<BR/><BR/>Spiritus sancti, compos mentis, gloria gainer in excelsis dei.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com