"A conference is a gathering of important people who singly can do nothing, but together can decide that nothing can be done." - Fred Allen

***

The 16th of July seems to be a very popular day for events. So far we have:

- Launch of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
- NUS political association appreciation dinner
- Bloggers.SG convention (since I'm helping to organise this, it takes priority)
- ENS camp post-camp gathering
- Screwed Up Girl's Weiqi's tournament
- Baybeats 2005 - "Singapore (sic) Biggest Alternative Music Gathering"
- Bukit Panjang Government High's 45th Anniversary Dinner

***

The degeneration of a thread on overseas voting in Singapore:


A: Put it this way - given that sammyboy & the talkingcock are examples of overseas Singaporeans - I suppose the government is naturally leery of anyone who has experienced living in the outside world, and who might hold certain truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. People such as these, politically speaking, are highly unlikely to be part of the PAP's reliable heartlander economic-stability-craving constituency.


B: just a quick quibble. one need not believe that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with inalienable rights in order to believe in equality and human rights. if one adopts the kantian view of universalizability, then we can ignore divinity and bow to the force of rationality.


C: Back in Singapore, and one good quibble deserves another =P.

Why should we adopt the Kantian view of universalizeability? Because it is true. But how do you know, save that you choose to adopt it over another view that you don't like? Why should "the view that I prefer" be the true one? Or even the view that 51% prefers?

Perhaps because it is "reasonable". But what reason is there for believing in "equality" when men and women are naturally unequal in strength, talents, intellect, moral character etc? What reason is there for the extension of "equal rights" to members of one's species (an entirely arbitrary category in any case - why not just one's family, or friends, or countrymen, or ethnic group? Why do you have to extend rights up to the boundary of sexual reproduction and not after or before? How very illogical.) when the other animals don't bother?

If the Kantian view is reasonable and true, which I don't doubt, you will require an additional factor to make it so - a factor not founded on nature as we observe it, with its visible and real inequalities, but on a common human essence transcending nature. And in the search for that essence, you and I have already left natural materialism behind as an inadequate hypothesis/world-view.


Me: >what reason is there for believing in "equality" when men and women
>are naturally unequal

It might be argued that granting people equal rights are merely an expedient way of ensuring society's smooth functioning. Granting people equal rights acts as a foil to social discontent, is an implicit (explicit?) part of the social contract and obviates the problems of judging who has more rights than others (Who is to judge? What criteria should/can/must one use?).

>you and I have already left natural
>materialism behind as an inadequate hypothesis/world-view.

Alternatively, one can use a conjunction of rationality and social expedience (see above). It may not be as philosophically satisfying as whatever alternative you might be proposing, but then philosophically satisfying and internally consistent as Aristotle's system of crystalline heavenly spheres through which the planets circling the earth rotated in concentric circles in uniform circular motion was, we all know how marvellously wrong that theory turned out, especially in reference to the real world, don't we?

Or in other words:

C: "The world would make sense if we believed that the moon is made of blue cheese"
Me: "The moon is not made of blue cheese, therefore your proposal is invalid"


A: I acknowledge that you are attempting to traduce a form of experiential "understanding" that cannot be reduced into an internally consistent argument via the framework of logical or mathematical thought (viz. the rationalist/positivist approach).

However, because of the manner in which human perception is structured - i.e. - that our mind operates according to certain structural/physiological (I acknowledge this is open to debate but it's safe to say that some commonality of operational framework generally exists amongst all members of the human race to some extent, leaving aside the occasional aberration) precepts that convert a mass of sensory data into perceptual frameworks and experiences - the result being that the a materialistic framework built upon what is often derided as the "common sense" approach (you know, lame, simple minded, parochial and fallacious notions like "cause and effect") is the only valid one when discussing purely political or empirically observed phenomena. This holds more true when one is communicating in a structured linguistic fashion - ie. academic debate - in which the nature of its operands and operandi are built on axioms which have their origin in the commonality of human consciousness, the mechanism by which we interrogate our existence both within and without.

In other words, the difference between mysticism and theology:) The closest obligatory academic name-drop I can think of at this point offhand would be to refer to Spencer's concept of the metaphysically Unknowable (First Principles, 1862); at least in terms of his postulation that these should be segregated completely from the discussion/illustration of philosphical discourse.

If you wish to abandon those axioms, in search of an understanding or comprehension that exists beyond this sphere of influence - there is no manner - beyond literary hyperbole, unsupported assertions and appeals to emotion and authority - that we can effectively discuss or even debate, given the limitations of human perception, the English language, and the cognitive structure of human consciousness.


D: *slow smile*

Witness the slow slide from rights of overseas voters, to Kant in the sense of "ignore divinity and bow to the force of rationality", which immediately red-flagged C into replying :) with a simple assertion that rationality ain't all that rational when one looks at its deeper assumptions (or axioms, to quote A), to A's challenge that hah! rationality is perfectly rational within the framework of biopsychology dash psychiatry.

*somewhat amused* did I summarize it correctly? (maybe i left out a few points unintentionally because i'm not thoroughly familiar with the internal subtext of all the ppl on this list yet. apologies.)

I mention this to forestall a vicious crossfire where eventually no one will know which issue of the above series of emails is being addressed. Neuropsychology is a tremendously contentious field all by itself without adding the rights of voters into the mix, if all that one intends to discuss is only neuropsych.


Me: Yes, why do we always end up in this sort of morass?


Ah, what is truth?

Reality is an illusion!

There is no spoon.

Save us from the black helicopters!


And one wonders why most people here rather stay out of the fray, and spend their time doing more productive (or at least more enjoyable) things.

***

The False Promises of a Draft - Why conscription won't improve the military

"What is the purpose of a military? Is it to spread the social burden—or to fight and win wars? The U.S. active-duty armed forces are more professional and disciplined than at any time in decades, perhaps ever. This is so because they are composed of people who passed comparatively stringent entrance exams—and, more important, people who want to be there or, if they no longer want to be there, know that they chose to be there in the first place. An Army of draftees would include many bright, capable, dedicated people; but it would also include many dumb, incompetent malcontents, who would wind up getting more of their fellow soldiers killed.

If conscription is revived, draftees are not likely to serve more than two years. Right now, the average volunteer in the U.S. armed forces has served five years. By most measures, an Army of draftees would be less experienced, less cohesive—generally, less effective—than an Army of volunteers. Their task is too vital to tolerate such a sacrifice for the cause of social justice, especially when that cause isn't so urgent to begin with.

Would lawmakers be less likely to approve and fund wars if their children and the children of their friends might be drafted to fight? The answer is unclear... If patriotism or party loyalty did not play a role, might they fear accusations of selfishness or cowardice if they seemed to oppose a war simply to save their children's hides?"

***

Wives should submit to their husbands

"The marriage vow basically says that even if a husband turns out to be a scumbag or a couch potato who cares more for Man U than for his mother-in-law, we still have to accept him.

My husband and I have demanding careers, but when we come home, I give him a sponge bath even if I am tired. I prepare supper, and yes, I do peel prawns for him. I do so without asking for anything in return.

He is the head of the household. When it comes to any major decision, his vote counts for 60 per cent, and mine for 40 per cent. My grandfather was right. This is difficult. I find it challenging to submit to my husband."

Suffice to say that if a man knows how to make his wife happy, the marriage can equally be long-lasting and harmonious. Or, for that matter, if a country does not resist a foreign invader, the occupation will likely be less bloody and harsh.

The violent, incoherently-expressed misogyny expressed by many on the Sammyboy forum thread on this issue is amazing:


"Equality my ASS, as long as women don't serve AntAss or continue having mood swings every monthly cycle, they better shut the fuck up and serve their man's needs.

No wonder the very same pussies advocating more pussy power in Sinkapore wonder why nobody wants to marry them."


"I conclude that one line of thought (submission) should be imposed on women, and on people in general when it comes to values like politeness and courtesy.

On recalling, the brutal murder of a women right's leader in Taiwan many years ago was a good move.

If reason can't bring them back from their erroneous "liberal" beliefs, then violent force should be the next and last best recourse."


"the diffe is we fxxk them while you kenna fuck ha ha ha. They BJ us while you BJ them. Also you can get dump and they go back to their home country while we can dump them and they have no where to go. Also we can chop them to pieces and take their money ha ha ha. SG bitches fxxk ooooffffff...... who the fxxk need you."