Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'ethics'.
Found 4 results
As some are running arguments from Jeremy Fernando's The Suicide Bomber, and Her Gift of Death, I wanted to share Jeremy's perspective on the debate community and its engagement of his work. As a European Graduate School colleague of Jeremy's, we were looking at utilizing his arguments and also understood others had as well. If you have read the work, you should understand that there are substantial onto-epistemological and ethical problems with 1) attempting to use the material in a utilitarian construct (e.g. to win a debate round, or to firm up/make a "Resolved" argument), and 2) seeking to attain a certainty of a position, given his explicatoin of the Suicide Bomber is one of unknowability. I wrote to Jeremy about these questions and he provided the following reply on Friday January 17, 2014: "hey Jamie, It's always really good to hear from you my friend, and i do hope that your trip to Oklahoma will be a smooth, safe, one. mmm perhaps you might just let them know -- or, as i tend to put it, whisper echoes of -- the notion of responding, as thinking as the attempt to respond to and with, people, thoughts, and a text. After all, the reminder of the suicide bomber -- even as much as it is a difficult, extremely violent, terroristic, one -- is that of the unknown, the unknowable that haunts what we do, what we say. It is one thing to have humour, jokes, the witz to open new registers, to shake the foundations, the illegitimate abgrund, of authority; it is a completely different thing to attempt to pull the wool over to assert one's power over another. A disingenuous 'use' -- and perhaps one can stress using, utilising, reading as utility -- is the very gesture of terror (the effacing of another, the other), that the text itself is attempting to work against, to avoid. Thank you for the opportunity to respond dear Jamie: it is very much appreciated. Sending you and yours my warmest thoughts, jeremy"
For the Buddhism K, I don't mean the economics shit on openev - I want the generic stuff with a link of desire. I have a lot of race/id pol stuff I cut that I'll trade. I'll take whatever is the easiest to understand and most applicable in LD for Psychoanalysis K.
I am of the opinion that changing words in cards is bad. If you are quoting an author who is racist by reading his/her writing, you should not be allowed to delete objectionable parts. I was cutting this article: http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/03/us-usa-biofuels-congress-idUSTRE6124L720100203 One warrant is "Critics say federal attempts to constrain emissions of greenhouse gases will result in higher petroleum prices and retard U.S. growth." I know that the [likely] ableist language the author uses is probably bad, but I am just looking for opinions on the ethics of rhetoric changing.
Carlin : Nietzsche :: Louis C.K. : Heidegger (https://youtu.be/5HbYScltf1c) - from Dionysian joy in destruction to heroically confronting existential angst. This is the best (unwitting) summary of Heideggerean ethics I've read: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/opinion/29franzen.html. And here's Carlin at his most Nietzschean: https://youtu.be/vAp5UNYApHA - his version of 'eternal recurrence'.