If
one has followed the the phone hacking scandal in the UK. it is clear
that Murdoch knew about it and turned a blind eye to the culture of
the abuse of power of his news papers. The papers bullied slandered
and breached several laws over a long term. Merely paying bribes to
govt officials/ police/ politicians et al is against the law. But
they did that with impunity. Regardless of his having prior
knowledge of the actual phone tapping, he isn't/wasn't so dumb as
not to have realised that it was impossible to have an endless parade
of 'victims' and targeting of those who opposed his interests didn't
emanate from questionable source mining. Further to that he must
have know that his special pleading and changing governments to a
more compliant one was also clearly wandering into at best
undemocratic at worst illegal territory.
Likewise
his boast that he had pictures (presumably illegally gotten) . He
was also well aware that such pictures need not be of any illegal
activity just that they may sufficiently embarrassing to 'neutralise'
the individuals (i.e. blackmail them..... which is illegal and as
such he's a common thug).
His
papers weren't acting the public interest of need to know and the
noble ideal of freedom of speech it was simply manipulation of the
unwary, ignorant and the pathological self interested , by pandering
to the less admirable
The
Sun and the News of the World have the right to freedom of speech to
say what ever they want either true or untrue? Being real the chances
of a successful court outcome was very much against anyone who
opposed them.
In
truth it was a happy set of circumstances and tactical blunders that
the whole shit hit the fan.
I
think it's interesting how Rupert reacted in the enquiry trying to
manage the news by his irrelevant comment of “this being the most
humiliating day in his life”.... and ? Additionally he also has a
history of promising one thing then doing the other. He would have
you believe he is just a business man and regards money as the
determining factor of worth as a human being. But is it ? If profit
was his only concern may of his papers would have closed years ago as
unprofitable. He would be well aware of “opportunity cost” (what
earnings the capital invested/losses would have made if invested
elsewhere).
What
it does show are marked symptoms of sociopathic tendencies... no
conscience, promising one thing to governments then doing the
opposite to satisfy his wants.. His life is typified by lust for
power...
One
is entitled to wonder what is still hidden in other countries and
businesses … The leopards and spots thing?
If
we take his example we can confirm the research data that may heads
of Corporations display the same sociopathic tendencies. As your self
is this what we need to our leaders to be? Totally self obsessed to
the disregard of others often seeing those who don't see things
their way as the enemy … and the end justifies the means.
Is
this what we mean by Freedom of Speech? I hope not.
I
rather think that Freedom of speech is conditional based on a test of
who how and why (context) of what was said rather than the word(s).
If
it isn't then our definition of the purpose of a society is wrong.
And we by extension merely naked apes after all and Malthus was right
our civilisations are no more than an adoration to the ultimate goal
of the 1st law .of thermodynamics …. we are driven by
evolution for no point.
Personally
I take the view that we are a more advanced species with a more
advanced degree of comprehension of abstract thoughts like right and
wrong. This gives us if we chose to use it to determine our own
evolution.
This is in answer to Robert P. Murphy (economist) about AGW
the problem is where does one draw the line?
In the western world there is this monumental Myth that there is such a thing as free speech... there never was, isn't and couldn't be unless one is advocating a law of the jungle ...the Malthusian concept of the biggest, badest, most ruthless survives and all others don't... not for mine. The reality is that freedom of speech is has always will be conditional.
We live in a society and any definition of that concept includes sub concepts like co-operation, mutual benefit , harmony... *without * which it won't last. This doesn't mean sitting around in a love In etc. But it does mean a preponderance of the key positives. Arguments advocating extremes ( binary B/w) are simply silly.
And that leaves us with the first question, put another way, “ when is an idea (?) acceptable and when is it not?” A real conundrum particularly if one tries to codify it.
It's a bit like codifying good manners...*that * is always changing.
Personally it comes down to the intention of the 'speech' i.e. would a reasonable man/person see the speech as .....e.g. positive, neutral, or negative intentioned, in the context rather than the word(s).
e.g. is one is speaking factually/ reporting the Nazi ideas of racial supremacy that is neutral but to then go ahead and advocate that in what can be described as hate or inciting speech then it isn't.
There is a big difference between saying I don't believe in AGW because of A- B- C facts contradicting E-f-g but it's a different thing altogether deliberately (wantonly) lying or miss leading for profit, particularly given the consequences for all societies. My view here is that this man's nonsense is negative and is Intentionally designed to advantage a minority AT THE COST OF ALL SOCIETIES. There, it is hate speech. My assessment is largely based on the fact that he does know better ...he has a PhD and therefore knows how to reasonably put an argument. HE chose not to therefore guilty of incitement to do harm.
The key here is that to the average man he is a learned person and therefore his words should be given preferential weighting. He Knew this as did his employers, he has conveniently/ deliberately done is abuse this weighting. If for example Hispanic Pundit or I had written the diatribe it would have been (rightfully) ignored. Again the Key is context.
Even a PhD and NOBEL laureate in Biochemistry recently in a speech prefaced it with a clear acknowledged that he wasn't an expert in the field and would confine his comments to what was known and the consensus. Keep in mind that the whole doubt raising bluster was concocted by 3 aging physicists to help Big Tobacco .
If someone wants intellectual respect they should earn it and maintain it not sell it to the highest bidder.
I would argue he and his ilk has degraded education.
In the western world there is this monumental Myth that there is such a thing as free speech... there never was, isn't and couldn't be unless one is advocating a law of the jungle ...the Malthusian concept of the biggest, badest, most ruthless survives and all others don't... not for mine. The reality is that freedom of speech is has always will be conditional.
We live in a society and any definition of that concept includes sub concepts like co-operation, mutual benefit , harmony... *without * which it won't last. This doesn't mean sitting around in a love In etc. But it does mean a preponderance of the key positives. Arguments advocating extremes ( binary B/w) are simply silly.
And that leaves us with the first question, put another way, “ when is an idea (?) acceptable and when is it not?” A real conundrum particularly if one tries to codify it.
It's a bit like codifying good manners...*that * is always changing.
Personally it comes down to the intention of the 'speech' i.e. would a reasonable man/person see the speech as .....e.g. positive, neutral, or negative intentioned, in the context rather than the word(s).
e.g. is one is speaking factually/ reporting the Nazi ideas of racial supremacy that is neutral but to then go ahead and advocate that in what can be described as hate or inciting speech then it isn't.
There is a big difference between saying I don't believe in AGW because of A- B- C facts contradicting E-f-g but it's a different thing altogether deliberately (wantonly) lying or miss leading for profit, particularly given the consequences for all societies. My view here is that this man's nonsense is negative and is Intentionally designed to advantage a minority AT THE COST OF ALL SOCIETIES. There, it is hate speech. My assessment is largely based on the fact that he does know better ...he has a PhD and therefore knows how to reasonably put an argument. HE chose not to therefore guilty of incitement to do harm.
The key here is that to the average man he is a learned person and therefore his words should be given preferential weighting. He Knew this as did his employers, he has conveniently/ deliberately done is abuse this weighting. If for example Hispanic Pundit or I had written the diatribe it would have been (rightfully) ignored. Again the Key is context.
Even a PhD and NOBEL laureate in Biochemistry recently in a speech prefaced it with a clear acknowledged that he wasn't an expert in the field and would confine his comments to what was known and the consensus. Keep in mind that the whole doubt raising bluster was concocted by 3 aging physicists to help Big Tobacco .
If someone wants intellectual respect they should earn it and maintain it not sell it to the highest bidder.
I would argue he and his ilk has degraded education.
No comments:
Post a Comment