Posted by alexandra_k on March 2, 2020, at 3:40:39
In reply to Re: corona virus, posted by alexandra_k on March 2, 2020, at 3:27:02
And my concern for New Zealand is that New Zealand recently says 'we are a nation of child abusers'
And then...
And then...
Permission to carry on?
So... The coronavirus has been a way that China investment in New Zealand has been withdrawn. As we have not been able to offer suitable accommodation for their children (we say 18 years old is adult but...)
I saw this talk at the University of Auckland Law School. Online.
About corruption.
About how we didn't ratify to start with because we knew we couldn't comply.
Other countries ratified because they thought they could comply.
There was then a rocky journey while they were told that they failed to comply even though they thought they had complied etc etc.
We have recently complied. Now we are learning that we don't understand what compliance even means.
The way we define corruption is so narrow...
As I know. As someone who reported 'extortion' and 'double billing of a government department' and was laughted at by the corruption hotline.
We don't know what corruption meeeeeeeeeeans.
Apparently we didn't ratify on the rights of children.
Because we still don't know what human rights meeeeeeeeeans.
Not even our adults have human rights. Not in New Zealand.
That's why people don't make sense of disabled people having rights, or ethnic minority people having rights. Nobody has rights in New Zealand.
There was recently a thing in the paper where Peter Singer said he would damage his reputation coming to New Zealand. We can't tell the difference between a Princeton Philosophy Professor and a YouTuber when it comes to deciding whether or not to uphold freedom of speech in University environments, even.
Someone (probably from the dairy board) managed to get together a bunch of intellectually handicapped people to protest about Singer saying that disabled people weren't morally worth more than animals (or similar).
What he was saying in fact was that animals have complex goals and desires and ability to form long term plans - much more so than many disabled people who are in comas or who are very very very severely intellectually disabled. He was claiming that the abiity to suffer was not intrinscially tied to species membership but was to do with the abilty to form these higher level capacities.
It is important to understand Singer as a person who likely understands the idea of compassion and respet for the planet and the rock face and as a person who has even more respect and compassion for sentient beings. And even more respect and compassion for beings capable of feeling indignant that their value is being unappreciated.
But someone (likely from the dairy board) didn't like Singers stance on animal rights. So decided to use the diability community for their own ends and for their own agenda. Exploiting the cognitive capacity of some members of the disbaility community to further their own agenda and discredit Singer for the interests of further exploitation of animals.
MOre recently...
Very recently...
A spokesperson for the disabiltiy community said that the disabiltiy community stands for freedom of speech.
But, still, why would Singer come here for the damange to his reputation. For the silenceing from teh Disbailtiy community. For the silencing from any community that does not want their people to understand that they have rights.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:1108749
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20191212/msgs/1108751.html