subject:"Re\: Debconf in Israel"

Re: [OT] Re: Debconf in Israel

2019-03-29 Thread Jonathan Carter

Hi!

On 2019/03/29 13:20, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 3/29/19 11:40 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:

I believe that this thread has steered well off-topic, and it's probably
better that you move it off-list or elsewhere.

thanks!

-Jonathan

-- 
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀  Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) 
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  Debian Developer - https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋   https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org
  ⠈⠳⣄  Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back.

Re: [OT] Re: Debconf in Israel

2019-03-29 Thread Daniel Kahn Gillmor

On Thu 2019-03-28 07:18:45 +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Virtually any wealth that was accumulated through illegal business is
> confiscated by legal prosecutors and either kept by the government or
> - if the rightful owners can be determined - returned to them.

This is a remarkably ahistorical claim, even if we narrowly care only
about "illegal business" and don't take unethical-yet-legal business
into consideration (which i think we should, when trying to make ethical
decisions).

As they say on wikipedia, {{Citation needed}}.

   --dkg

Re: [OT] Re: Debconf in Israel

2019-03-28 Thread René Mérou

Argument edited to add an interesting link.

On martes, 26 de marzo de 2019 14:22:19 (CET) John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:

> The point is simply that you cannot blame the people of nowadays for
> decisions that were made way before they were born.

You just say that as it was clare and evident. I think ethics are an
interesting subject, led me try to resume it even more literally to explicit
the fallacy.

I understand that your line put this 2 ideas on the table:

1 - You cannot blame one person for his present situation if it was not his
decision nor intention. (soft interpretation)
2 - You cannot blame one person for his present situation if he was born after
the decision. (rigorous interpretation)

I am sure that there can be some situations where this lines are true and
others were this lines aren't true.

For the soft interpretation, If you have one heart of a specifically killed
non-volunteer donor, you are not to blame if you here not informed and you
wouldn't accept it voluntarily.

It is different if you now decide to continue having one kidney (stolen form
other person and you now know he is going to die if you do not return his
kidney) you know you are to be blamed for his death. That notwithstanding, if
I where to judge you for it, I wouldn't force one innocent person to die to
prevent the death of other innocent person. (if you participated in the
decision that would be very different.)

For the hard interpretation, I think it is the same. Some times you are not
to be blamed and sometimes you really are.

For example, if you where now multimillionaire due to your father selling
narcotics or you could have a lot of art goods due to the fact that your
father was a tyrant that stole all that from other people. So, now you are
rich but your money is full of blood or, you have a lot of priceless peaces of
art stolen.

Some people will see no problem in you been rich from both heritages, some
people will blame you from just one of that ways. And some people will accept
to pay like German people did:

> https://abcnews.go.com/International/germany-makes-final-reparation-payments-world-war/story?id=11755920

I think our society would have a proclivity to achieve a higher stands of
leaving and happiness if we agree that sometimes you cannot profit from one
situation just because you where not to blame initially.

The fallacy is that you focused on the initial decision and obviously no one
is to blame for one decision done without his participation but, you forgot
the key idea: sometimes you are to blame from profiting from one unfair
situation because you consent NOW and you continue nor reparing the damage
neither stop causing more damage.

Now, led me say that I read very interesting arguments from both sides:

"United Nations has described Israel as an apartheid state. When you
internationally choose to have a technical conference in a apartheid state you
are supporting that regime and supporting its criminal and human rights
violations against Palestinians."
Nasir El-Amin

I firstly agreed with that idea, but now, I think there is a fake dichotomy
fallacy here. We are pro-human right violations or not; no other possible
intentions/paths/liberties there?

What if I tell you that Muhammad Ibn Abdullah told you to stop things with the
hands or with your tongue or within your heart. That means that we can have
different ways/strategies to react to one injustice.

What if I tell you that the so called prophet told you that you must behave
well but measure your efforts to be able to make a lot of good things but not
to do too good things that require more effort that you are able to accept
afterwards? In that sense, led me to ask you if you are asking from the
people of Israel one effort that overpass their capacity? (If you are a rich
person you can take a plain to other country and build a new home and
bossiness there but if you are poor, that is not always one alternative(nor
ethical dilemma in my humble opinion))

"We must not confuse a system with the citizens living in a country."
Georges Khaznadar

I agree with that. It could be said about the URSS, China or even EEUU. The
point is that in this case some of them are not just living but profiting from
a dark past and more importantly, profiting from a dark present injustice and
the separation (state responsibility & personal responsibility) could not be
so tenable.

Will you force the German banks to return the money and stolen art to
familiars? I think that having this precepts enshrined in our standards or in
our moral compass would conduct us to better societies and more happiness.

Where is this debate been opened?

Sorry if I wrote here, I thought this subject as others, are better been
openly spoken with respect (and of course, avoiding flames). To silent or
censure it leaves emotions unspoken and that leads to worst consequences than
a patient constructive

Re: [OT] Re: Debconf in Israel

2019-03-28 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz

On 3/28/19 2:52 AM, René Mérou wrote:
> For the soft interpretation, If you have one heart of a specifically  killed 
> non-volunteer donor, you are not to blame if you here not informed and you 
> wouldn't accept it voluntarily.  

You are pulling this out of thin air, it's a completely constructed example.

> For example, if you where now multimillionaire due to your father selling 
> narcotics or you could have a lot of art goods due to the fact that your 
> father was a tyrant that stole all that from other people.  So, now you are 
> rich but your money is full of blood or, you have a lot of priceless peaces 
> of 
> art stolen.

Virtually any wealth that was accumulated through illegal business is 
confiscated
by legal prosecutors and either kept by the government or - if the rightful
owners can be determined - returned to them.

> The fallacy is that you focused on the initial decision and obviously no one 
> is to blame for one decision done without his participation but, you forgot 
> the key idea:  sometimes you are to blame from profiting from one unfair 
> situation. 

There is no fallacy because the situations you are describing are based on
wrong assumptions.

> Will you force the German banks to return the money and stolen art to 
> familiars? I think that having this precepts enshrined in our standards or in 
> our moral compass would conduct us to better societies and more happiness.

I don't have to because the German government is enforcing that on their own,
a lot of property that was stolen by the Nazis has already been returned to
their original owners or their relatives. This is an ongoing process.

Did you know that up until recently, Germany was still paying reparations
for even World War I?

> https://abcnews.go.com/International/germany-makes-final-reparation-payments-world-war/story?id=11755920

> Sorry if I wrote here, I thought this subject as others, are better been 
> openly spoken with respect (and of course, avoiding flames).  To silent or 
> censure it leaves emotions unspoken and that leads to worst consequences than 
> a patient constructive dialogue.

It would have helped if you educated yourself first on the examples you provided
before trying to construct some sort of morality lesson out of them.

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Re: [OT] Re: Debconf in Israel

2019-03-26 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz

On 3/26/19 2:11 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> [John Paul Adrian Glaubitz, 2019-03-21]
>> According to this logic, you wouldn't be allowed to host a DebConf in almost 
>> any
>> country in the world as almost any stretch of land has changed owners, 
>> deliberately
>> or by force over the time.
>>
>> The farm of my great grand-parents is now owned by Polish people and the 
>> land around
>> it which used to be Germany is now Poland. But that's a historic fact that 
>> cannot be
>> reverted. That doesn't mean I boycott Poland or Polish people in any way. In 
>> fact, one
>> of my best friends is from Poland.
> 
> it is Poland but it wasn't our decision. Poland was attacked by Germany
> (AKA Nazi) and 16 days later by Russia (AKA USSR).

Yes, and I am fully aware of this. My point was not to talk about a particular
blame but simply the fact that history changes borders over time and it's
just how things are.

I just chose the example of Poland because my family was personally affected,
I may have chosen the US, Australia or South America as examples where people
were chased away off their original land or borders were moved (in the case
of Mexico).

The point is simply that you cannot blame the people of nowadays for decisions
that were made way before they were born.

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Re: Debconf in Israel is Shameful

2019-03-25 Thread Shachar Shemesh


  
  
Nasir El-Amin wrote:

  Israel is land stolen from Palestinians its a illegitimate
nation that has built walls with machine gun turrets and
oppressive paramilitary groups that assault and murder
Palestinians and that blockade aid from Palestinians.

In an attempt not to start a political argument on the list,
  let's just say that all of the above assertions are controversial.


I have no problem starting political arguments off list,
  so if you think you can convince me, or am open minded enough for
  a reality check, feel free to contact me directly.


  
  
  Palestinian or Muslim Debian contributors won’t be allowed by
Israel to attend Debconf.

There is no discrimination in entering Israel based on either
  religion or nationality. As such, any DD who is either Palestinian
  or Muslim, and wishes to attend, may do so based on the visa
  requirements of their respective citizenship.


I'm not sure what the visa requirements are for citizens
  of either the PA or other Muslim countries with no diplomatic
  relations with Israel are, but I know for a fact that such visits
  are possible. This even includes citizens of Indonesia, a
  country whose passport explicitly says is not valid in Israel.
  Anyone who's interested in attending DebConf 2020 is free to
  contact me off list and I'll do whatever I can to help in
  obtaining said visa.

  
  
  If this proceeds I will end my use of Debian and Debian
derivatives and encourage every Muslim Linux user I know to
avoid Debian and Debian derivatives.

You are, of course, free to make whatever choice you wish in this
  regard. I will point out that such an indirect boycott (i.e. - not
  only boycotting Israel and Israeli companies, but also boycotting
  anyone who does not themselves boycott Israel) has been tried by
  the Arab countries, and was abandoned over 30 years ago.


It is an inherently anti-pluralist thing to do, as not only would
  you be making a moral stand, you'd also be claiming that you would
  not be willing to interact with anyone who will not make the same
  moral stand as you. In other words, it is a move designed to
  reduce the diversity of world views expressed.



Shachar

25 matches

Mail list logo