Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on October 25, 2019, 09:15:21 AM
-
This just seems utterly crass
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-50151344
-
It is indeed crass and there are times and situations, like this one, when respecting the sensitivities of others demonstrates a more considered approach than is seen in this example of selfish indulgence by insisting on doing something that isn't, in itself, an important test of personal liberty.
-
It is indeed crass and there are times and situations, like this one, when respecting the sensitivities of others demonstrates a more considered approach than is seen in this example of selfish indulgence by insisting on doing something that isn't, in itself, an important test of personal liberty.
Are you suggesting you support the ban?
If so, I cannot agree. Certainly the rock itself needs to be preserved from damage from people climbing it and that may lead to imposing restrictions on numbers. But Uluru is a natural phenomenon - it isn't owned by the Anangu people, regardless of how sacred they may consider it to be. Certainly tourists wanting to climb the rock need to do so in a manner that respects the fact that some other people may consider it sacred. But I don't think that just because some people think the rock is sacred means they have the right to ban others (who don't think it sacred) from their own experience of what is a natural, not a man made, object.
-
Are you suggesting you support the ban?
If so, I cannot agree. Certainly the rock itself needs to be preserved from damage from people climbing it and that may lead to imposing restrictions on numbers. But Uluru is a natural phenomenon - it isn't owned by the Anangu people, regardless of how sacred they may consider it to be. Certainly tourists wanting to climb the rock need to do so in a manner that respects the fact that some other people may consider it sacred. But I don't think that just because some people think the rock is sacred means they have the right to ban others (who don't think it sacred) from their own experience of what is a natural, not a man made, object.
How does one 'climb the rock ... in a manner that respects the fact that some other people may consider it sacred'?
-
How does one 'climb the rock need to do so in a manner that respects the fact that some other people may consider it sacred'?
Well firstly by limiting the numbers and times when visitors are allowed to climb. And also by ensuring all people who climb do so as part of an organised team where they are required to participate in an education session before hand that would focus both on the geological history of the rock but also on its importance to the indigenous people.
-
Well firstly by limiting the numbers and times when visitors are allowed to climb. And also by ensuring all people who climb do so as part of an organised team where they are required to participate in an education session before hand that would focus both on the geological history of the rock but also on its importance to the indigenous people.
So the education session will say - it's important to the indigeneous people that you don't climb the rock but we can just respectfully ignore that.
-
So the education session will say - it's important to the indigeneous people that you don't climb the rock but we can just respectfully ignore that.
Respect is a two way thing.
I simply don't see why everyone should be banned from experiencing Uluru (which is a natural phenomenon, around for millions of years before people) because some people consider it sacred.
-
Respect is a two way thing.
I simply don't see why everyone should be banned from experiencing Uluru (which is a natural phenomenon, around for millions of years before people) because some people consider it sacred.
But how is it showing respect if you say to someone, I respect you don't want me to climb this, but I'm going to do it so I expect you to respect that?
-
Can I declare all of the pound coins sacred, and expect everyone to stop using them and let me decide how they get used?
O.
-
But how is it showing respect if you say to someone, I respect you don't want me to climb this, but I'm going to do it so I expect you to respect that?
It is about education and respecting the fact that another person may hold a different view to you - that doesn't extend to agreeing with that view.
There are many things that various religions may consider sacred - we can respect the right for those religious individuals to hold that view without either agreeing with it, nor altering our behaviour to align with their view.
So to take a different example - it is a traditional view in Hinduism that cows are sacred and therefore Hindus should not eat beef. I do not hold that view myself yet I can respect the rights of Hindus to hold that view themselves while also choosing to eat beef in accordance with my own views. The equivalent here would be that non Hindus should be banned from eating beef (banned from climbing Uluru) because Hindus consider the cow to be sacred (because the Anangu people consider the rock to be sacred).
-
It is about education and respecting the fact that another person may hold a different view to you - that doesn't extend to agreeing with that view.
There are many things that various religions may consider sacred - we can respect the right for those religious individuals to hold that view without either agreeing with it, nor altering our behaviour to align with their view.
So to take a different example - it is a traditional view in Hinduism that cows are sacred and therefore Hindus should not eat beef. I do not hold that view myself yet I can respect the rights of Hindus to hold that view themselves while also choosing to eat beef in accordance with my own views. The equivalent here would be that non Hindus should be banned from eating beef (banned from climbing Uluru) because Hindus consider the cow to be sacred (because the Anangu people consider the rock to be sacred).
Would you visit St Peter's in flip flops and budgie smugglers?
-
Would you visit St Peter's in flip flops and budgie smugglers?
Not an equivalent example because:
1. We are talking about banning so the equivalent would be to ban people from visiting St Peters regardless of what they are wearing and
2. More importantly the RCC can make a claim on St Peters as they built and own it - Uluru is a natural phenomenon owned either by all or by on-one depending on your view. It is not a man made object that a certain people can have a special claim upon.
-
Not an equivalent example because:
1. We are talking about banning so the equivalent would be to ban people from visiting St Peters regardless of what they are wearing and
2. More importantly the RCC can make a claim on St Peters as they built and own it - Uluru is a natural phenomenon owned either by all or by on-one depending on your view. It is not a man made object that a certain people can have a special claim upon.
So people cannot own land?
-
Are you suggesting you support the ban?
If so, I cannot agree. Certainly the rock itself needs to be preserved from damage from people climbing it and that may lead to imposing restrictions on numbers. But Uluru is a natural phenomenon - it isn't owned by the Anangu people, regardless of how sacred they may consider it to be. Certainly tourists wanting to climb the rock need to do so in a manner that respects the fact that some other people may consider it sacred. But I don't think that just because some people think the rock is sacred means they have the right to ban others (who don't think it sacred) from their own experience of what is a natural, not a man made, object.
I do, though it would be better if no ban was needed and that people would perhaps decide not to climb it given its cultural significance to others.
That it is natural and not constructed doesn't seen to lessen its cultural significance to the indigenous people, so in cultural terms climbing it seems to me about as insensitive as expecting to be able abseil down the front of Westminster Abbey just because you fancy doing so.
-
This just seems utterly crass
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-50151344
What's crass? That people climb the rock or that modern people are held hostage to an ancient fairytale?
-
What's crass? That people climb the rock or that modern people are held hostage to an ancient fairytale?
I think using the term here 'held hostage' is crass. But in terms of people rushing to climb here just to get in before the ban is crass. Particular given the treatment of the indigeneous people in Australia through history.
-
What's crass? That people climb the rock or that modern people are held hostage to an ancient fairytale?
Yeah, the white man always knows best - he holds the science stick and wants to wave it from the top of the rock.
-
I think using the term here 'held hostage' is crass.
I admit it was deliberately provocative but I smell double standards going on. Is it crass to claim that Christians are held hostage to an ancient myth? I see far more provocative examples than that all over the web.
But in terms of people rushing to climb here just to get in before the ban is crass. Particular given the treatment of the indigeneous people in Australia through history.
Actually it's kind of pathetic. "We came here , stole your land and treated your ancestors like animals and discriminate severely against you, but hey, we'll stop climbing that rock anymore. Call it quits?"
-
Yeah, the white man always knows best - he holds the science stick and wants to wave it from the top of the rock.
Oh come on. You don't actually believe those ancient myths that make the rock sacred do you?
Science is not the preserve of the white man. Anybody can do it. I expect some of the Anangu people do science. So stop playing the racist card.
-
I admit it was deliberately provocative but I smell double standards going on. Is it crass to claim that Christians are held hostage to an ancient myth? I see far moreprovocastive examples than that all over the web.
Actually it's kind of pathetic. "We came here , stole your land and treated your ancestors like animals and discriminate severely against you, but hey, we'll stop climbing that rock anymore. Call it quits?"
So a bit of whataboutery to start with. Followed by a strawman which then justifies worse behaviour on the basis that behaving better isn't perfect.
-
So a bit of whataboutery to start with.
Errr, no. I was calling out double standards. It's apparently OK to be critical of Christianity on the grounds that it is nonsense but apparently not of the Anangu.
Followed by a strawman which then justifies worse behaviour on the basis that behaving better isn't perfect.
What? What is the straw man? How does anything I wrote justify bad behaviour?
-
So people cannot own land?
Irrelevant - the point is whether specific people can have a claim on a natural phenomenon such that it restricts the freedoms of others to enjoy that natural phenomenon.
-
Errr, no. I was calling out double standards. It's apparently OK to be critical of Christianity on the grounds that it is nonsense but apparently not of the Anangu.
What? What is the straw man? How does anything I wrote justify bad behaviour?
No, it's whataboutery because you said you have seen worse things on the web. That is irrelevant to any charge of hypocrisy.
The strawman was in putting something in a quote as if that was what was being argued on the thread. And in using that you implied that because there is insufficient recompense for the indigeneous people, that it doesn't matter if people climb Uluru.
-
Would you visit St Peter's in flip flops and budgie smugglers?
Nice diversionary tactic NS.
Can we check whether your views are consistent or you are promulgating double standards.
It is traditional Hindu belief that cows are sacred and to eat beef is a desecration of that sacredness.
Do you think therefore that:
1. Eating beef should be banned for everyone because Hindus consider the cow to be sacred.
2. That it is not possible to understand and respect the right of Hindus to consider the cow sacred, yet personally not to agree that the cow is sacred and to choose therefore to eat beef.
-
Oh come on. You don't actually believe those ancient myths that make the rock sacred do you?
Science is not the preserve of the white man. Anybody can do it. I expect some of the Anangu people do science. So stop playing the racist card.
Of-course trampling over other peoples heritage is racist. That is why the climb will be closed. I expect the Anangu already regard the myths as er... myths, but it doesn't mean they will be any happier to see tourists disrespect them.
-
Irrelevant - the point is whether specific people can have a claim on a natural phenomenon such that it restricts the freedoms of others to enjoy that natural phenomenon.
How is it irrelevant? Isn't land a 'natural phenomenon'? Can't people who own land restrict the freedom of others to enjoy that 'natural phenomenon''?
-
Nice diversionary tactic NS.
Can we check whether your views are consistent or you are promulgating double standards.
It is traditional Hindu belief that cows are sacred and to eat beef is a desecration of that sacredness.
Do you think therefore that:
1. Eating beef should be banned for everyone because Hindus consider the cow to be sacred.
2. That it is not possible to understand and respect the right of Hindus to consider the cow sacred, yet personally not to agree that the cow is sacred and to choose therefore to eat beef.
As if some Hindu beliefs were not even more of a diversionary tactic...
-
Nice diversionary tactic NS.
Can we check whether your views are consistent or you are promulgating double standards.
It is traditional Hindu belief that cows are sacred and to eat beef is a desecration of that sacredness.
Do you think therefore that:
1. Eating beef should be banned for everyone because Hindus consider the cow to be sacred.
2. That it is not possible to understand and respect the right of Hindus to consider the cow sacred, yet personally not to agree that the cow is sacred and to choose therefore to eat beef.
So asking about how you would deal with other beliefs is a diversion? Mmm that is a lovely shiny mirror you have there.
-
Of-course trampling over other peoples heritage is racist.
It is a natural phenomenon - it existed for hundreds of millions of years before the Anangu people arrived and will likely be there for hundreds of millions of years more - long after they have gone. How on earth can it be considered the 'heritage' of a particular group of people.
-
That is their tradition so a part of their heritage, and they have the power to decide (via the park board) whether climbing Uluru should be allowed or not.
There are other examples, eg. some areas in India being exploited for mining/minerals, where traditional beliefs have been overruled - to the economic detriment of the locals.
Let's take an example closer to home. The presence of Stonehenge in it's current location is a major impediment to traffic and the economic prosperity of the SW. Why can't it be dug up and moved to a museum somewhere suitable?
-
How is it irrelevant? Isn't land a 'natural phenomenon'? Can't people who own land restrict the freedom of others to enjoy that 'natural phenomenon''?
You never heard of the mass trespasses in the Peak District in the 30s? You sound as though you're defending selfish landowners.
-
That is their tradition so a part of their heritage, and they have the power to decide (via the park board) whether climbing Uluru should be allowed or not. There are other examples, eg. some areas in India being exploited for mining/minerals, where traditional beliefs have been overruled - to the economic detriment of the locals. Let's take an example closer to home. The presence of Stonehenge in it's current location is a major impediment to traffic and the economic prosperity of the SW. Why can't it be dug up and moved to a museum somewhere suitable?
Hmmmm....no reason; after all, the temples of Abu Simbel in Egypt were taken down stone by stone to make way for the rising waters of the artificial lake Nasser, being repositioned on a site which still attracts the sun to the centre of the temple and illuminates 'Usermaatre-mery-Aumun , mery Horakhty' onthe anniversary of his assuming the double crown - just as it did on the day of its' completion. If the artefact is moved and causes no disturbance to the purpose for which it was (presumably) intended, then there's no issue... So; try moving Ularu, then......
-
I am not in favour of any sort of rock climbing, a very dangerous sport, which also puts the rescuers in danger!
-
I am not in favour of any sort of rock climbing, a very dangerous sport, which also puts the rescuers in danger!
Why not give us the very short list of things you are in favour of or like, and have done?
-
You never heard of the mass trespasses in the Peak District in the 30s? You sound as though you're defending selfish landowners.
No, I'm saying that land owners generally have some rights, whether some or all of them are justified is a different argument. Can I refuse entry to my home? Is that just because it isn't a 'natural phenomenon'? Are you saying that the Anunga should have no say about what happens on Uluru?
-
No, I'm saying that land owners generally have some rights, whether some or all of them are justified is a different argument. Can I refuse entry to my home? Is that just because it isn't a 'natural phenomenon'? Are you saying that the Anunga should have no say about what happens on Uluru?
No, but they shouldn't have absolute say either. I'm with the Prof: allow strictly limited numbers, in supervised groups.
-
No, but they shouldn't have absolute say either. I'm with the Prof: allow strictly limited numbers, in supervised groups.
So you will respect their views by ignoring them in a limited fashion?
-
No, it's whataboutery because you said you have seen worse things on the web. That is irrelevant to any charge of hypocrisy.
That was only by way of arguing that there are double standards in play.
The strawman was in putting something in a quote as if that was what was being argued on the thread. And in using that you implied that because there is insufficient recompense for the indigeneous people, that it doesn't matter if people climb Uluru.
You said it on the thread. If you don't want people to take issue with it and (shock, horror) quote it, then don't say it.
-
That was only by way of arguing that there are double standards in play.
You said it on the thread. If you don't want people to take issue with it and (shock, horror) quote it, then don't say it.
And by just saying, you have seen worse on the web, that isn't double standards, it's just saying some people say worse things - which is why it's whataboutery.
And the quote you made up was "We came here , stole your land and treated your ancestors like animals and discriminate severely against you, but hey, we'll stop climbing that rock anymore. Call it quits?" - since I didn't say that, and since it isn't a quote then it's a strawman.
-
So you will respect their views by ignoring them in a limited fashion?
Sarcasm is not an argument.
-
Of-course trampling over other peoples heritage is racist.
I said the religious beliefs of the Anangu are false. Is that racist? Is it racist because I chose a deliberately provocative way of putting it? Can you tell me what language to express the opinion that a religion is false is acceptably non racist?
That is why the climb will be closed. I expect the Anangu already regard the myths as er... myths, but it doesn't mean they will be any happier to see tourists disrespect them.
So there is actually no reason whatsoever to stop people from climbing Uluru (excepting environmental damage).
-
Sarcasm is not an argument.
Neither is evasion
-
I said the religious beliefs of the Anangu are false. Is that racist? Is it racist because I chose a deliberately provocative way of putting it? Can you tell me what language to express the opinion that a religion is false is acceptably non racist?
No, of-course arguing that the beliefs are false is not racist. Dismissing and ignoring their feelings is.
So there is actually no reason whatsoever to stop people from climbing Uluru (excepting environmental damage).
There is no reason to climb it either. This is about feelings and emotions not fact.
-
And by just saying, you have seen worse on the web, that isn't double standards, it's just saying some people say worse things - which is why it's whataboutery.
That's not true. I didn't say people say worse things on the web. Admittedly there were two typos in the post which might have confused you, but I've corrected them now, so you can go back and read it again.
And the quote you made up was "We came here , stole your land and treated your ancestors like animals and discriminate severely against you, but hey, we'll stop climbing that rock anymore. Call it quits?" - since I didn't say that, and since it isn't a quote then it's a strawman.
Jesus Christ. It should have been obvious, even to you, that it wasn't an actual quote of an actual person least of all you.
-
That is their tradition so a part of their heritage, and they have the power to decide (via the park board) whether climbing Uluru should be allowed or not.
But it is just as much part of everyone's heritage as a major natural phenomenon of global importance and significance - that's why it is a world heritage site. What you are, in effect, saying is that the Anangu people should be able to claim exclusivity in heritage terms - I don't think that is right.
-
Here's something that we probably all should take into account.
I looked up who owns Uluru and it turns out that the Aṉangu own it. They've owned it since 1985. As owners, as far as I am concerned, they can do what they like with it. The only reason that people have been allowed to climb on the rock is that the government stitched them up with a 99 year lease as a condition of getting the rock back
-
Here's something that we probably all should take into account.
I looked up who owns Uluru and it turns out that the Aṉangu own it. They've owned it since 1985. As owners, as far as I am concerned, they can do what they like with it. The only reason that people have been allowed to climb on the rock is that the government stitched them up with a 99 year lease as a condition of getting the rock back
Ownership was transferred to the people on the understanding that it is jointly managed with the National Parks and Wildlife agency. It is also a world heritage site, so regardless of ownership they most definitely cannot 'do what they like with it'.
-
But it is just as much part of everyone's heritage as a major natural phenomenon of global importance and significance - that's why it is a world heritage site. What you are, in effect, saying is that the Anangu people should be able to claim exclusivity in heritage terms - I don't think that is right.
Not exclusivity, it is a shared heritage - implying that others feelings on it's use should be taken into account.
I was listening to World at One today, which had a piece on it: Even those taking the opportunity to climb it "for the last time" and including a descendent of Ayers, agreed that it is was right that the Anangu control access and stop climbing.
It doesn't need to be climbed to be appreciated and enjoyed.
-
A piece of advice that appears frequently in the Foreign Office Travel Advice site is the importance of taking into account local cultural aspects: to me this is fundamentally what this issue is about, and respecting the beliefs of the indigenous people of Australia hasn't had a great history to date.
-
Not exclusivity, it is a shared heritage - implying that others feelings on it's use should be taken into account.
Which would be consistent with carefully managed access, that would respect both the heritage as a sacred object to some people and a hugely important geological site to others. And you can't fully experience the rock merely by looking at it from a distance. To ban access, in reality implies the heritage isn't shared, but the sacred element believed by the few completely trumps the views of the many.
-
That's not true. I didn't say people say worse things on the web. Admittedly there were two typos in the post which might have confused you, but I've corrected them now, so you can go back and read it again.
Jesus Christ. It should have been obvious, even to you, that it wasn't an actual quote of an actual person least of all you.
In what way is 'I see far more provocative examples than that all over the web.' not the same as 'people say worse things on the web'?
And in what way is saying 'You said it on the thread. If you don't want people to take issue with it and (shock, horror) quote it, then don't say it. ' not saying it's a quote?
-
Which would be consistent with carefully managed access, that would respect both the heritage as a sacred object to some people and a hugely important geological site to others. And you can't fully experience the rock merely by looking at it from a distance. To ban access, in reality implies the heritage isn't shared, but the sacred element believed by the few completely trumps the views of the many.
What is your shared heritage with the Anangu?
-
Ownership was transferred to the people on the understanding that it is jointly managed with the National Parks and Wildlife agency. It is also a world heritage site, so regardless of ownership they most definitely cannot 'do what they like with it'.
Your post drips with colonialism
-
What is your shared heritage with the Anangu?
I'm talking about shared heritage with Uluru, not with the Anangu. The same as it is with other major natural sites across the world, be it Yosemite, Grand Canyon, Giants Causeway, Great Barrier Reef etc. These aren't sites that 'belong' to any of us in heritage terms - they belong to all of us, hence they are world heritage sites.
-
Your post drips with colonialism
My post was entirely factual, not opinion - I'm not sure how 'fact' can be dripping with colonialism.
-
My post was entirely factual, not opinion - I'm not sure how 'fact' can be dripping with colonialism.
Because you see it as reasonable to control the Anangu with law - enforced from a position of strength - definition of colonialism, ild boy.
-
I'm talking about shared heritage with Uluru, not with the Anangu. The same as it is with other major natural sites across the world, be it Yosemite, Grand Canyon, Giants Causeway, Great Barrier Reef etc. These aren't sites that 'belong' to any of us in heritage terms - they belong to all of us, hence they are world heritage sites.
You have shared heritage with a rock? How does that work? Yes, the sites belong to the white people who stole the land, of course, massa!
-
Because you see it as reasonable to control the Anangu with law - enforced from a position of strength - definition of colonialism, ild boy.
remind me where I expressed an opinion on the position regarding management of Uluru in reply46 - Oh I'll save you the bother - I didn't.
I simply provide factual information about the conditions of the transfer of ownership (that it was jointly managed) and that as a world heritage site there are strict restrictions on what you can and cannot do with the site - again that is an entirely factual statement.
-
I see! This is about Ayers Rock. What is this modern fad of having to refer to everything by its native name?
-
remind me where I expressed an opinion on the position regarding management of Uluru in reply46 - Oh I'll save you the bother - I didn't.
I simply provide factual information about the conditions of the transfer of ownership (that it was jointly managed) and that as a world heritage site there are strict restrictions on what you can and cannot do with the site - again that is an entirely factual statement.
And you derived a big old ought from that is by deciding it was a fair thing and that Anangu were just a bit too not white to be given ownership in reality. You probably think offering them a few shiny beads makes it all 'shared heritage".
-
I see! This is about Ayers Rock. What is this modern fad of having to refer to everything by its native name?
Because most of us think stealing is wrong.
-
Because most of us think stealing is wrong.
Agreed.
-
I see! This is about Ayers Rock. What is this modern fad of having to refer to everything by its native name?
Careful now AO - NS will be after you in a flash for your colonial soaked language.
Interestingly I gather that the official nomenclature is dual naming with Uluru first - so it should officially be referred to as Uluru/Ayres Rock - not that any of us have done that on this thread. And before NS jumps on me again for being dripped in colonialism, again all I am doing is providing factual information.
-
Careful now AO - NS will be after you in a flash for your colonial soaked language.
Interestingly I gather that the official nomenclature is dual naming with Uluru first - so it should officially be referred to as Uluru/Ayres Rock - not that any of us have done that on this thread. And before NS jumps on me again for being dripped in colonialism, again all I am doing is providing factual information.
And through the thread have been arguing about what ought to be the case. You can't then use a legal statement to justify a jump from the is to the ought as you have tried. Though to be fair that is a tradition of white male colonialism.
-
Because most of us think stealing is wrong.
Ok. From here on I insist that nobody refer to country I live in as Finland, but rather Suomi.
-
Ok. From here on I insist that nobody refer to country I live in as Finland, but rather Suomi.
Ok
-
Careful now AO - NS will be after you in a flash for your colonial soaked language.
Interestingly I gather that the official nomenclature is dual naming with Uluru first - so it should officially be referred to as Uluru/Ayres Rock - not that any of us have done that on this thread. And before NS jumps on me again for being dripped in colonialism, again all I am doing is providing factual information.
;D
-
And through the thread have been arguing about what ought to be the case. You can't then use a legal statement to justify a jump from the is to the ought as you have tried. Though to be fair that is a tradition of white male colonialism.
Non-sense - my comment about the factual basis of management etc of Uluru was in response to Jeremy P's opinion that they 'can do what they like with it'. That is factually incorrect. None of that is specifically linked to my opinion on access - which is different.
And I see no reason why believing that the rights of those who believe that Uluru is sacred and those who do not believe that and wish to experience the rock should be carefully balanced can be considered colonial.
I would think the same if Welsh druids wanted to ban people from climbing Yr Wyddfa on the basis of considering it sacred, or the DUP wanting to ban visitors to the Giants Causeway on the basis that it is sacred to unionism as the rock formation extends under the sea to Fingal's Cave in Scotland (second example is tongue in cheek).
And the designation of world heritage site comes from UNECSO which has 193 member states, very much dominated by the developing world countries - so hardly a hot bed of colonial sentiment.
-
Non-sense - my comment about the factual basis of management etc of Uluru was in response to Jeremy P's opinion that they 'can do what they like with it'. That is factually incorrect. None of that is specifically linked to my opinion on access - which is different.
And I see no reason why believing that the rights of those who believe that Uluru is sacred and those who do not believe that and wish to experience the rock should be carefully balanced can be considered colonial.
I would think the same if Welsh druids wanted to ban people from climbing Yr Wyddfa on the basis of considering it sacred, or the DUP wanting to ban visitors to the Giants Causeway on the basis that it is sacred to unionism as the rock formation extends under the sea to Fingal's Cave in Scotland (second example is tongue in cheek).
And the designation of world heritage site comes from UNECSO which has 193 member states, very much dominated by the developing world countries - so hardly a hot bed of colonial sentiment.
Yes let's just ignore the asymmetry of power because we like owning things that we stole and murdered for.
-
Yes let's just ignore the asymmetry of power because we like owning things that we stole and murdered for.
Which is completely irrelevant to the point being made. Indeed the exact opposite of my views as I was clear that in my mind significant physical natural phenomena (whether Uluru, Great Barrier Reef, Grant Canyon, Giants Causeway etc) are, in a moral sense, owned by none of us - we are merely, at best, temporary custodians of their importance.
-
Which is completely irrelevant to the point being made. Indeed the exact opposite of my views as I was clear that in my mind significant physical natural phenomena (whether Uluru, Great Barrier Reef, Grant Canyon, Giants Causeway etc) are, in a moral sense, owned by none of us - we are merely, at best, temporary custodians of their importance.
But free to ignore the wishes of the people we murdered and stole from because YOLO.
-
Yes let's just ignore the asymmetry of power because we like owning things that we stole and murdered for.
By the way you are still studiously refusing to answer my questions about the entirety analogous situation of Hindus considering cows to be sacred. I have to presume that, in the interests of consistency, that their belief in the sacredness of cows means we should all be banned from eating beef.
-
By the way you are still studiously refusing to answer my questions about the entirety analogous situation of Hindus considering cows to be sacred. I have to presume that, in the interests of consistency, that their belief in the sacredness of cows means we should all be banned from eating beef.
See reply #27 covering your hypocrisy on this. And as for being entirely analogous, it isn't - consider fungibility.
-
But free to ignore the wishes of the people we murdered and stole from because YOLO.
Would you like to actually address the issue please rather than making rather offensive and inaccurate comments.
Where have I ever said we should ignore their views and wishes - I haven't. I think their views and wishes are not the only ones that need to be considered in respect of access to Uluru as the rock is also hugely significant as a natural physical phenomenon as well as being considered to be a sacred site by others. Both of those sets of views need to be considered - neither should trump the other and demand exclusivity.
-
Would you like to actually address the issue please rather than making rather offensive and inaccurate comments.
Where have I ever said we should ignore their views and wishes - I haven't. I think their views and wishes are not the only ones that need to be considered in respect of access to Uluru as the rock is also hugely significant as a natural physical phenomenon as well as being considered to be a sacred site by others. Both of those sets of views need to be considered - neither should trump the other and demand exclusivity.
We'll listen to your concerns and then ignore them because Tamsin wants a selfie.
-
See reply #27 covering your hypocrisy on this. And as for being entirely analogous, it isn't - consider fungibility.
They are entirely analogous - let's phrase it in a delete as applicable manner.
In (Hindu/Anangu) religious culture the (cow/Uluru) is considered sacred.
Accordingly (Hindu/Anangu) religious culture considers that (eating beef/climbing Uhuru) is a desecration of that sacredness
In order to respect (Hindu/Anangu)religious culture (eating beef/climbing Uhuru) should be banned
The argument is identical as you can see
-
They are entirely analogous - let's phrase it in a delete as applicable manner.
In (Hindu/Anangu) religious culture the (cow/Uluru) is considered sacred.
Accordingly (Hindu/Anangu) religious culture considers that (eating beef/climbing Uhuru) is a desecration of that sacredness
In order to respect (Hindu/Anangu)religious culture (eating beef/climbing Uhuru) should be banned
The argument is identical as you can see
I see you didn't consider fungibility
-
We'll listen to your concerns and then ignore them because Tamsin wants a selfie.
Rather patronising comment - Tamsin might be an amateur geologist who is fascinated by the 500 million year old geological heritage of Uluru.
-
Rather patronising comment - Tamsin might be an amateur geologist who is fascinated by the 500 million year old geological heritage of Uluru.
But if she's just on a gap year and fancies a wee selfie if she watches a wee video saying the Anangu don't want you to climb Uluru, you'll say here"s your selfie stick.
-
I see you didn't consider fungibility
Look ... squirrel!!!
Or is it slamming a dead cat on the table.
Diversionary tactic to avoid having to address the issue. You are, of course, a master at the approach, perhaps only second in the pantheon of this MB to the long departed Skillful McGill.
Why don't you simply answer the question - I'll phrase it very clearly.
Do you think that eating beef should be banned because Hindu religious culture considers the cow to be sacred?
Simply question - simply yes/no answer is all that is required
-
Look ... squirrel!!!
Or is it slamming a dead cat on the table.
Diversionary tactic to avoid having to address the issue. You are, of course, a master at the approach, perhaps only second in the pantheon of this MB to the long departed Skillful McGill.
Why don't you simply answer the question - I'll phrase it very clearly.
Do you think that eating beef should be banned because Hindu religious culture considers the cow to be sacred?
Simply question - simply yes/no answer is all that is required
evasion noted
-
But if she's just on a gap year and fancies a wee selfie if she watches a wee video saying the Anangu don't want you to climb Uluru, you'll say here"s your selfie stick.
Maybe she is a biologist wanting to study the remarkable flaura and fauna on the rock. Or someone who feels a deep spiritual attachment to the rock and wants to perform meditation or yoga on the summit as the sun rises, which would be one of the most significant experiences of her life. Point is that if everyone is banned that includes ... well everyone.
-
evasion noted
'You smell!' 'No, YOU smell!' ... ;)
Don't drag the conversation to the level of the playground.
If you would like to tell us all what fungibility means and why it has the remotest relevance to discussion of the sacredness of Uluru and cows to different cultures and what should or should not be banned due to it, then perhaps we can continue the conversation.
From what I can see fungibility is a term used largely in economics 'being something (such as money or a commodity) of such a nature that one part or quantity may be replaced by another equal part or quantity in paying a debt or settling an account' - how is this relevant.
In the meantime, would you please answer my question.
-
In what way is 'I see far more provocative examples than that all over the web.' not the same as 'people say worse things on the web'?
You incorrectly assume that more provocative means worse.
And in what way is saying 'You said it on the thread. If you don't want people to take issue with it and (shock, horror) quote it, then don't say it. ' not saying it's a quote?
Because (and I can't believe I am having to explain this), you said this:
The strawman was in putting something in a quote as if that was what was being argued on the thread.
You didn't specify what I put "in a quote", so I naturally assumed that you meant the parts of your post that I put in a quote box, not the imagined thing an Australian might say, that I put in quote marks because it was somebody talking.
-
Because you see it as reasonable to control the Anangu with law - enforced from a position of strength - definition of colonialism, ild boy.
All law is enforced from a position of strength.
-
Errr, no. I was calling out double standards. It's apparently OK to be critical of Christianity on the grounds that it is nonsense but apparently not of the Anangu.
Indeed and also the double standards that NS seems to think that it is OK to ban access to Uluru because the Anangu believe it to be sacred according to their religious beliefs, but refuses to answer an equivalent question as to whether it is OK to ban eating beef because Hindus believe cows to be sacred according to their religious beliefs.
It would be nice if he would extend the courtesy to answer (he's refused/evaded on numerous occasions) - in the absence of honesty on this question one is left to suspect that he wouldn't think it OK to ban beef and indeed is perhaps even a beef eater himself, which would be the equivalent of being a tourist climbing Uluru in the analogy.
-
Non-sense - my comment about the factual basis of management etc of Uluru was in response to Jeremy P's opinion that they 'can do what they like with it'. That is factually incorrect.
I'd like to point out that that opinion was prefaced with "as far as I'm concerned" meaning it's no skin off my nose what they do with it.
-
I'd like to point out that that opinion was prefaced with "as far as I'm concerned" meaning it's no skin off my nose what they do with it.
Semantics perhaps, but what you said was:
'As owners, as far as I am concerned, they can do what they like with it'
not
'As owners, as far as I am concerned, they should be able to do what they like with it'
The latter is an opinion and I'm fine with that although I don't agree with you. The former is factually inaccurate as they either can or they cannot do what they like with Uluru - your opinion on the matter is irrelevant to the fact of the scope of what they can do as owners in the real world. And as the 'own' a world heritage site, they can, in fact, do very little with Uluru. And, in my opinion, quite rightly too.
-
'You smell!' 'No, YOU smell!' ... ;)
Don't drag the conversation to the level of the playground.
If you would like to tell us all what fungibility means and why it has the remotest relevance to discussion of the sacredness of Uluru and cows to different cultures and what should or should not be banned due to it, then perhaps we can continue the conversation.
From what I can see fungibility is a term used largely in economics 'being something (such as money or a commodity) of such a nature that one part or quantity may be replaced by another equal part or quantity in paying a debt or settling an account' - how is this relevant.
In the meantime, would you please answer my question.
I think he means that there is only one Uluru and a large (but still finite) number of cows. I don't think that affects your argument though. As I understand it, Hindus consider all cows sacred, not just the ones they own.
-
I'd like to point out that that opinion was prefaced with "as far as I'm concerned" meaning it's no skin off my nose what they do with it.
Do you really think that because they are owners they should be able to do whatever they like with Uluru - really?
So were they to decide to raise it to the ground - or create huge Mount Rushmore style heads of Kylie and Jason on one side, you'd be OK with that. Now I know it is vanishingly unlikely that they would decide to do that, but if it's no skin off my nose what they do with it they you are by definition saying that would be OK with you if they so chose. Somehow I find that hard to believe.
-
Semantics perhaps, but what you said was:
'As owners, as far as I am concerned, they can do what they like with it'
not
'As owners, as far as I am concerned, they should be able to do what they like with it'
The latter is an opinion and I'm fine with that although I don't agree with you. The former is factually inaccurate as they either can or they cannot do what they like with Uluru - your opinion on the matter is irrelevant to the fact of the scope of what they can do as owners in the real world. And as the 'own' a world heritage site, they can, in fact, do very little with Uluru. And, in my opinion, quite rightly too.
I think you're quibbling a bit too much about the difference between "should" and "can" in this context, but I'll accept the correction.
Factually, if the government says people can climb the rock, then legally, they can, until 2084.
-
I think he means that there is only one Uluru and a large (but still finite) number of cows. I don't think that affects your argument though. As I understand it, Hindus consider all cows sacred, not just the ones they own.
Exactly - so the cow NS might be just about to eat tonight is just as sacred to Hindus as Uluru is to the Anangu.
-
Do you really think that because they are owners they should be able to do whatever they like with Uluru - really?
So were they to decide to raise it to the ground
Well that would be a pity and hopefully, there would be a law that would stop them from doing it.
- or create huge Mount Rushmore style heads of Kylie and Jason on one side, you'd be OK with that.
I'll be honest: I was going to say I don't care if they do do something like that. The resulting monument would be epic.
-
Indeed and also the double standards that NS seems to think that it is OK to ban access to Uluru because the Anangu believe it to be sacred according to their religious beliefs, but refuses to answer an equivalent question as to whether it is OK to ban eating beef because Hindus believe cows to be sacred according to their religious beliefs.
It would be nice if he would extend the courtesy to answer (he's refused/evaded on numerous occasions) - in the absence of honesty on this question one is left to suspect that he wouldn't think it OK to ban beef and indeed is perhaps even a beef eater himself, which would be the equivalent of being a tourist climbing Uluru in the analogy.
The beef eating question is not at all analogous. In Hinduism all life is sacred and it is wrong to harm any living thing.
Cows are given special respect - going back to the origins of the religion in cow herding and agriculture. Not eating beef and vegetarianism developed gradually over millenia, at no time were there blanket bans on beef eating. Hinduism is not rules based but dharmic. At present some regions have proposed (or banned and been overruled) banning cow slaughter (mainly as an anti-islamic stance) and there have been incidents of cow-slaughter related violence in some villages.
But, there are many cows, not all Indian. I wouldn't ban you from eating beef, but you had better not come and slaughter my cow. There is only one Uluru and its caretakers should be able to decide who has different kinds of access according to what they want to do and why.
-
Do you really think that because they are owners they should be able to do whatever they like with Uluru - really?
So were they to decide to raise it to the ground - or create huge Mount Rushmore style heads of Kylie and Jason on one side, you'd be OK with that. Now I know it is vanishingly unlikely that they would decide to do that, but if it's no skin off my nose what they do with it they you are by definition saying that would be OK with you if they so chose. Somehow I find that hard to believe.
If the Anangu decided to do that, within the World Heritage rules, what actually would be wrong with that? Just that millions willing to appreciate it as it is would feel deprived.
-
If the Anangu decided to do that, within the World Heritage rules, what actually would be wrong with that? Just that millions willing to appreciate it as it is would feel deprived.
There was massive international condemnation of the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamyan. I suspect the same would apply if the Great Sphinx was similarly obliterated. Give it a couple of thousand years and the carving at Uluru that we would probably condemn will be looked on with awe by the tourists of the time. However, rather than Kylie and Jason, I would suggest Nichelle Nichols as the subject: the Uluru Uhura.
-
There is only one Uluru and its caretakers should be able to decide who has different kinds of access according to what they want to do and why.
I agree, but the key here is to determine who are its caretakers are - to me that is a community far broader than just the Anangu. And I think you perhaps agree too, hence your later comment
If the Anangu decided to do that, within the World Heritage rules, what actually would be wrong with that?
Which clearly implies that UNESCO are just as much caretakers of Uluru as the Anangu.
-
Factually, if the government says people can climb the rock, then legally, they can, until 2084.
Again factually that isn't correct - management of Uluru is shared between the Anangu and the Australian government and also has to comply with UNESCO rules on World Heritage Sites. The Australian government cannot, unilaterally, determine what happens, or does not happen to Uluru.
-
I agree, but the key here is to determine who are its caretakers are - to me that is a community far broader than just the Anangu. And I think you perhaps agree too, hence your later comment
Which clearly implies that UNESCO are just as much caretakers of Uluru as the Anangu.
Indeed. In fact we are all caretakers of the natural world and cultural heritage. wrt Uluru I have more confidence that the Anangu will make suitable decisions than I have in random tourists or even the Australian Govt.
-
Indeed. In fact we are all caretakers of the natural world and cultural heritage.
Then we are in agreement - and our view doesn't seem consistent with the view of others that Uluru belongs to the Anangu and is theirs to decide how to manage, and theirs alone.
-
Then we are in agreement - and our view doesn't seem consistent with the view of others that Uluru belongs to the Anangu and is theirs to decide how to manage, and theirs alone.
im with you prof 👍