Uluru climbing ban: Tourists scale sacred rock for final time

[ProfessorDavey]

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

[Nearly Sane]

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
 

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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

[Nearly Sane]

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

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[jeremyp]

'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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Udayana]

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.

[Udayana]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Udayana]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.