It does remind me of how we're trained to protect and take care of our weapons during National Service, so they will take care of us during war. Very interesting perspective. Very humanist I would say. The question of robots actually becomes a question of the human beings. =)

Big Blue will supply its analytics know-how to a key U.S. military force in the battle against terrorism

October 13, 2009
By Stephen Baker

TECHNOLOGY

Can the analytic science that powers operations at Wal-Mart (WMT) and Federal Express (FDX) make inroads against terrorists? IBM (IBM) is going to give it a shot. Big Blue's Global Services Div. just landed a five-year, $20 million contract to apply its analytical know-how to the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), the key military force in the battle against terrorism.

For years, industry has been using analytics to make so-called supply chains run well, ensuring companies are able to pull together all the pieces they need, at the right time, to build everything from airliners to chip fabs. But according to Kevin P. Green, a retired Navy vice-admiral who heads up defense consulting for IBM Global Business Services, the military has lagged behind. "In the past, they've had to depend on heroic administration, people responding on very short notice and putting together disparate systems," Green says. An operation in Afghanistan, for example, requires pulling up data on manpower, repair parts, weapons, food, and is often carried out piece by piece on different computers in place.

The new approach, which will take years to fully implement, would start with a model of the operation, and then suggest the most efficient and effective deployment of all the parts.

Ooo. Interesting. Businesses nowadays already hold so much economical power, sometimes larger than countries. In fact, more than half of the world's largest economies are business (source: http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/221/47211.html). With the possibility of businesses converting their technologies for warfare, I wonder how the future will be like? Perhaps war will be waged between companies, companies and countries, etc? I wonder if such a time is to come, should I fight for the company that pays me my salary? Or the country that conscripted me into national service?

By Chua Hian Hou from Straits Times

BLOGGERS and users of other new media may soon have to say so upfront if they receive gifts or money for their write-ups.

The Media Development Authority (MDA) has said it is looking at stricter disclosure rules.

Its deputy director for development policy, Ms Yuvarani Thangavelu, says such regulations will protect consumers by enabling them to make an informed assessment about what they read.

...


The Straits Times understands that beauty product companies are suspected of having paid a female blogger here on two occasions to write glowingly about their products.

Consumers Association of Singapore executive director Seah Seng Choon said disclosure regulations would enable consumers to distinguish between advertorials and genuine reviews.

Like him, digital influence consultant with public relations firm Ogilvy, Ms Tania Chew, said she also favoured greater transparency. She has been increasingly worried over companies here 'basically buying coverage from bloggers who only want to make a quick buck'.

http://singaporeenquirer.sg/?p=4763

Everything the state moves in to (de)regulate something, there's always a reason for it. An explanation. And as all arts issue, there's always two sides of an argument. So I don't know yet if I'm leaning towards which direction now. But I guess it's interesting to ask if such regulation is welcomed or not, and more importantly why?

From the perspective of the consumer, I welcome such transparency. But from a blogger and a free market perspective any form of regulation is a suspect. Some questions were raised as to the political agenda behind such a regulation. But these are but speculations.

So what do you all think?

Yes, commodification has led to liberation. After all, capitalism is all about creating new markets for more production and consumption. Beauty has all along been commodified since the oldest trade of prostitution, and probably before. Likewise, we have the capitalist promise of the pretty boys. Plastic surgery is probably the most telling example of commodified beauty.

However, it is important to note that such commodified liberation (in every sense of the word since liberation is also a commodity nowadays) is withal a form of (capitalist) oppression. Buy this and you will be free. Buy that and you will be who you want to be. Think education.

"Imagine the Possibilities", Apple tells you. But you can only realize them if you buy a Mac. Burger King tells you to "Have it your way", but what they didn't tell you is that your way is the Burger King way. Nike asked you to "Express yourself", but only with their approval (Source:http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blnike.htm).

Capitalism is communism commodified.

Everyone can be who they want to be, be equal, express individuality, but only if they consume. But what they don't know is that this individuality, this equality, is still chosen by a selected group of people. Million others probably own the same iPod you exert your individuality with.

In the words of Miranda Priestly in "Devil wears Prada",

"Oh. Okay. I see. You think this has nothing to do with you. you go to your closet... and you select - I don't know - that lumpy blue sweater, for instance... because you're trying to tell the world that you take yourself too seriously... to care about what you put on your back. But what you don't know is that that sweater is not just blue. It's not turquoise. It's not lapis. It's actually cerulean. And you're also blithely unaware of the fact... that in 2002, Oscar de la Renta did a collection of cerulean gowns. And then I think it was Yves Saint Laurent - wasn't it? - who showed cerulean military jackets... And then cerulean quickly showed up in the collections of eight different designers. And then it, uh, filtered down through the department stores... and then trickled on down into some tragic Casual Corner, where you, no doubt, fished it out of some clearance bin. However, that blue represents millions of dollars... and countless jobs... and it's sort of comical how you think that you've made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry when, in fact... you're wearing a sweater that was selected for you by the people in this room... from a pile of stuff."

Are we truly more equal now? More liberated? Or more oppressed?

The idea of Truth (vis-a-vis truth or Truths and truths) is very interesting and keeps recurring in all ethical debates. My question is, is Truth discovered? Or is Truth invented?

As some of us have debated previously, some people feel that beliefs = truths if you believe long enough with sufficient piousness. Of course, rationality determines the death of such a fallacy. Yet, rationality is nothing but an ideology (discovered? or invented?) Perhaps there is really no Truth? That it is an invention, which remains to be discovered; or a discovery, which remains to be invented.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/09/20/project_gaydar_an_mit_experiment_raises_new_questions_about_online_privacy/

A group of students from MIT actually wrote a program to predict if a person is gay based on the "friends" they have in their Social Network Facebook. There's also the possibility of identifying a person's age (rather than the one specified on the SNS, religious affliations, political affliations, etc.

Raises new ethical issues about privacy through the influence of technology. Interesting.

So now we need to creat noise by befriending all types of people. Hahaha.

Will such profiling be discriminatory in nature? Is it useful? (Of course it is in this capitalistic sociaty. It helps marketers identify potential markets)

The idea that the internet serves as a public space in Habermasian speak is too simplistic. The very fact that not everyone has access or know how to access/ fully utilize the internet in itself is already a limiting factor for full democracy.

As with all technologies, I opine that those who have and those who have-not are always divided. The vocal ones may just turn out to be the vocal minority.The majority is silenced. =)


jaime yeo wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/weekinreview/13giridharadas.html?_r=1
>
>
> This article explores how democratic the Internet really is.
>
> Ethical question:
> Much emphasis is placed on how the Internet can be used as a democratic tool. However, is this "democracy" genuine, or only in our perceptions? With millions of views being expressed on the Internet, whose voices are audible? Who decides what are the salient issues? How much does the Internet really empower the individual with democratic rights?

My question is, if you are a fashion designer, and someone takes your clothes without your permission, cut, stitch, and alter it, is there a violation of your (copy)right? So there you go, you have your answer. =)


Elaine Ong wrote:
> http://news.cnet.com/The-legal-rights-to-your-Second-Life-avatar/2100-1047_3-6147700.html
>
> Summary: Anshe Chung, the virtual world's biggest land owner in Second Life has convinced YouTube to pull down an off-color video of her virtual self being harassed during an interview. During the interview--which took place in a digital theater in front of dozens of audience members' avatars--a group intent on sabotaging the event attacked it with 15 minutes of animated penises and photographs of Anshe Chung's real-life owner, Ailin Graef, digitally altered to make her look like she was holding a giant penis.
>
> When Anshe Chung Studios filed a complaint with the popular video service claiming that Graef's copyrights had been infringed because images of her avatar were used without her permission, YouTube promptly removed the video.
>
>
>
> My thoughts on this:
> Just because someone had used a photo of her avatar and digitally enhanced it, does that mean it actually infringed on her copyright laws? So if I created an avatar that accidentally looks like hers, does that mean that Second Life has all the right to terminate my account? If so, everyone would sink into a trend of stamping a mark of creative commons on the back of their avatars.
>
> Furthermore, there is the issue of fair use. Anyone has the right to digitally enhance an image for whatever they create, the rights belong to them. If Youtube or any online news portal want to publish that piece of news and post videos of the incident online, what gives Anshe Chung the right to demand removal of those videos? Reporters have the right to report whatever they want, and the Internet is supposed to be a free-for-all platform to accommodate that very purpose. How come Youtube gave in to their demands so easily? Is it because of some other underlying reason, like power manipulation? What ever happened to digital freedom?
>
> Furthermore, do human rights apply to avatars as well? Avatars are in itself just a representation of humans projecting their identity. There is so much contention about the blurry line between reality and the virtual world. If my avatar killed someone online, would that mean that I should be charged with murder?

Hi Mag,

I will like to ask then, if one blogger defame another blogger, should it be dealt with online? If not, what makes avatar so special as a form of representation? Isn't my blog also another representation of me? So then we can argue that blogs should have rights too. =) Like avatar. Especially those that update on their own based on codes created to scout the net for thematic articles. I think such a scenario is not impossible.

Side tracking, I think the issue of representation is very interesting. And if I may, I think we can look at what defines a human through the lens of representation. And when we do so, we can start to question, how full a representation is necessary for a human to be (re)presented or considered valid? In another word, do I need to be physically represented to be present? Do I have to be present to be represented? Presence here is of course temporal. So in that sense, if I am not present at this moment, am I then not represented? So technically speaking, given the technology's capability of allowing asynchronous communication, am I then not represented through my blog posts when you read them when I am not present?

If we want to start questioning our Being, then perhaps even when I am present, I am not really represented fully. For for all presencing to be possible, there must be some form of eidetic concealment according to Heidegger. So then a full representation is not necessary after all given its impossibility. And we've not even come to the point of (mis)representation. Hmm.. Shall go for lunch and ponder over it. =) Interesting!

Thank you for your posts. =)



Magdaleine wrote:
> Hi Weiye,
>
> Actually when i said to defame someone, i mentioned it as "pointing fingers at his display pic" as an analogy of accusation, which could fall under any of the 3 components of defamation you provided, at an online persona. i did not literally mean sit behind a computer and "pointing a middle finger at a photo". Of course, I wrote that with assumption that it could very well be proven as a defamation. My point was more focused on the fact that the defamation was directed at a "display pic" or an online persona or representation.
>
> And answering your questions on avatar rights, i believe i mentioned also in my earlier response that i think if 2 avatars were to run into "legal" problems, "it should strictly be dealt with charges online". meaning to carry out the legal case online, directed at the avatar and not the user. I see the whole issue as a real world in a virtual world. Therefore since everything are to be settled in the online community, it should be compensated with Linden dollars. Whether or not Linden dollars could be purchased by actually dollars would be another case altogether.
>
> That's my opinion anyway.
>
>
> Weiye Loh wrote:
> > Hi Mag,
> >
> > I think you need to refine your analogy further for defamation does not occur within closed walls or just between the two persons in question according to the law i.e. I can say whatever I want about you to you and you will not be able to sue me for defamation if there's no third party around.
> >
> > Defamation requires a few components to be considered
> > 1. malicious intent
> > 2. falsehood of claim
> > 3. cause significant impact on the claimant's reputation
> >
> > That list of course differs in different legal systems and constitutions e.g. it is argued to be easier to prove defamation in Singapore unlike in US.
> >
> > Hence, pointing a middle finger at a photo would not probably be considered defamation.
> >
> > In the case of the second life, the fulfillment of the first two criteria is apparent. The third requires the claimant to prove so but it should be arguably present.
> >
> > Going by your interest on the issue of whether avatars should have rights as well, I will like to ask. if one avatar defames another avatar, who do we sue? (assuming that they have legal rights) The avatar? Or the user? Who should be compensated? The avatar defamed? Or the user of the avatar defamed? In what currency (if monetary compensation is involved)? Linden dollars? Or actual money? The last question might not be so clearly separated for actual money can be used to purchase Linden dollars and vice versa. =)
> >
> > Magdaleine wrote:
> > > i think the more interesting topic is the issue of whether human rights should apply to avatars as well. some people immerse themselves so much in games that they see their avatars as literally their "2nd life". i suppose when an online avatar or character killed another online avatar, it should strictly be dealt with "charges" online. but if its the case like you mentioned where the person's avatar is harassed. If an avatar is a representation of humans projecting their identity, wouldnt harassing this identity indirectly affect the human as well? should it be liken to going online and defame someone but pointing fingers at his display pic and not the person himself?
> > >
> > > Elaine Ong wrote:
> > > > http://news.cnet.com/The-legal-rights-to-your-Second-Life-avatar/2100-1047_3-6147700.html
> > > >
> > > > Summary: Anshe Chung, the virtual world's biggest land owner in Second Life has convinced YouTube to pull down an off-color video of her virtual self being harassed during an interview. During the interview--which took place in a digital theater in front of dozens of audience members' avatars--a group intent on sabotaging the event attacked it with 15 minutes of animated penises and photographs of Anshe Chung's real-life owner, Ailin Graef, digitally altered to make her look like she was holding a giant penis.
> > > >
> > > > When Anshe Chung Studios filed a complaint with the popular video service claiming that Graef's copyrights had been infringed because images of her avatar were used without her permission, YouTube promptly removed the video.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My thoughts on this:
> > > > Just because someone had used a photo of her avatar and digitally enhanced it, does that mean it actually infringed on her copyright laws? So if I created an avatar that accidentally looks like hers, does that mean that Second Life has all the right to terminate my account? If so, everyone would sink into a trend of stamping a mark of creative commons on the back of their avatars.
> > > >
> > > > Furthermore, there is the issue of fair use. Anyone has the right to digitally enhance an image for whatever they create, the rights belong to them. If Youtube or any online news portal want to publish that piece of news and post videos of the incident online, what gives Anshe Chung the right to demand removal of those videos? Reporters have the right to report whatever they want, and the Internet is supposed to be a free-for-all platform to accommodate that very purpose. How come Youtube gave in to their demands so easily? Is it because of some other underlying reason, like power manipulation? What ever happened to digital freedom?
> > > >
> > > > Furthermore, do human rights apply to avatars as well? Avatars are in itself just a representation of humans projecting their identity. There is so much contention about the blurry line between reality and the virtual world. If my avatar killed someone online, would that mean that I should be charged with murder?

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/09/about-singanews/

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/09/give-singanews-a-chance-says-ceo/

As new media students, I'm sure most of us are already aware of the latest online news media SingaNews, the CEO of which, is none other than our very own Mr Matthew Yap.

For those of you who are not aware, Mr Yap is one of the graduate students in CNM. He also tutors some classes (I took NM2220 under him).

Arguments around it include speculations that the news portal is another fundamentalist website wrapped under the guise of secularism (Source: http://temasekreview.com/?p=13601), perhaps not unlike http://www.christianpost.com/, or http://www.onenewsnow.com/ . Although the latter two are actually more open about their Christian beliefs, while SingaNews claims to be more secular.

Nevertheless, these are but speculations. So we won't know until they start publishing articles.

I for one, am all for Voltaireism (although I do have some fear).

Sam (another graduate student) has more thoughts on this topic here: http://thinkingbetterthinkingmeta.blogspot.com/2009/09/singanews.html .

So the question is not whether or not fundamentalists should be allowed freedom of speech, but rather, to what extent should we acknowledge our positions i.e. our privilege before we claim to speak the "truths"? Is such an acknowledgment necessary in the first place? If not, how do we ensure objectivity?

Hi Valerie,

I fully agree with your reply. However, there are some issues I will like to raise.

"It seems a Christian cannot do anything in the secular realm without drawing criticisms or at the very least, suspicion, surrounding his true agenda. While Atheists are given free rein to assert their stance, even applauded for it, Christians frequently invite backlash for even squeaking Jesus' name."

It seems that an atheist cannot do anything in the religious realm without drawing criticisms or at the very least, suspicion, surrounding his/her true agenda. While Christians are given free rein to assert their stance, even applauded for it, Atheists frequently invite backlash (from Christians) for even squeaking Jesus' name.

Same different.

Yet, I disagree (partially) with your statement that atheists are given free rein to assert their stance. For such stance, I believe, are usually taken after a great deal of questioning, reasoning and rationalizing. For logic is the foundation of science and even more so, I opine, for humanities. Questioning is necessary before one can make any scientific/ rational claim. In that sense, free rein is not really free without its due doubts and critiques.

Similarly, secularism demands concrete evidence for decision, especially political ones, rather than a self-defeatist "because-god-says-so" argument. I don't believe that secularists are especially critical of any specific religion. They should be critical of all claims, including (but not especially) those that appeal to faith. Such appeals depend on irrational thought and produce intransigence. That said, it does not exclude religious people from participating in the secular. The only criterion for participating is, as mentioned, the presence of supporting evidence and sound reasoning in their claims. The same applies to all other participants regardless of their religious belief(s) or the lack of.

It is perhaps then, impossible for the secularist to be less critical of anyone and any claim. For criticality is crucial in secularism. =)

P/s: I am a self-identified Christian but I am nevertheless very critical of the religion and am 100% for secularism.

Valerie Oon wrote:
> I don't believe there's true objectivity.* For that reason, I would be more sympathetic to a writer who lays out plainly his circumstances/beliefs/position so that any reader will be sufficiently informed about how the article is framed and how to go about interpreting the text. So yes, I believe such an acknowledgement is necessary but not because it is a means to achieve objectivity.
>
> About Matthew Yap, I think maybe it's about time we Christians are given a break already. It seems a Christian cannot do anything in the secular realm without drawing criticisms or at the very least, suspicion, surrounding his true agenda. While Atheists are given free rein to assert their stance, even applauded for it, Christians frequently invite backlash for even squeaking Jesus' name.
>
> I say this boldly because I was once on the other camp. I was once critical of overzealous evangelists. And Atheists do have a louder voice (at least the ones I know haha). I still do not agree with Christians who push their religious agenda unnecessarily in domains that should remain secular for good reasons. At the same time, i also think it would help if people remember it's just the few who get a bit too overzealous and be less critical of the bulk of us who just want to be plural and get on with our lives because it is gets tough for us to balance that with spiritual commitments too.
>
>
> *p/s i think Howard Becker's 'Whose side are we on' is apt here
>
>
> Weiye Loh wrote:
> > http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/09/about-singanews/
> >
> > http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/09/give-singanews-a-chance-says-ceo/
> >
> > As new media students, I'm sure most of us are already aware of the latest online news media SingaNews, the CEO of which, is none other than our very own Mr Matthew Yap.
> >
> > For those of you who are not aware, Mr Yap is one of the graduate students in CNM. He also tutors some classes (I took NM2220 under him).
> >
> > Arguments around it include speculations that the news portal is another fundamentalist website wrapped under the guise of secularism (Source: http://temasekreview.com/?p=13601), perhaps not unlike http://www.christianpost.com/, or http://www.onenewsnow.com/ . Although the latter two are actually more open about their Christian beliefs, while SingaNews claims to be more secular.
> >
> > Nevertheless, these are but speculations. So we won't know until they start publishing articles.
> >
> > I for one, am all for Voltaireism (although I do have some fear).
> >
> > Sam (another graduate student) has more thoughts on this topic here: http://thinkingbetterthinkingmeta.blogspot.com/2009/09/singanews.html .
> >
> > So the question is not whether or not fundamentalists should be allowed freedom of speech, but rather, to what extent should we acknowledge our positions i.e. our privilege before we claim to speak the "truths"? Is such an acknowledgment necessary in the first place? If not, how do we ensure objectivity?

http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN002553.pdf

There is no general data protection or privacy law in Singapore. The government
has been aggressive in using surveillance to promote social control and limit domestic
opposition

Electronic surveillance of communications is governed by the
Telecommunications Authority of Singapore (TAS). The government has extensive
powers under the Internal Security Act and other acts to monitor anything that is
considered a threat to "national security." The U.S. State Department in 1998 stated,
"Divisions of the Government's law enforcement agencies, including the Internal
Security Department and the Corrupt Practices Investigation Board, have wide
networks for gathering information. It is believed that the authorities routinely
monitor citizens' telephone conversations and use of the Internet. While there were no
proven allegations that they did so in 1997, it is widely believed that the authorities
routinely conduct surveillance on some opposition politicians and other critics of the
Government." All of the Internet Services Providers are operated by
government-owned or government-controlled companies. Each person in Singapore
wishing to obtain an Internet account must show their national ID card to the provider
to obtain an account. ISPs reportedly provide information on users to government
officials without legal requirements on a regular basis.

An extensive Electronic Road Pricing system for monitoring road usage went
into effect in 1998. The system collects information on an automobile's travel from
smart cards plugged into transmitters in every car and in video surveillance cameras.
The service claims that the data will only be kept for 24 hours and does not maintain a
central accounting system. Video surveillance cameras are also commonly used for
monitoring roads and preventing littering in many areas. It was proposed in Tampines
in 1995 that cameras be placed in all public spaces including corridors, lifts, and open
areas such as public parks, car parks and neighborhood centers and broadcast on the
public cable television channel.

Some might say that I'm flogging a dead horse here. But as always, I hope to find new perspectives from old debates (there's a Chinese idiom for it called 温故知新 - loosely translated to gaining new knowledge from revising the old stuff. =)).

Privacy has often been sacrificed for 'safety' purposes. Here, the question we need to ask is whose safety are we talking about?

Is sacrificing my privacy for my safety acceptable?
Is sacrificing my privacy for the general public's safety acceptable?
Is sacrificing my privacy for the safety of a selected few acceptable?

What about the ERP? Is sacrificing my privacy for traffic efficiency acceptable?

I posted a bookmark on something related to this issue.

http://www.todayonline.com/World/EDC090907-0000047/The-photo-thats-caused-a-stir

AP decided to publish a photo of a fatally wounded young Marine lying crumpled in the mud, his vulnerable face visible to the camera.

The United States Defence Secretary did not want the press to release it. Neither did the family of the deceased solder in the photo.

After lengthy internal discussions, AP concluded that the photo was a part of the war they needed to convey.

I don't really think there's an ethical way to report war. But I opine that AP has gone over the board with the photo. Surely the public doesn't need a photo to know the 'reality' of war, as if the photo is THE reality in the first place; it is merely a (re)presentation of the reality. It seems that AP has subscribed to the fallacy of affective corporeality (to borrow a term from Theatre Studies), that further 'performance' of the war is required to affectively engage the readers.

I don't need to see a photo to know how cruel or brutal war is! There are enough blockbusters on war around. And I have a mind should I require images.

But then again, some people don't usually use their minds, and so they made an (ass) out of (u) and (me) that the military is supposed to be gentlemanly.

What is wrong with these people?

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1002815/1/.html

International guidelines on sex education reignite debate
By Ong Dailin, TODAY | Posted: 04 September 2009 0715 hrs

SINGAPORE: A foreign controversy, over a set of proposed international guidelines on sex education, threatens to reignite the debate that raged just six months ago over Singapore's own sexuality education programme in schools.

The guidelines, scheduled to be released by UNESCO next week, are aimed at reducing HIV infections among the young, and will be distributed to education ministries and school systems around the world.

But an earlier draft issued in June was attacked by conservative and religious groups, mainly in the United States, for recommending discussions of homosexuality, describing sexual abstinence as "only one of a range of choices available to young people" - and even suggesting a discussion of masturbation with children as young as five, reported the New York Times.

When contacted by TODAY, a Ministry of Education (MOE) spokeswoman said: "We will be studying the revised guidelines to see how useful and relevant they are to the current review of Sexuality Education in our schools."

Two civil society groups expressed contrasting views.

Ms Dana Lam, president of the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE), felt UNESCO's guidelines affirmed AWARE's own Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) programme, which was suspended by the MOE in May.

Ms Lam said the UNESCO guidelines, which took an "evidence-informed and rights-based" approach, offered "a sound, comprehensive approach to sexuality education".

The emphasis "on relationships, values, attitudes, culture, human development, sexual and reproductive health exactly matches the emphasis" in AWARE's CSE programme, she added.

The latter was suspended after parents objected to the programme's explicit content, and the MOE found it conveyed messages "which could promote homosexuality or suggest approval of pre-marital sex".

Going forward, the ministry signalled that sexuality education should "adhere to social norms and values of our mainstream society"; while Education Minister Ng Eng Hen said it should encourage heterosexual married couples to have healthy relationships and stable families.

Focus on the Family's senior vice-president, Mrs Chong Cheh Hoon, was opposed to the UNESCO guidelines.

Apart from questioning their US-centrism and bias, she found some of the content "highly inappropriate", such as teaching children aged nine to 12 about basic contraception.

"This is like telling our kids not to smoke and yet providing them with cigarette filters," she said.

In the material recommended for ages 12 to 15, the guidelines advise the youth to practise safe and consensual sex "if sexually active". But, Mrs Chong countered, this was inconsistent messaging - since countries like Singapore have statutory rape laws covering those up to age 14.

UNESCO experts have been working on the guidelines for two years, reportedly drawing on more than 80 studies of sex education. But conservative flak has already caused one of the project's key participating agencies, the United Nations Population Fund, to pull back, said NYT.

UNESCO has defended its guidelines as "evidence-informed and rights-based". Its guidelines also argue that sex education helps to delay the onset of sexual activity, reduce the number of sexual partners and unprotected sex.

"In the absence of a vaccine for AIDS, education is the only vaccine we have," said Mr Mark Richmond, UNESCO's global coordinator for HIV and AIDS.

He added that just 40 per cent of youth aged 15 to 24 "have accurate knowledge" of how the disease is transmitted.

------------------------------------

My comment/ question: What happens when both partners are below the age of consent? Who's raping who in that case? I wonder how the severity is like in such cases compared to outright rape under the law. If it is indeed more severe than outright rape, why then shouldn't we provide sex education that really educates rather than preaches?

Again, here we see the nonsensical/ irrational argument oft-used by the conservatives bigots that kids and their whatever innocence or pureness should be 'protected'. If anything, knowledge is the best form of protection against anything and everything! Knowing the map protects you from getting lost. Knowing math protects you from being cheated by unscrupulous mercenaries.

Besides, sex education is after all education. That there is a "sex" adjective in front does not mean that it is sexual. It is the dirty minds of these bigots that make sex education sounds bad. And that is assuming that sex is inherently bad in the first place.

God these people.

"These women will have forever have to live with the social stigma of being a "porn star" and whatever negativity that is associated with that concept. "

The patriarchal ideology is the underlying cause of such a stigma. The idea that women should somehow by virtue of some higher being, be pure and innocent, untainted by sex. That women should be devoid of sexual agency.

The stigma, in this case, will not be eliminated by eliminating the pornography industry. It can only be eliminated by educating people against patriarchy.

Indeed, we can start questioning the women who have benefited from the industry. Without which, they might suffer worse due to poverty or other underlying circumstances. At least we can be certain that the industry protects them to a certain extent by having them go for STDs tests regularly. =)

Which brings me to my question, which is better - a porn star or a sex worker?


Jianwei Tan wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3dDXppgUpI
> http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Story?id=4320649&page=1
>
> ABC News hosts a face-off debate about the pornography industry at Yale. Arguing against pornography were Craig Gross who runs an online community for people addicted to pornography and Donny Pauling who was an ex-producer of pornography. The 2 people arguing for pornography were Monique Alexandar who is an adult actress with the world's largest adult-film producer, and Ron Jeremy, an adult actor who has appeared in more than 1,900 pornographic movies.
>
> The entire length of video is quite long but both sides brought up many issues about pornography that are less debated about but just as important.
>
> One particular point that I want to bring up is how little we think about protecting the women (not being sexist here, it's just that they mostly brought up female examples) who end up in the adult industry. When people think about exploitation of a group of people in pornography, the most salient issue is usually child pornography. However, I think it's important to think about the women who got into the adult industry due to naivety or misjudgments. Everybody makes mistakes. Should these women have no opportunity to start over? Due to P2P file sharing networks, these pornographic titles will continue circulating until who knows when. These women will have forever have to live with the social stigma of being a "porn star" and whatever negativity that is associated with that concept.
>
> Should we do something to stop the pornography industry? What if we can destroy the industry? Could the next possible solution be to stop descriminating against them and recognise "pornographic actress" as just another occupation?

"Also, I do not believe that people are born knowing how to engage in sexual activity. "

From a Socratic perspective, knowledge is inherent in us. You just need to ask the right question at the right moment. =) (Self-)questioning is the essence of knowledge on sex. Not pornography. =)

"I do not think that censorship exacerbates stereotypes. I believe stereotypes exacerbates stereotypes. Without first knowing what are the stereotypes, how do we know that these are stereotypes?"

But how do we know what the stereotypes are in the first place? Though censored media perhaps? So yes, censorship can be argued to exacerbate stereotypes. =) It's just how much.

Hi Valerie,

I think there's a need to make a distinction between child pornography and child watching pornography, which seems to be conflated in our arguments.

When we censor child pornography, I assume we are censoring it on the basis of the exploitation of children in the filming, in that there is no informed consent on their part. But then again, who determines that they are incapable of giving informed consent? Do we some how become capable of becoming informed the moment we past 12 midnight of our 21st birthday?

To complicate the issue further, I will like to paint the following scenarios:

Is it there a difference between an adult-child pornography, and a child-child pornography? While the latter may sound ludicrous, it is the very case we are seeing (literally) now with the amount of home-made pornography featuring children (teens included) below the legal age of adulthood? Who films them and distributes them becomes of interest here. We are always thinking about the pornographic industry. But we have ignored the individual producer in this prosumer era. What happens when a child share his/ her own pornography?

Moving on, when we censor a child watching pornography, I'm assuming that we are censoring it to protect the child's innocence and pureness. But as mentioned in class, and as I have shown, the idea of childhood is a relatively new development. So is it then ethical for us to restrict the child's access to pornography? On what rational basis can we do that?

Again, it does not mean that I am for promotion of child pornography or child watching pornography. I'm simply raising the questions so that we can hopefully rationally arrive at a rational solution. (That is assuming that rationality is the way forward though)

Valerie Oon wrote:
> As much as the child/adult split may be socially constructed, I think the problem most of us have with child porn is that it just seems a wrong way for children to be initiated into 'adulthood' this way. Of course, one may argue that the perverseness of pornography itself is a construct, like everything else, then it's all a matter of culture.
>
>
> Weiye Loh wrote:
> > "I do not agree that the child / adult split is artificial. While taking into account the environment where a child is nurtured, there are also clearly biological and psychological differences."
> >
> > Hi Jaime,
> >
> > Let me point you to the case of Brooke Greenberg, who is the size of an infant, with the mental capacity of a toddler.
> >
> > She turned 16 in January.
> >
> > http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Health/Story?id=7880954&page=1
> >
> > Clearly, the child/adult split is artifical and socially constructed, which explains why we need another set of classification for people who are clearly of 'legal' age but lacking the legal mentality.
> >
> > "Has this polarization of child and adult benefited or disadvantaged children? Are the rights of children suppressed because of their supposed inability to deal with "adult" issues? On the other hand, if we don't construct these boundaries, are we encouraging the exploitation of the young and vulnerable? "
> >
> > Such a separation has clearly benefited AND disadvantaged "children", by which I'm referring to those who are deemed to be of certain 'mental age', whatever that means, as well. It separates you from them, discriminating them as perhaps less of a person simply because they have different 'IQ', which in itself is a socially constructed measure.
> >
> > Children are sometimes more capable than so called adults. If inquisitiveness is the necessary ingredient of a researcher, then children make better researchers than many of us here! =)
> >
> > jaime yeo wrote:
> > > Again this raises the question of to what extent children should be protected, what rights a child has and to what extent he can exercise those rights. I do not agree that the child / adult split is artificial. While taking into account the environment where a child is nurtured, there are also clearly biological and psychological differences. Has this polarization of child and adult benefited or disadvantaged children? Are the rights of children suppressed because of their supposed inability to deal with "adult" issues? On the other hand, if we don't construct these boundaries, are we encouraging the exploitation of the young and vulnerable?

All Representamen is inherently an abstraction.

Remember "Ceci n'est pas une pipe"?

Even the representation by a porn actor is nothing but an abstraction. He is not really him per se. He represents a part of him i.e. the actor part of the human being. And that representation is further abstracted into pictures, arranged in order and flipped thru at 24 frames per seconds to simulate actions.

One could argue that the level of abstraction is different as per Saussure's argument. But how does the level affects the receivers in this case i.e. pornography? Is the intensity of sexual gratifications less or more? Perhaps then, what matters is not really the representation but what the receiver interprets. After all, the interpretations says more about the receiver than about the representation.

Ang Yao Zong wrote:
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6227619
>
> This article on the MSNBC wesbite discusses the increasing popularity of online cartoons and animations with pornographic themes. These include from "hentai" (japanese anime porn), western cartoon characters and computer generated "porn characters".
>
> Ethical question:
>
> Can cartoon characters (involved in a pornographic theme) be deemed as being representative of humans involved in similar sexual/pornographic acts? Cartoon characters afterall, are often a product of our imagination and we can often relate (in reality) to these characters in terms of the words they say or the things they do.
>
> On the flip side, what if stick figures or humanoids were used in such pornographic portrayal instead? Could we then argue against the portrayal of such characters or would they be deemed as not representative of a human being?
>
>
> Ethical problem:
>
> Should viewing online pornography be deemed as a negative act if an individual only intends to view such photos/pictures/videos for the sake of curiousity? How do we know if viewing pornography actually lead to action and imitation (which is one of the factors being put forward to argue against pornography)?

I must correct that never in my arguments did I mentioned that the interpreter is the problem. I was merely answering YZ's question if cartoon characters can be deemed as representative of human beings. And as I've shown, all representations are abstractions. So the separation between what constitutes a representative representation and a non representative representation is false. This is regardless of the creator's intent. =)