Viva Forever

I’ve finished my exams (results coming out in 4 days x_x) and the first thing that I do is catch a cold. Nice. Coughing, scratchy throats, lethargy and sore backs are annoying setbacks to attempts at relaxation after an incredibly stressful three weeks of assessments. Also, it’s bloody freezing here (I take back what I say about wanting to go to cold countries and to see the snow; having fully come to terms with how much of a pussy my body is, I think I’ll keep to the warmer climes) which is just darn uncomfortable. The good news is that Uni doesn’t start back until August 4th. However, I’ll probably be working a lot of it, definitely full time for two weeks at the very least.

In other news, I received an awesome birthday package from Amanda in the mail the other day. In it was three items of clothing; a lovely long, black dress with a long, mocha-coloured ribbon sash at the waist; a summery blue and white patterned dress that’s uber comfortable and a snazzy babydoll work shirt. MANY THANKS TO HER! They all fit nicely and very wearable. :D

Time for some learnin’! Yesterday I came across this absolutely FASCINATING documentary about people who compulsively hoard stuff, the condition also known as disposophobia (if the video loads slow or you want to conserve bandwidth, click on the “HD” button to turn HD off). It’s a thoughtful and well presented documentary, with the only talking done by the interviewees. I thought it was interesting how the film was ordered in terms of the neatness of the hoarders.

What was most fascinating were the insights given by the hoarders to why they hoard. I thought it was interesting how so much of it is about being in control in a material way (through the buying and hoarding) and yet they are being controlled by the very stuff they buy (I guess that’s what the title of the documentary is referring to). The last segment involving the man who was simultaneously digging through a mountain of worthless junk while talking about his dead mother was chilling to say the least, and quite saddening.

More Links
- Lots of pictures of another hoarder
- Psychology of Hoarding

Such visual insights into the very private lives of individuals whose activities deviate from the norm, makes me feel guilty for being so indulgent in my curiosity. Many hoarders seem to lead private lives, who value their privacy like anyone else, and it seems kinda intrusive and voyeuristic to be so fascinated with their different way of living. I hope there’s a difference between simply wanting to know more about something and actually intruding on people and demanding to know.

Today’s discussion: opinions. This is mostly fuelled by a recent entry by someone who had a rather strong opinion about, well, opinions. I not going to directly quote from what was said because the entry was taken down, and I assume that’s because the author didn’t want the public to read it. While my comment on said entry consequently is no longer accessible either, it certainly got me thinking about the whole topic. Here be my thoughts!

I have seen on more than one occasion, people have expressed the belief that opinions cannot be right or wrong, and as some have said, there are only favourable/unfavourable opinions. This is mostly based on the idea that because opinions are beliefs and judgements of something uncertain (paraphrased from dictionary.com’s definition), then opinions cannot be right or wrong. Another way to look at it is that many believe that opinions are purely subjective, therefore they are immune to judgement about their correctness. However, this is an incomplete and superficial conclusion as to what opinions are. There are subjective opinions and there are opinions that are based on objective premises.

Subjective Opinions
Subjective opinions usually refer to one’s own cognitions. For example consider the statement,

“I like fish”.

This cannot be “wrong” because the truth of it comes from yourself, i.e. it would be nonsensical for someone to retort with, “no, you DON’T like fish” because they are not you, and hence not the source of the claim. Other examples could be like, “I feel hungry” or “I hate the rain”. These statements can only be false when the person speaking is lying about the internal state they’re experiencing.

Objective Opinions
Of relevance, objective opinions distinctly have two elements. There is the,
1) The “I believe…” or “I think…” part (which may be expressed or implied), and
2) The actual claim.

For example,

“I think Asperger Syndrome is a fake condition”

This is an opinion about some aspect of the world, and I argue that it can be said to be right or wrong. However, I must stress that the rightness or wrongness has NOTHING to do with that first aspect, the “I think” part. To say the opinion is wrong is not to say “I don’t think that you actually think Asperger’s is a fake condition”, or that it’s not true that you hold that opinion. Saying an opinion is wrong is not to say that you’re not entitled to voice the opinion or that you don’t hold the opinion. Rightness or wrongness refers to the actual claim you’re making.

Of course there are some topics out there that are debatable and are not settled facts. I have heard people opine that Asperger’s is not real, however, just because it’s their opinion, it doesn’t mean such opinions exist in an untouchable void. The existence of Asperger’s is supported by a large body of empirical research, and to contradict the conclusions of such research with no legitimate evidence is to make a claim that is (for all intents and purposes) incorrect, or “wrong”. Such a claim does not stop being incorrect by virtue of being someone’s expressed opinion. It is different when you have an opinion about the world that is backed up with reason or evidence. Then you have an argument, and when confronted with a different view, then perhaps discourse on the subject matter can ensue.

It surprises me whenever people express their opinions about something, and when someone asks them why or presents alternative explanations or some such, the first person gets all huffy and says something along the lines of “well that’s my opinion!”. Okay, so what? If you’re making claims about the world, and if you don’t have a good enough reason to back it up compared to a different claim, then why are you even defending it? Why are people so defensive and get so personal when their objective opinions are demonstrably based on something that is not correct? No one is trying to remove one’s right to an opinion just because they’re based on a less correct premise. You have the right to be wrong, but everyone else retains the right to tell you so.

It’s not always possible to get a “right” opinion when compared to its alternative, because the foundation of the opinions might be different. A Christian who might say “premarital sex is immoral” has a valid opinion, because it follows logically from their belief that there is a God who mandates that premarital sex is immoral. Someone who doesn’t believe in a God in the first place would also come to an equally valid opinion that premarital sex is not immoral. There’s no right and wrong to these two opinions because they work on different premises. However, at least through discussion people can work out what different premises they’re working with, if they have established that both opinions make sense.

Hence, opinions about the world are not immune to objective scrutiny. They can be engaged with like any argument or assertion or belief, and can be deemed good, bad, right or wrong. It has nothing to do with the right to have opinions, or the people making them.

P.S. On an unrelated matter, I found Alex’s entry on education to be particularly enlightening. For another perspective on things, Amanda has her view on the matter. Food for thought!

P.P.S. I just found that Sarai has coincidentally written about opinions too. Seems like we’re on the same wavelength, though she said it with fewer words. ^^;

P.P.P.S. I’m aware that my link list isn’t working (damn plugin) on my blog, and only the script that rotates my dailies on the front page works. I’m trying to get the list back up ASAP.

Oh hai.

University has started again, I’m doing courses that I love and hence, for once, I’m actually doing all my readings and listening to all the lectures. Textbooks this semester totalled to around $400, which equates to pretty harsh rapeage of my bank account. Couldn’t buy any second hand textbooks, and believe me, I’ve searched high and low for alternate sources. :( Other than that, I have been sick, mostly resulting in coughing and the loss of my voice. I was prescribed antibiotics that absolutely crippled my abdomen on the third day. I was told during a check-up with another doctor, that all I have is a cold and that the antibiotics were unnecessarily screwing with my system. Bah. I’m on the road to recovery now.

So there we go, boring stuff. Let’s talk about something interesting.

Law of Defamation
I cannot express how much I love this area of law. It’s just so… upstanding and practical and most of all, it makes a lot of sense. All the other law subjects I’ve done always have stupid exceptions and nonsensical distinctions. The one that jumps to mind is patent law, and its crazy distinctions between novelty, innovation and invention. The whole idea of owning information, which form the very basis of intellectual property law, just gets under my skin. So as much as I loved that subject, it was mostly because of how jurisprudentially inconsistent it is, in my opinion.

But Australian defamation law… it’s straightforward and awesome. Now, it could’ve been a huge mess. Australia doesn’t have a Bill of Rights (the only developed nation to not have one, hooray for us -_-), which means we don’t have an expressed and protected freedom of speech nor a right to privacy. However, the Australian law have recognised that both are important, and tries to reflects these values. It’s especially difficult to balance a person’s right to free speech and another person’s right to not be defamed.

One way that the law have tried to juggle the two is to make it rather difficult to have someone stop someone else (usually the media) from publishing something defamatory, so that recognises the right to free speech. However, the law also acknowledges that once such defamatory information has been published, the victim has a right to pursue damages. It’s a little clumsy I guess, but it’s an admirable attempt at reconciling the two conflicting rights.

Another cool thing about defamation is that it’s a full defence if what is published, while it might ruin someone’s reputation, is true. If, for example, someone was accused of having an illicit affair and that proved to be true, that person can whinge all they like about being embarrassed and having a ruined reputation, but since that actually happened and it was merely revealed to the public, then it’s not defamation. Hooray for recognising the value of true information.

Oh and also, you can’t sue on behalf of a dead person because someone else published something unseemly about the dead person. That’s an awesomely practical law. The law could’ve gone the other way, and protect the “sacred” or “revered” or whatever “rights” of the dead, but they didn’t. They were all like, “look, reputation is what living people have, not dead people, therefore they can’t get defamed”. That doesn’t stop people from complaining when things like the Eulogy Song gets aired of course, but the law doesn’t get involved and that’s the way it should be.

Modern Art
I was at the Art Gallery of NSW with my relatives the other day and we were making our way around the exhibits. We got to the “contemporary” art section, and I found myself looking for the placards that explained each exhibit before looking at the exhibits themselves.

I don’t get modern art, especially the really abstract *coughlazycough* type. Sometimes there are good ideas behind a piece of art, but it simply doesn’t show when the piece is so damn abstract. There was one sculpture thing, constructed with little bits of useless material (e.g. bottle caps, paper clips, bits of paper) that have been spray painted with very bright, pastelly colours. They were all arranged in no particular order on a table. The placard explained that it was supposed to represent a city, of modern life, and how many things around us, while looking valuable and pretty and nice, is in essence, just rubbish. It’s a neat idea, but I wouldn’t have picked it up just by looking at the artwork. And that was one of the more explicit pieces. There were plenty of canvases with just big sploshes of colour on them.

That’s why I’d love to just collect all these placards and just read what the ideas are being projected. The actual artwork, while perhaps having quaint and interesting aesthetic value, and perhaps adds a visual representation of the idea, is secondary in my eyes.

What is entirely awesome though, are the old paintings that date back centuries. I can’t help but be entranced by the idea of being up close to artwork that someone once spend many hours on, who are now long dead, painting subjects who were also once very much alive but is now also long gone. It’s a sobering feeling. Oh that and there’s so much talent in the way the scenery, mood and characters are captured in the art. Have I mentioned that one of my favourite artists is Carravagio? Yay, dramatic shadowy paintings. :D But yeah, museums are awesome.

I’ve grumbled (incessantly) in the past, of how silly, irrational and down-right contradictory some laws are. However this evening I found a copy of the judgement to Baby v Maryland, a rape case appeal from Maryland, USA, which made me metaphorically throw up a bit in my mouth. The whole thing is accessible here, but since it’s 51 pages, I’ll point out the main bits. Note that this case was decided in 2006. That’s last year.

The following is the judge deciding when withdrawing consent before, during and after sexual intercourse is considered rape. He cites the case of Battle v State first, specifically where the judge in that case had said (on page 26):

“The authorities are unanimous in the view that consent subsequent to the act of intercourse will not prevent its being rape.”

Okay fair enough. If two people have had consensual sex, it’s simply illogical to say you withdraw consent to something that has already happened. But from there, the judge in that case made the logic-defying leap to conclude that (on page 29):

“On the other hand, ordinarily if she consents prior to penetration and withdraws the consent following penetration, there is no rape.”

WHAT THE FUCK. The judge is basically saying, “because we’ve decided there’s no rape if you consented after sex ended, then it’s also not rape if you consented once sex has started”. The sheer misunderstanding of how sex and people work is mind-boggling. Sex is not a rollercoaster; it’s not like once you get on you have no option to get off (no pun intended!). If a party doesn’t want to keep going once it’s started, then the act ought to stop. If it doesn’t, then it should be considered rape. Because these cases deal with women who get raped, there appears to be this frightening assumption of some kind that men who have sex with women simply CAN’T stop, or more disturbingly, SHOULDN’T have to stop, having sex once it’s started.

But okay, the Battle v State case WAS decided in the 1980s and well MAYBE one can argue that back then things were simply more conservative and the idea that women aren’t objects isn’t as wide spread as it is today. But for some reason Baby v Maryland, the 2006 case, decides to follow Battle v State. After quoting Battle v State (above), this 2006 case goes on to say (on page 31-32):

The concept, undergirding the Battle holding, rooted in ancient laws and adopted by the English common-law, views the initial “de-flowering” of a woman as the real harm or insult which must be redressed by compensation, in legal contemplation, the injured party - the father or husband… But, to be sure, it was the act of penetration that was the essence of the crime of rape; after this initial infringement upon the responsible male’s interest in a woman’s sexual and reproductive functions, any further injury was considered to be less consequential. The damage was done. It was this view that the moment of penetration was the point in time, after which a woman could never be “re-flowered,” that gave rise to the principle that, if a woman consents prior to penetration and withdraws consent following penetration, there is no rape. Maryland adheres to this tenet, having adopted the common law, which remains the law of the Land until and unless changed by the State’s highest court or by statute.

*heaves*

*head explodes*

I… just… wow. Ladies and gentlemen, let me state this again; the above quote came from a judgement in 2006. It’s asserting that just because “ancient laws” (the footnotes, BTW, say that the “ancient laws” they refer to are ancient Assyrian laws) dictate that:

• Women are property;
• Rape of a woman is an “insult” to her father/husband; and
• Rape is only “rape” when it’s the act of “de-flowering” a woman; anything after that is less consequential because it holds less value to men;

this should apply to the women in Maryland, USA, in the 21st century. I’ll let you mull over that.

The case actually then goes on to list a bunch of cases that goes against such sentiment and that such reasonings are “archaic and unrealistic” (page 34) and that there are “only three decisions which appear to hold that prior consent vitiates post penetration withdrawal of consent” with one of the cases being Battle v State (page 35). Nonetheless, the judge in Baby v Maryland decides to apply Battle anyway, with the incredibly feeble justification that:

“It is currently a statement of Maryland law, that has neither been overruled nor commented upon negatively.”

Now I know that following precedent is a big thing in law, i.e. that cases need to follow previous case law that has been decided by a higher court. But this is just ridiculous. The fact that the judge in Baby v Maryland went so far as to cite Assyrian law just to justify why continuing with sexual intercourse after the other party has withdrawn consent is NOT rape is so revoltingly sexist, it’s terrifying and makes me so angry. This above decision is on appeal (link curtesy of Feministing) to the highest court in Maryland, and fingers crossed that the previous judgement would be overturned.