FAVQ (Frequently Asked Veganism Question):

“Since morality is an implicitly private matter, why do you feel it is right to convince others to stop eating factory-farmed* meat?”

Answer:

This is a comment that I get fairly often from some of the most intelligent debaters that question my views on animal rights. Sometimes, the first part of the question is asserted in less eloquent forms, such as “why do you feel it is right to force others to YOUR way of thinking,” “what makes your opinions more moral than MINE,” and naturally “I love meat, and you’ll never take that way from me, you meanie!” Well, allow me to justify my actions in campaigning.

I would like to recognize morality as an “ informal public system applying to all rational persons, governing behavior that affects others, and has the lessening of evil or harm as its goal” (Gert, 1998). This has significant bearing on the ethics of campaigning (whether is be for animal rights, or otherwise). So we see that morality is not a private matter. Morality is a set of public rules that apply to all members of that system.

To solidify morals as being public, here is an example [taken from Ethics and Technology] of what could happen in a world where morals were privately contained. “Suppose you happen to believe that stealing is morally wrong, but I believe that stealing is okay (i.e., morally permissible). One day, I decide to steal your laptop computer. Do you have a right to complain? You would not, if morality is simply a private matter that reflects an individual’s personal choices. Your personal preference may be not to steal, whereas my person preference is for stealing. If morality is grounded simply in terms of the preferences that individuals happen to have, then it would follow that stealing is morally permissible for me but is not for you. But why stop with stealing? What if I happen to believe that killing human beings is okay?” And so on…

Similarly, moral beliefs should not be confused with personal choices/preferences. Moral issues have effect on some being(s) or system(s), whether your involvement is direct (such as robbing a bank) or indirect (such as driving the getaway car). Moral preferences effect only you. An example of a preference would be preferring Coca-Cola rather than Pepsi. I wouldn’t try to convince someone to switch to one or the other based on my tastes, because someone else’s preferences doesn’t morally effect anyone else. However, if I found out that Pepsi blatantly pollutes the environment beyond regulations (which they don’t, to my knowledge), then I would have a case for building a moral argument.

Finally, I will bring this back to animal rights. Choosing to not support factory farming* is my moral belief. Being that morality is a public system, campaigning against the cruel practices of factory farming is justified. This would not be the case IF my campaigning was based on personal preferences (such as, nutritional benefits of veganism, or a distaste for meat).

* The link about factory farming directs you to Wikipedia.org, a non-baised, non-graphic source of information on the subject. Please read it for more information.

A new system is being launched that allows parents to spy on their kids’ lunch choices. I’m feeling a bit conflicted about this technology. I knew it would happen eventually, as the technology is very, very simple to implement. However, now that it’s here, I’m wondering what is more important: to reduce obesity in America (in this case, America’s youth), or to protect the privacy of people (albeit under 18). Do minors have a right to privacy? Similarly, do they deserve the trust of their parental units? Do parents deserve to know what exactly their money is going (and in such a specific manner), in terms of their kids’ lunches? Will this be tracked by more than the student, school, and parent? Will the information get sold to interested parties (FDA, food companies, grocerers)?

Where will the hey-we-could-totally-make-this-data-trackable line be drawn? Or will it be drawn at all?

For the past week or so, I’ve been following the Showdown put on by Contagious Media. The contest: they give you 20MB of free webspace, you have to try to get the most unique visitors on your website (May 19th through June 9th). The contestants have entered some very random material, such as the current #1, Crying While Eating. Others have been pretty creative about attracting more visitors, such as the current #2, Forget-Me-Not-Panties posting a fake article on Slashdot.

The developers of the open-source software collective KDE have been creating and managing KHTML, their HTML layout engine (as with most open software, created in their spare-time). Under a General Public License, Apple created WebCore, their HTML layout engine used in Safari. For the past two years, Apple has been developing WebCore around the KHTML base, but haven’t been giving KHTML developers details about the changes. The updates that Apple does send out are so cryptic that they’re useless to any future KDE development. For an accurate summary of the events as they have unfolded, look at this unbiased article.

Obviously, the question is: should Safari developers share detailled information about the improvements they’ve made to their flavor of the KHTML base to the KDE developers?

The answer is more complex than a simple "yes" or "no." First, you must examine the needs and rights of both sides. Apple is a business, which means they need to hide their unique features from possible competitors. KDE is an organization that is working (again, in their free-time) to create the best product (in this case an HTML generator). Second, you must consider property rights. KDE developed KHTML, which entitles them to fair access to any changes built on top of their work. Apple developed Safari, which entitles them to sell their browser and market it as their own.

My assessment is that Apple is just for not giving KHTML an all-access pass to Safari’s code. Afterall, they did majorly modify KHTML in creation of WebCore. Their time and money should be acknowledged. However, in gratitude and acknowledgement of KDE’s large contribution to WebCore, Apple should give better updates (retroactively and in the future). For example, Apple should share with KDE any information about vulnerabilities and improvment suggestions they have found while working with KHTML code. However, Apple should not be obligated to provide details about major structural changes and brand-oriented innovations. I am glad to hear that Apple has recently met with KHTML developers to work towards a better relationship. I’m anticipating they will follow through with an improved agreement.

In wait-what?-why? news, the US Congress has passed the new $82 Billion Iraq Supplemental Spending Bill, the Senate passing it by a narrow margin of 100-0. But wait–there’s more! As one of the riders, an unneccessary and unrealistic national ID system would be created. This “Real-ID” has already been publicly opposed by Governors and State Legislators, as it reduces states’ rights and the costs of implementing the system would largely be put on their shoulders. Go tell your senator what you think of their negligence! Another rider (Sec. 1114) has renamed the “death gratuity” to “fallen hero compensation,” and I’m speechless.

Recently, Rachel recieved an email about a potential place to live for the next few months. The email was pretty ridiculous and the probably the worst advertisement ever. So, I went to the keyboard to write some smart-alick responses. Enjoy! (more…)

Hello Slashdot! [link to my post] [screenshot]

I will never forget that mourning morning. I walked from English class to Computer Science. When I entered the hallway, my teacher said in a panicked voice that the world was ending. And so, we sat there, huddled around the TV screen and watched as the second plane hit the second tower. A few hours later, a similar yet different group of us discussed what had happened in math class. Our eyes were open.

To be brutally honest, I was hoping for and planning on the best outcome. I thought we’d learn from the extreme actions taken against us. I thought it’d serve as a wake up call. The US would stop policing the world. The world would act together to solve the problems that plague us. And maybe, just maybe, we’d all begin to stop being greedy. Don’t get me wrong, it was a tragic event, and I admittedly got teary typing that first paragraph. I just thought we’d be “the bigger man country” and do something productive with all the energy instilled in our nation, and the world.

Update of us (US) and Iraq (that country we invaded that we he incorrectly thought might maybe possibly have nuclear weapons, that he somehow tied to the events of 9/11 after he was through with Afganistan, the country that we’re still in, that Iraq): Over 21,000 Iraq Civilians dead. Over 1,500 American Military deaths (if that’s all you care about). Gas prices up 40 cents in comparison to last year (if that’s all you care about).

Why create a green on the Homeland Security Advisory System if we’re never going to use it?