Comments | gyges_ring: Ho hum

gyges_ring

Ho hum

Nov 12, 2010 23:34

So, new entry. Trying to post semi-regularly again. What is new? Mum came, mum saw, mum got punched in the face, mum left. (Not by us, incidentally, by my aunt, who may be a bit borderline). Went for breakfast with Corrin and Amber last Saturday. It was really nice. I'm so out of the loop on things. Then again, people probably don't know that much ( Read more... )

Comments 10

ext_3201 November 12 2010, 16:44:36 UTC

Unprofessional is the new inappropriate.

(The comment has been removed)

maelkann November 13 2010, 02:25:23 UTC

Unprofessional is the new unAustralian.

theducks November 12 2010, 17:28:05 UTC

.. they don't have a policy on handing assignments in 6 months late? What happens? after a certain number of weeks the formula they use for determining marks off begins giving you marks back?

maelkann November 13 2010, 02:25:37 UTC

If you hand it in right before exams, you get double the marks!

ext_3201 November 13 2010, 03:29:26 UTC

It's pass/fail. There's a consultant out there who refused to do the ethics essay in sixth year (because then, as now, it was stupid), and they eventually just let him graduate after harassing him for months and months.

gyges_ring November 13 2010, 04:16:39 UTC

It's a combination of stupid things. Firstly, written work is marked out of 6. This is because clinical skills are marked out of six (I don't quite follow the logic applying this to written submissions, but that's the reason we're given). This means that, although there is a formal "10%, 20%, 30%, etc." loss of marks system, it can't get followed in practice, because knocking marks off can't translate well into integer marks out of 6, and so no marks get taken off ( ... )

Thread 5

pseudophonist November 15 2010, 14:47:58 UTC

I really like that justification of marriage; partly because many people would take offense at having their relationship defined that way (even if its true). That said, the 'no-consequences' aspect of gay sex (no pregnancy, I mean) means not many gays are going to save themselves for their wedding night, and 'exploitation for self-pleasure' will very likely happen outside of wedlock.
Another good one I've heard is that it isn't about marriage but about 'second class citizenship' but this always seemed sensationalistic to me. In that sense, gays have a right not to be discriminated against by their government, but this only seems to work if there are wider reforms to government policy removing other discriminatory legislation.

As far as ethics goes, the utilitarian in me is saying 'greatest good for the greatest number'; the deontologist is saying 'dont discriminate' and the virtue ethicist... well i just don't like virtue ethics.

gyges_ring November 17 2010, 13:57:27 UTC

Perhaps I have not been as explicit in my outline as I could have been. If I were to rephrase it, I would say that 'marriage rights' actually have nothing to do with getting married; rather, getting married is an obligatory step required by marriage rights (namely, in the case of Kant, the ability to have non-evil sex). So a neo-Kantian objection would be something along the lines of: proponents of marriage rights better be prepared to give up pre-marital sex, or else they are supporting evil ( ... )

pseudophonist November 19 2010, 07:06:12 UTC

Fair enough; I suspect promoting abstinance in the queer comunity isn't going to be very successful, at least not in the near future. And this won't change until there's some sort of marriage thing to save one's virginity for- so we've got a chicken/egg scenario. I guess I'm proposing marriage as a means of reducing premarital sex. Then again, I wonder how many more people will be getting overnight marriages in Vegas and divorces for breakfast ( ... )