Latest Posts

Latest Comments

Archive for the ‘Bad Idea (TM)’ Category

Om ytringsfrihed, ytringspligt og det falske dilemmas fejlslutning

By Fjodor on Jan. 9, 2015.

Lad mig starte med en præcisering: nÃ¥r jeg i overskriften, og i det følgende, taler om “ytringspligt”, sÃ¥ er det ikke i den forstand, som Anna Libak lader Stephane Charbonnier stÃ¥ for i http://www.b.dk/kommentarer/ytringspligt. Det kan næppe overraske, at ordet er brugt før, men jeg var ikke stødt pÃ¥ det, da jeg selv, mentalt, begyndte at formulere nærværende indlæg, men den brug, der anføres i linket ovenfor, er alligevel relevant for det følgende.

Nuvel: Tragedien i Paris er en kendsgerning, og uomgængeligt må være det faktum, at den er udført på baggrund af en religiøs fanatisme, som må synes de fleste mennesker så fremmed, at det er svært at forstå, og også, at enhver mulig tale om, at de selv var ude om det, bør bandlyses af enhver, der ønsker et demokratisk samfunds ytringsfrihed.

I forhold til disse “de fleste mennesker”, vil jeg anbefale http://www.b.dk/debat/fordoem-terroren-ikke-muslimer-generelt af Berlingskes chefredaktør Jens Grund, der fortjener megen ros for netop det indlæg.

64 minutter senere lod selvsamme Berlingske så Marie Krarup (DF) komme til orde med http://www.politiko.dk/b-tinget/vi-skal-turde-fortsaette-religionskritikken, for hvilket Berlingske fortjener ros af hensyn til ytringsfriheden, og for hvilket Marie Krarup selv fortjener netop den kritik, som Jens Grund lægger op til.

Det er i sig selv forstemmende, at Krarup slÃ¥r en hel religionskategori i hartkorn med en fundamentalistisk fraktion af selvsamme, og selvsikkert proklamerer, at “Det er frygteligt uhyggeligt at mÃ¥tte se i øjnene, at forhÃ¥bningerne om at kunne integrere store muslimske mindretal i Europa er slÃ¥et fejl.”, men hverken mere eller mindre kan man vel forvente fra hendes side. Mere forstemmende er det, at der selv fra mere moderat side (jeg mener at kunne huske Lars Løkke Rasmussen nævnt – find selv kilden) er ytret ønske om at trossamfund her til lands partout skal tage afstand.

Netop heri ligger min egen forståelse af ordet ytringspligt, som jeg vil betegne som en udemokratisk konstruktion af værste skuffe, og som jeg vil beskrive med følgende eksempler, som der snildt kan findes flere af:

1) Sovjetkommunisme har ateisme som et af sine erklærede mål og midler, men i deres optik forstået som aktiv forfølgelse af religion. Jeg er selv ateist, og vil så hjertens gerne tage afstand fra både indskrænkelse af religionsfrihed som sådan, og særligt fra kommunismens rædsler, men skal jeg af et politisk system afkræves dette på grund af min ateisme?

2) Det sker fra tid til anden, at kristne fundamentalister udfører eller opfordrer til dødelige angreb på abortklinikker i USA. Skulle vi afkræve Folkekirken, Kirkeministeren, Dronningen og gerne Marie Krarup, at de tager offentlig afstand fra disse ugerninger, hver gang, de sker, qua deres kristne tro?

Svaret vil forhåbentligt, for det fleste, være nej til begge, men hvorfor? Som jeg ser det, skyldes det, at så snart man pålægges at ytre noget bestemt, som en anden har formuleret, så fratages man sin ytringsfrihed i fuldstændighed, idet den erstattes med en ytringspligt, som jeg personligt mener, hører totalitære regimer til.

Om den sort/hvide tankegang om, at hvis man ikke siger det ene, så mener man det andet, kan spores til det falske dilemma, som ses fra Jesus i Mat 12:30 om, at hvis du ikke er med os, så er du imod os, og som glad og gerne er blevet brugt af andre farverige personager såsom Lenin, Mussolini og, nok så berømt, G. W. Bush (se http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27re_either_with_us,_or_against_us) skal jeg ikke kunne sige, men det er en logisk fejlslutning, og den har ingen gyldig plads i et sekulært demokrati.

 

 

A very bad idea

By Fjodor on Mar. 22, 2011.

This might be one of the worst ideas I’ve ever heard of.

Basically, it’s a system to measure the stress level in the voice of whomever happens to call for help – in the present case case for military emergency response but with the possibility to expand into civil emergency services, to determine which calls should get priority if there is a back-log.

Now, for a military purpose, I can almost be persuaded to believe that military training for stressful situations might make this a useful metric, but for civil use, not so much.

I have had the distinct displeasure of calling ambulances for others a number of times, and as I have been taught that speaking calmly and responding to questions about details in a coherent manner, I usually make it a point to do just that – stay calm, leveled and objective, not letting the specific “badness” of the situation interfere with my attempt to convey the precise scope and nature of the emergency.

Now, the article says that the system has a very low error margin when tested on previous calls, where the prioritization of the operator in question is known. I take that to mean that it would make the same choice that the operator did. What is not mentioned is if said operator relied more on the apparent stress level of the caller or on the specifics of what was reported to make the choice of priority for the dispatch. I could, given data, easily be persuaded that the operator used the same metric as the system, and that said metric might not be the best.

A case would be an incident that took place when my oldest younger sister worked as a tourist guide in Turkey and I was there to visit. During the pick-up for departure, and elderly lady had a heart attack, and some other people in the bus stated that they were proficient in CPR, so we agreed that my sister would keep the other guests calm and alert her colleagues to the fact that the bus might be delayed, so they would have a chance to inform the airport of a number of delayed passengers, they would administer CPR, and I would call for an ambulance.

In the case of a heart attack, immediate first aid, in the form of CPR is paramount, so I had to work out this division of tasks quickly and then go on with my own. I found a local who could give me a number for the nearest hospital, called them, explained the situation and had the local describe where we were.

During all this, I made a conscious effort to keep as calm as possible, in order to understand and be understood by the local and the hospital. Furthermore, I had delegated the actual act of CPR to others who said that they were proficient in it (sadly, it turned out that they were not), so to my own mind, I think I came off as rather collected and coherent to both the local and the hospital – hardly with any significant stress level apparent, since I didn’t know the woman, but was aware that it was serious, so I should stay calm.

If a system as the one mentioned had been in place, and if the priority of the call would be set by the stress level, I rather doubt that it would have been given a sufficient level of priority, whereas a hysterical parent to a child with a minor cut on a finger or some such would probably score much higher.

In summary, I might be able to understand an argument that this could be useful in military situations, where one would expect every caller to have at least some experience and/or training in/for emergency situations, but for the civil populace, this idea is about as bad as they come…

© 2016 - Fjodor's thoughts
Designed by Shauryadeep Chaudhuri
Coded by XHTML Valid
Minor modifications by Fjodor

Powered by WordPress

FireStats icon Powered by FireStats