Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[LosingNow]

You underestimate to what extent people go to prepare themselves for a US visa application - right down to practicing answers to likely questions - and checking ten times over whether all their documents are in place.

..including a pilgrimage to the temple of VISA BALAJI - on the outskirts of Hyderabad. The belief is that if one visits this temple before one's consulate interview, one is guaranteed a visa to US.
---
Based on what I saw of the new 7 wonders activity.. this was a commercial enterprise which was done fairly transparently and the intentions of this enterprise were also clear -> to use the funds to preserve these heritage sites. I, for one, disagree with the use of the voting mechanism (I think it is heavily biased towards high population countries with relatively better cellphone/internet penetration and rewards high awareness sites ..exclusion of Angkor Wat was goofy!)...however, I frankly do not have a better alternative approach.

Speaking of funds to maintain and enhance these heritage sites.. there was an article in India Today, last week, on Taj.
About 6 years ago, the Tata Group had planned to invest a few crores (and spent some of the initial ones too ..all with help and involvement of ASI) to improve the Taj experience.. better guides, better Audio-visual tours, better restrooms, restoration of some of the buildings/monuments (using a panel of heritage experts), operation of fountains, maintenance of gardens.. but the ASI(Architectural Society of India - which is responsible for maintenance of heritage sites) did not act on it ..and now the Tatas have given up.

Just imagine - when you visit the world's # 1 (voted by masses) wonder.. you don't have proper guides facility, you don't have proper toilets, the fountains don't run, the building is yellowing ..(yes, there is a bee-hive just inside the Taj..that has not been removed)..and the worst part, and this one does not even come under the aegis of ASI, the Yamuna (which multiplies Taj's grandeur) has now just become a stinking trickle carrying sewer water.

[keep-it-cool]

You underestimate to what extent people go to prepare themselves for a US visa application - right down to practicing answers to likely questions - and checking ten times over whether all their documents are in place.

..including a pilgrimage to the temple of VISA BALAJI - on the outskirts of Hyderabad. The belief is that if one visits this temple before one's consulate interview, one is guaranteed a visa to US.
---
Based on what I saw of the new 7 wonders activity.. this was a commercial enterprise which was done fairly transparently and the intentions of this enterprise were also clear -> to use the funds to preserve these heritage sites. I, for one, disagree with the use of the voting mechanism (I think it is heavily biased towards high population countries with relatively better cellphone/internet penetration and rewards high awareness sites ..exclusion of Angkor Wat was goofy!)...however, I frankly do not have an alternative better approach.

Exactly .. there are several flaws in the selection process ... but calling it unethical is bull*, in my view

[achutank]

Exactly .. there are several flaws in the selection process ... but calling it unethical is bull*, in my view

one man's concept of ethics is another man's concept of bull*, that i have accepted a long time ago

here the question is not really of making money but how. no problem in the process but yes a big problem with the packaging. so if you step back and see how they have managed to create the hysteria and the way they engineered it you do find that the so called altrusic nature of the event is really what one should have a problem with. you treat it like a contest to select the 7 wonders of the world and say there is a the cost of entry which is equal to the cost you incurr for an SMS thats ok i guess, but these guys projected allong with the media that this is inherently  for the public for the planet event of monuments which belong to no country in truth but do belong to each one of us as humans.

this is no altrusic event. and this is where the big questions arise of how far do you go? for example can somebody tell me where did all the money made for the JEsscia Lall public JUSTICE outcry through a well orchestrated SMS movement by NDTV, go? and since when did a media channel become an arm for justice? today we put Manu Sharma on JUnta Adalat and hung him. he is not innocent, but what if tomorrow another man is put through that and he is innocent? is this a question of ethics? or is it just bull*? 

[keep-it-cool]

Exactly .. there are several flaws in the selection process ... but calling it unethical is bull*, in my view

one man's concept of ethics is another man's concept of bull*, that i have accepted a long time ago

here the question is not really of making money but how. no problem in the process but yes a big problem with the packaging. so if you step back and see how they have managed to create the hysteria and the way they engineered it you do find that the so called altrusic nature of the event is really what one should have a problem with. you treat it like a contest to select the 7 wonders of the world and say there is a the cost of entry which is equal to the cost you incurr for an SMS thats ok i guess, but these guys projected allong with the media that this is inherently  for the public for the planet event of monuments which belong to no country in truth but do belong to each one of us as humans.

this is no altrusic event. and this is where the big questions arise of how far do you go? for example can somebody tell me where did all the money made for the JEsscia Lall public JUSTICE outcry through a well orchestrated SMS movement by NDTV, go? and since when did a media channel become an arm for justice? today we put Manu Sharma on JUnta Adalat and hung him. he is not innocent, but what if tomorrow another man is put through that and he is innocent? is this a question of ethics? or is it just bull*? 

first of all, i am restricting myself to the seven wonders poll as far as the ethics debate is concerned ... i have no knowledge of the polls for Jessica Lal or the Manu Sharma aap ki adalat episode or where the money went etc ...

On the seven wonders poll ... why should it be an altruistic event for it to be within the boundaries of ethical practice? You have continuously been saying that this was misrepresented. I dont see how. Neither have you provided any example of how this was misrepresented.

As I said, you (or anyone for that matter) can go to the website and read for yourself (http://www.new7wonders.com/index.php?id=8) ...

I dont see anything that is misrepresented there. The same website gives enough data relating to the entire foundation. Where is the misrepresentation? If people choose to get carried away by a poll and take it as a matter of national honour, without even looking at the context, it is their mistake.

Of course, all of us like to believe that we have some emotional ownership over the great monuments across the world. But, where is this poll taking that away from us? All that it sought to do is rank them through popular opinion into a top seven list ... the method has its obvious flaws, but since when has a flawed concept become unethical?

And, what is an official list anyways? Who decides what is official? Is there anything official about the seven wonders? Does one man's selection (the original list) become official or THE list just because he happened to be born centuries before any of us?

[achutank]

no problem in the process but yes a big problem with the packaging. roping in of celebs channels etc all urgin you to SMS etc. my point is that a lot of the mdeia hype is bordering on what construes as unethical practice (Not unlawful mind you)

[keep-it-cool]

no problem in the process but yes a big problem with the packaging. roping in of celebs channels etc all urgin you to SMS etc. my point is that a lot of the mdeia hype is bordering on what construes as unethical practice (Not unlawful mind you)

hello ... every initiative by every channel was not initiated by the foundation ... there were many television channels who just took it upon themselves to play this up ... obviously, since they felt it would strike a chord with the audience. That does not mean any unethical behaviour by the foundation conducting the poll. I agree that voting multiple times for the same monument is unethical.

Finally, this poll may be unimportant or frivolous to you ... and to many others. As for me, I dont care much for this or any earlier list of seven wonders, for me a monument is as splendid as it is - whether it makes any list of not. But, are you going to sit on judgment on what everyone out there should consider important? Maybe there are a lot of folks out there who genuinely want the Taj to form part of such a list - official or unofficial. So, let them have their way.

[achutank]

i am not debating the contest in anyway. nor am i judging the event. yes you are right if somebody wants to voluntarily sms or vote and put taj on the list thats their perrogative. but the packaging and the PR of this event only highlights whats been bothering me  for a while thats all. which is "Is the Spin Doctoring Increasingly Pushing the Line?"

like is said nothing wrong with the event, good more people come together around the world and have fun, great.

but was the packaging compeltely in contrast to the motive behind the event? a company advertisies its goods, it does so using an advertisemnet. an advertisment is like a salesman and people listen to a salesman knowing they are listening to a sales pitch.

but nowadays you increasingly find advertising packaged as public initiative and as mainline news , thats where i believe a line is crossed and its an ehtical line.

i want people to think about it, yes. i do. i am sure you don' need tothink about it. but there are enough people out there who do not stop for a moment to think before makng a decision, thats where truly ethical business houses make it their business to give the right signals. you may call it spoon-feeding, but attitude is needed. see one person cannot paue to think about everything that comes his way. most things we take on face value. so when it comes to our expertise we need to spoon-feed others becasue it is not their expertise. because tomorrow we may be in a domain whihc is not our expertise needing spoon-feeding ourselves. at that moment we have to trust that the other person shares our attitude. 

[keep-it-cool]

what is not their expertise? understanding what they are doing before doing it?? i'm sorry, i hope we dont look down on the intellect of the people out there ... all it reflects is the lack of initiative to understand ... rather than a lack of abilty ... and, as i said, if they feel that Re1 or Rs3 is not too much of a cost to bear for some harmless fun, then so be it. Nothing unethical about it.

[achutank]

ok

i only wish for you to consider the concept behind the practice and the implications of such blurring of lines in communication and media on the way society will get shaped

[keep-it-cool]

ok

i only wish for you to consider the concept behind the practice and the implications of such blurring of lines in communication and media on the way society will get shaped

that is a topic for another discussion .. at the moment, all i am really concerned with (that too remotely) is the ethical or non ethical nature of the seven wonders poll

[feverpitch]

Sorry for having kept you waiting. Work, lightning, power blackout had kept me away.

a. i agree there would be an outcry about the 10C. any idea why there would be such an outcry?

probably because people feel very strongly about the original 10 commandments

Why would 'the people' feel so strongly about the 10 C? Who would be 'the people' here?

Those who hold it dear. I do not know.

You seemed so sure there would be an outcry. And yet you are unsure who would cause the outcry. Doesn't add up.

I said I "imagine" there would be an outcry, since it has a religious base. I wouldnt be creating one, I know. But I am sure there are several people out there who hold it dear to them.

Do you also imagine that the 10C has a 'religious base'; or do you mean that you imagine that if there is an outcry it will be because of the really existing religious base?

I meant the latter. I have no idea about the former.

OK. so you do know WHY the outcry would take place, if it did. I thought so.

Did I give you any reason to think otherwise?

The reason I brought this up is bcoz u said:

The key is whether it would be accepted. If people at large accept the new set, then fair enough. If people do not accept it, it will die a natural death anyways.

According to the Christian faith, the 10C are gods words and they cannot be altered. Means human beings cannot change them.

Am not sure what you are trying to get at here.

What I'm trying to get at is this: the original 7W were created by the Greeks. Over a few millenia, the list has gained popular currency to the extent that it has become an institution with a particular cultural resonance. Anyone trying to cash in on that cultural capital for profit would be basically deluding a lot of people.

IMO, on the other hand, if questions had been raised about the absolute truth value of the 7W claim, I'd have no problems. Just as I'd have no problems if a new selection were mooted, not for profit, with a truly democratic vote and an awareness campaign giving equal weightage to all monuments in the fray, and clearly explaining the underlying principles behind the selection, that would reach out to all peoples of all nations.

b. also, do u think there should have been a similar outcry in case of this seven wonders thinggy? why then do u think that such an event hasn't happened?

probably because people dont feel as strongly about the original list

Why wouldn't 'the people' feel so strongly about the 7W? Who would be 'the people' here?

I dont know why they did not. But they clearly did not, as there was no outcry. Anyways, at least here I can give you an example. I do not feel very strongly about them.

Right. so it can be reasonably agreed that the same reasons for an outcry as in the case of the 10C don't exist in case of the 7W. So just answer my previous q [on the 10C] and that should give you a fair idea about why there was no outcry about 7W.

So? There is no outcry. People dont care much. What now?

Try again.

Try what?

why was there no outcry and why dont 'the ppl' care much about the misleading aspects of the 7W polls? who are 'the ppl' in this case anyway?

I dont know why there was no outcry at large.

Well, you did say that the 7W is a less emotive issue than the 10C which is why there was no outcry. Actually, my conjecture would be that the outcry, if it were to take place, would require several factors to occur at the same time. Like for example if the original or the new list had been mooted by, say, the Chinese or Arabs, who too, like the Europeans, have historically accorded themselves as much self importance as to pronounce judgments and rankings to suit their beliefs/interests and pass them off as universal truth -- in which case the outcry would most likely have emanated from the 'West'. Incidentally, in that case, I'd imagine a lukewarm response from Indians, coz by and large, we have accorded greater importance to raising our esteem in the eyes of the Euros/Merkins.

I can only talk for myself ... I dont really consider the list - this one or the earlier one - to be of any great relevance.

Agreed. But you do agree that a voting populace driven by the internet, who can vote as many times as possible, and are driven by jingoistic parochial advertisements to vote for particular monuments don't exactly represent a democratic view. In other words, maybe, the universalism of the outcome was never an objective. Instead, the objective was advertisement for a tour company most likely out to cash in on the travel bug afflicting the nouveau riche Desi.

Maybe there are many others like me. I did not define any class of people here. Anyone who wants is free to come out against or for something.

Definitely they all were 'others like you'. In other words, internet connected ppl of the world.

c. also, do u think the evangelists converting the poor in India is "fair game"?

I dont understand where this is coming from.

To quote ur previous post:

The fact is that wherever there is such an emotional appeal over something of perceived value, there will be people around who try to leverage on that for their own profit... nothing wrong or unethical about that.

Yes. So, your point / question being? Is conversion wrong? Well, if forcibly then yes. If people convert out of their own free will, then no.

Would accepting an offer for food and shelter to convert be considered under 'free will'?

That depends on each person again. He / she has to decide what is the tilting factor that drives them to convert. If it is food and shelter, so be it. I cannot make that call for anyone.

But would converting under the lure of something be considered an expression of free will in your worldview or naat?

Logically, conversion would always be under the lure of something. Very few would convert just for the heck of it.

OK. But would converting under the lure of something TANGIBLE be considered an expression of free will in your worldview or not?

Whether a person wants something tangible or intangible in order to convert should be down to him / her. As long as he / she is allowed to make that choice, it is fine with me.

This is why I had mentioned ethics and not law earlier. Legally, it is OK. Under any ethical system, however, such a conversion would be considered immoral.

[keep-it-cool]

FP .. post too long to quote ..

Let us revisit where the 10C reference came in. It was an example of something, which if polled, would have created an outcry. As compared to the 7 wonders. And, the reason is obvious - the former is much more sacrosanct for people; the latter apparently isn't. I have no inclination, or adequate knowledge, to debate the 10C per se.

The original 7W was a list penned down by the Greek. Agreed.

Anyone trying to cash in on that cultural capital for profit would be basically deluding a lot of people.

This is what I do not agree with. I do not equate "making profit" with lack of ethics. And, if that is the basic premise of our debate, then I guess we should agree to disagree right here.

IMO, on the other hand, if questions had been raised about the absolute truth value of the 7W claim, I'd have no problems. Just as I'd have no problems if a new selection were mooted, not for profit, with a truly democratic vote and an awareness campaign giving equal weightage to all monuments in the fray, and clearly explaining the underlying principles behind the selection, that would reach out to all peoples of all nations.

I agree the poll is flawed and not the best means to arrive at an alternate list. But, again, that by itself does not make it unethical. As long as the methodology is laid out clearly and in a manner that is accessible to those who care ... as long as no false claims are made ... its fine by me.

The lack of an outcry ... or any outcry if the Chinese or Arabs hold a similar poll ... has nothing to do with the organisers of the poll, or the poll itself. That would reflect the hypocricy of the "West" or Indians (for being lukewarm).

Agreed. But you do agree that a voting populace driven by the internet, who can vote as many times as possible, and are driven by jingoistic parochial advertisements to vote for particular monuments don't exactly represent a democratic view.

I have never argued in favour of the methodology. I think it is inherently flawed. I view it just like most of the polls to select the best Indian cricketer of the century of the all time best world XI to play cricket etc etc.

However, as long as the background of the original list is made known ... along with the methodology involved ... (and the website does claim that the attempt is to arrive at a more contemporary list) ... it is fine, in my view.

In other words, maybe, the universalism of the outcome was never an objective. Instead, the objective was advertisement for a tour company most likely out to cash in on the travel bug afflicting the nouveau riche Desi.

Well ... for starters, that is a "maybe" .. a hypothesis. Cant debate that either way.

Secondly, I would delink the commercial use of the goodwill / publicity that this effort brings from the debate on whether it is ethical or not. Especially, since we do not know whether that was the primary objective.

For instance, if Sachin plays very well ... and then goes on to endorse several products ... I would not conclude that he is playing cricket just to get at those endorsements. Obviously, when a young lad today chooses to take up cricket instead of football, the commercial factors do have a bearing on that choice ... but, that does not make the choice or the act unethical. A very far fetched example, I know, but could not think up of anything better.

On the conversion issue - as with the 10C, this started out as an example .. lets keep it to that. My point is that let each person decide how important / unimportant his / her faith or religion is. Let us not make that judgment for him / her. As long as a person has a choice in the matter, I wouldnt look at it as unethical.