|
On July 28 2013 11:14 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 11:01 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 10:33 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 09:11 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 08:47 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 08:41 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 08:29 DoubleReed wrote:
I'm confused, Reason. You can have objectively bad things, especially if you're a consequentialist. Something is bad if it has bad consequences. And you define bad consequences as by its relation to human well-being. I might not have a perfect understanding of human well-being, but that's a problem with me, not human well-being.
Cutting off a dude's arm isn't a subjective thing. The arm is a real thing, being cut off. It shoots real electricity through somebody's nerves, and stuff like that. There's nothing subjective there. And if that arm had gangrene then it was hopefully worth it to save the dude's life. But I don't see where subjectivity fits into it.
I don't like the word "wrong" because it conflates incorrectness with badness, which are completely different. And it can cause you to be confrontational when you are just trying to correct somebody. Something is bad if it has bad consequences? Bad for who? It's subjective. It's bad for the dude getting his arm cut off, he's in a lot of pain. Guess what? I'm a sick fuck that enjoys cutting off arms and I'm getting loads of pleasure from this. From my subjective perspective it's not bad, it's awesome. Objectively? It's neither good nor bad. It's simply happening. It's a matter of perspective. It's subjective. + Show Spoiler +No dudes were harmed in the making of this post and the opinions expressed within do not necessarily reflect those of the author. I wonder how you define morality. Because it's not an easy word to define. If it's subjective, then I would think it impossible for people to say to other people that their actions are wrong, but in fact, people do this all the time. This just doesn't seem to fit the definition of morality that people actually use. Yes, under a subjective view of morality, then this is perfectly valid. But that, as far as I've seen, is simply not what people mean by morality. If they did, then people would not call other people immoral or bad. It encompasses more than just personal preferences. The best definition I've seen for what people actually mean by morality is the "optimization of human well-being." Now we can disagree on what "human well-being" means and all the details and stuff, but it suddenly loses all its subjectivity with this definition. As soon as you begin to attribute qualities that are dependent on the observer you're making a subjective observation. If we didn't exist black holes would still exist but there would be no one to think that they're cool. If we didn't exist there would be no declarations of cool or uncool, good or bad, right or wrong, etc things would simply be. For this reason any such declaration is by definition subjective. You cannot have an objective opinion, you either state an objective fact or you state a subjective opinion. Morals and ethics are matters of opinion, the world we live in demonstrates this clearly. Even if one day we all agree on matters of morality, which would be great, it would simply be a collective subjective agreement rather than an objective truth. You can't just dictate that "morals and ethics are a matter of opinion," because that's the whole discussion we're having. As I said, I think this is a definition dispute. I don't think this is a real argument. I don't agree on your definition of good and bad and I don't agree with your definition of morality as simply personal preference. I use the fact that people try to enforce their morality on others all the time as evidence that your definition is not the one that people use. The best way to get around definition disputes is to simply use different words. So let me ask you a different question: Regardless of your opinion of morality, do you think the 'optimization of human well-being' is objective? Do you think something like that could be objective? What exactly don't you agree with? USA thinks capital punishment is morally right, UK thinks it's morally wrong. You have a problem with that? Do you think there's an objective truth about whether capital punishment is right or wrong? Optimal well-being or minimal suffering, however you want to put it... I don't know. Some people think that all animals have a common ancestor. Some people don't. This does not say that evolution is subjective. This is saying that people have different information, different experiences, and arrive at different conclusions for the same question. Laws like capital punishment are trying to approximate morality. Like we do with everything, we do the best we can with what we have.
So is your answer yes? You do believe there is an objective truth as to whether capital punishment is right or wrong?
I don't think equating historical fact with moral judgements supports or weakens any position on objective or subjective morality so I'm at a loss as to why you've drawn such an analogy.
Not knowing the answer yet isn't the same as an answer not existing.
|
On July 27 2013 23:07 Shiori wrote:I am absolutely baffled that people are defending the practice on the grounds of "it's their culture." I think a lot of time is being wasted with Danglars' sort of sophistical point about where the line between harmful and merely temporarily uncomfortable should be drawn. Actually, Danglars' point is a good one, but I don't think it's relevant to this issue because, wherever the line is drawn regarding awful traditions vs okay ones, FGM is definitely on the awful side. I don't think anyone disputes that. With that in mind, I don't really think there's anything Western nations can do about it short of yelling at these tribes until they stop mutilating their women. I don't really think that fundamental rights like the right to not have your body utterly mutilated at a young age (after being indoctrinated in misogyny) is something which culture should supersede. Show nested quote +you can not justify the goodness of the 'personal freedom' idea, when you impose yours onto others. False dichotomy. Nobody's freedom is being impugned when someone says that FGM is bad and should be abolished. Why? Because the women who "consent" to FGM are not in a position to give informed consent, as they have been pressured/indoctrinated by a misogynistic philosophy; this should be obvious. Whose freedom is being infringed if we say that FGM is a massive imposition on personal freedom?
Well, I'd consider it an ethical point but whatever. You have to throw aside that much of how FGM is practiced (the horrible) to get to the second point. It's obviously so polarized since I included
It's cruel painful and designed to deprive sexual pleasure or mutilate for proof of virginity. Abhorrent aims, barbaric practices. , and I want that to end.
If any of you out there can consider independently one of the subcategories, which I think you'll see if very much in line with other practices across the continent (as mentioned, coming of age ceremonies, hunting rites, etc). You'll see that symbolic circumcision, or pricking, that causes pain but leaves no damage, is still considered mutilation. I think its unnecessarily swept up in the storm of ANY pain and ANY blood that was being tossed around. I've gotta end my discussion here because it's clear that nobody here wants to discuss that point or feels it has any bearing (sophistry comes in there, since the other FGM categories haven't been ended, and there is still present a strong connection at this moment in time). My aims are thankfully united with most here, and most of what the UN is doing, and I have already read abundant literature on the subject showing even more misunderstanding and coercion that is generally known.
|
I want to apologize for the post I made earlier  . I didn't have a grasp on the issue at all, and I realize that after following this thread a bit more.
|
On July 28 2013 10:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 05:49 DeepElemBlues wrote:He's not using consent wrong. You just took a completely ridiculous interpretation of what he said. Nope. You're just saying something that's completely ridiculous because you don't like what I said. It boggles the mind that people can think that a wholly internal decision can be characterized as one where consent is absent. Husband wants sex; wife doesn't but with no compulsion from him, because of her own beliefs, has sex with him. Where is the lack of consent? She decided to consent because of an internally felt obligation. Her husband is not controlling her decision-making. She is. I meant women saying that husbands raping wives in general (not their husband raping them) is legit. Reread my post.
I figured that out but thanks for confirming it yourself. And no I won't reread it :p
|
I don't get the fuss. It's not objectively wrong, it's just culture. Okay. Great.
Well, what if my culture is to colonize and force my values onto sick fucks who mutilate women? What's wrong with that?
Or is that objectively wrong?
+ Show Spoiler +Does no one else notice that in a thread full of people talking about how it's not wrong to take a toddler and mutilate her genitals, being accused of being a cultural-imperialist causes all kinds of back-stepping and denials? As if being a cultural imperialist is somehow more heinous than mutilating babies?
|
On July 28 2013 11:21 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 11:14 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 11:01 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 10:33 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 09:11 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 08:47 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 08:41 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 08:29 DoubleReed wrote:
I'm confused, Reason. You can have objectively bad things, especially if you're a consequentialist. Something is bad if it has bad consequences. And you define bad consequences as by its relation to human well-being. I might not have a perfect understanding of human well-being, but that's a problem with me, not human well-being.
Cutting off a dude's arm isn't a subjective thing. The arm is a real thing, being cut off. It shoots real electricity through somebody's nerves, and stuff like that. There's nothing subjective there. And if that arm had gangrene then it was hopefully worth it to save the dude's life. But I don't see where subjectivity fits into it.
I don't like the word "wrong" because it conflates incorrectness with badness, which are completely different. And it can cause you to be confrontational when you are just trying to correct somebody. Something is bad if it has bad consequences? Bad for who? It's subjective. It's bad for the dude getting his arm cut off, he's in a lot of pain. Guess what? I'm a sick fuck that enjoys cutting off arms and I'm getting loads of pleasure from this. From my subjective perspective it's not bad, it's awesome. Objectively? It's neither good nor bad. It's simply happening. It's a matter of perspective. It's subjective. + Show Spoiler +No dudes were harmed in the making of this post and the opinions expressed within do not necessarily reflect those of the author. I wonder how you define morality. Because it's not an easy word to define. If it's subjective, then I would think it impossible for people to say to other people that their actions are wrong, but in fact, people do this all the time. This just doesn't seem to fit the definition of morality that people actually use. Yes, under a subjective view of morality, then this is perfectly valid. But that, as far as I've seen, is simply not what people mean by morality. If they did, then people would not call other people immoral or bad. It encompasses more than just personal preferences. The best definition I've seen for what people actually mean by morality is the "optimization of human well-being." Now we can disagree on what "human well-being" means and all the details and stuff, but it suddenly loses all its subjectivity with this definition. As soon as you begin to attribute qualities that are dependent on the observer you're making a subjective observation. If we didn't exist black holes would still exist but there would be no one to think that they're cool. If we didn't exist there would be no declarations of cool or uncool, good or bad, right or wrong, etc things would simply be. For this reason any such declaration is by definition subjective. You cannot have an objective opinion, you either state an objective fact or you state a subjective opinion. Morals and ethics are matters of opinion, the world we live in demonstrates this clearly. Even if one day we all agree on matters of morality, which would be great, it would simply be a collective subjective agreement rather than an objective truth. You can't just dictate that "morals and ethics are a matter of opinion," because that's the whole discussion we're having. As I said, I think this is a definition dispute. I don't think this is a real argument. I don't agree on your definition of good and bad and I don't agree with your definition of morality as simply personal preference. I use the fact that people try to enforce their morality on others all the time as evidence that your definition is not the one that people use. The best way to get around definition disputes is to simply use different words. So let me ask you a different question: Regardless of your opinion of morality, do you think the 'optimization of human well-being' is objective? Do you think something like that could be objective? What exactly don't you agree with? USA thinks capital punishment is morally right, UK thinks it's morally wrong. You have a problem with that? Do you think there's an objective truth about whether capital punishment is right or wrong? Optimal well-being or minimal suffering, however you want to put it... I don't know. Some people think that all animals have a common ancestor. Some people don't. This does not say that evolution is subjective. This is saying that people have different information, different experiences, and arrive at different conclusions for the same question. Laws like capital punishment are trying to approximate morality. Like we do with everything, we do the best we can with what we have. So is your answer yes? You do believe there is an objective truth as to whether capital punishment is right or wrong? I don't think equating historical fact with moral judgements supports or weakens any position on objective or subjective morality so I'm at a loss as to why you've drawn such an analogy. Not knowing the answer yet isn't the same as an answer not existing.
I don't know why you're asking me a sweeping question like capital punishment. That's not a good example, because at the very least it would be incredibly highly specific to the cases. I would suggest coming up with a specific hypothetical or something.
I don't understand why you wrote the last line, because that's totally what I was going to say to you. Why are you saying that because people disagree, that means the answer doesn't exist? This does not follow. People disagree on things that are objective all the time, like evolution. This has no bearing on the answer to the question.
Considering that we used to see nothing wrong with slavery, it should not be expected that us humans just magically know the correct answer of how to best treat each other or enhance human well-being. We don't know the answer. But we do try to figure it out. And even if we aren't very good at figuring things out, we are very good are disagreeing with each other.
|
On July 28 2013 11:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I don't get the fuss. It's not objectively wrong, it's just culture. Okay. Great.
Well, what if my culture is to colonize and force my values onto sick fucks who mutilate women? What's wrong with that?
Or is that objectively wrong?
If it's not acceptable to the Africans, let them decide. Now, if they come into my country and want FGM on Canadian women, fuck that. But that's not the case. Do you get it yet?
|
On July 28 2013 12:01 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 11:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I don't get the fuss. It's not objectively wrong, it's just culture. Okay. Great.
Well, what if my culture is to colonize and force my values onto sick fucks who mutilate women? What's wrong with that?
Or is that objectively wrong? If it's not acceptable to the Africans, let them decide. Now, if they come into my country and want FGM on Canadian women, fuck that. But that's not the case. Do you get it yet?
What if my cultural values lead me to the conclusion that my country should take over them and force them to do it the right way?
Why leave it up to them to decide? I think deciding for them is much better.
|
On July 28 2013 12:02 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 12:01 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 11:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I don't get the fuss. It's not objectively wrong, it's just culture. Okay. Great.
Well, what if my culture is to colonize and force my values onto sick fucks who mutilate women? What's wrong with that?
Or is that objectively wrong? If it's not acceptable to the Africans, let them decide. Now, if they come into my country and want FGM on Canadian women, fuck that. But that's not the case. Do you get it yet? What if my cultural values lead me to the conclusion that my country should take over them and force them to do it the right way? Why leave it up to them to decide? I think deciding for them is much better.
exactly. we should invade their country, destroy their sovereignty, kill everyone who opposes us imposing our culture and then when all is said and done, our objective morality will reign supreme. since we won, we can rewrite the history books to make sure that everyone forgets all the shit we did to impose our morality, and also anyone who disputes it, we should kill them too.
saying FGM is wrong is one thing, imposing our will on others is another.
|
On July 28 2013 12:02 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 12:01 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 11:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I don't get the fuss. It's not objectively wrong, it's just culture. Okay. Great.
Well, what if my culture is to colonize and force my values onto sick fucks who mutilate women? What's wrong with that?
Or is that objectively wrong? If it's not acceptable to the Africans, let them decide. Now, if they come into my country and want FGM on Canadian women, fuck that. But that's not the case. Do you get it yet? What if my cultural values lead me to the conclusion that my country should take over them and force them to do it the right way? Why leave it up to them to decide? I think deciding for them is much better.
Don't hide behind "what if". You still don't get it.
If your cultural value led you to attack me (and my people), I will fight you. If you cultural value leads you to attack your own people, I have other things within my own country to worry about.
Get it yet?
|
On July 28 2013 12:06 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 12:02 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 28 2013 12:01 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 11:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I don't get the fuss. It's not objectively wrong, it's just culture. Okay. Great.
Well, what if my culture is to colonize and force my values onto sick fucks who mutilate women? What's wrong with that?
Or is that objectively wrong? If it's not acceptable to the Africans, let them decide. Now, if they come into my country and want FGM on Canadian women, fuck that. But that's not the case. Do you get it yet? What if my cultural values lead me to the conclusion that my country should take over them and force them to do it the right way? Why leave it up to them to decide? I think deciding for them is much better. Don't hide behind "what if". You still don't get it. If your cultural value led you to attack me, I will fight you. If you cultural value leads you to attack your own people, I have other things within my own country to worry about.
So if my cultural values lead me to colonize them and enforce my morality upon them, they will resist? Okay. So what? Can they resist? I propose that most of the countries engaged in such practices are incapable of mounting a solid resistance to any kind of true colonization.
Now, if you think colonization is morally wrong, than I propose the other question: Is it more wrong than enforcing genital mutilation on women?
And if you are arguing that it's just not worth your time... okay. What if it is worth my time?
On July 28 2013 12:05 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 12:02 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 28 2013 12:01 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 11:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I don't get the fuss. It's not objectively wrong, it's just culture. Okay. Great.
Well, what if my culture is to colonize and force my values onto sick fucks who mutilate women? What's wrong with that?
Or is that objectively wrong? If it's not acceptable to the Africans, let them decide. Now, if they come into my country and want FGM on Canadian women, fuck that. But that's not the case. Do you get it yet? What if my cultural values lead me to the conclusion that my country should take over them and force them to do it the right way? Why leave it up to them to decide? I think deciding for them is much better. exactly. we should invade their country, destroy their sovereignty, kill everyone who opposes us imposing our culture and then when all is said and done, our objective morality will reign supreme. since we won, we can rewrite the history books to make sure that everyone forgets all the shit we did to impose our morality, and also anyone who disputes it, we should kill them too. saying FGM is wrong is one thing, imposing our will on others is another.
Why rewrite history? Why kill everyone? No. What you do is invade, crush their sovereignty, enforce standards of behavior and enact compulsory education for all children. Give it a generation or two and you will have bred most of the backwardness out of them. Of course you might have to break a few bad eggs, but at the end of the day, is that worse than allowing a horrific practice to continue unopposed?
|
On July 28 2013 12:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 12:06 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 12:02 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 28 2013 12:01 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 11:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I don't get the fuss. It's not objectively wrong, it's just culture. Okay. Great.
Well, what if my culture is to colonize and force my values onto sick fucks who mutilate women? What's wrong with that?
Or is that objectively wrong? If it's not acceptable to the Africans, let them decide. Now, if they come into my country and want FGM on Canadian women, fuck that. But that's not the case. Do you get it yet? What if my cultural values lead me to the conclusion that my country should take over them and force them to do it the right way? Why leave it up to them to decide? I think deciding for them is much better. Don't hide behind "what if". You still don't get it. If your cultural value led you to attack me, I will fight you. If you cultural value leads you to attack your own people, I have other things within my own country to worry about. So if my cultural values lead me to colonize them and enforce my morality upon them, they will resists? Okay. So what? Can they resist? I propose that most of the countries engaged in such practices are incapable of mounting a solid resistance to any kind of true colonization. Now, if you think colonization is morally wrong, than I propose the other question: Is it more wrong than enforcing genital mutilation on women? Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 12:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 28 2013 12:02 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 28 2013 12:01 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 11:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I don't get the fuss. It's not objectively wrong, it's just culture. Okay. Great.
Well, what if my culture is to colonize and force my values onto sick fucks who mutilate women? What's wrong with that?
Or is that objectively wrong? If it's not acceptable to the Africans, let them decide. Now, if they come into my country and want FGM on Canadian women, fuck that. But that's not the case. Do you get it yet? What if my cultural values lead me to the conclusion that my country should take over them and force them to do it the right way? Why leave it up to them to decide? I think deciding for them is much better. exactly. we should invade their country, destroy their sovereignty, kill everyone who opposes us imposing our culture and then when all is said and done, our objective morality will reign supreme. since we won, we can rewrite the history books to make sure that everyone forgets all the shit we did to impose our morality, and also anyone who disputes it, we should kill them too. saying FGM is wrong is one thing, imposing our will on others is another. Why rewrite history? Why kill everyone? No. what you do is invade, crush their sovereignty, enforce standards of behavior and enact compulsory education for all children. Give it a generation or two and you will have bred most of the backwardness out of them. Of course you might have to break a few bad eggs, but at the end of the day, is that worse than allowing a horrific practice to continue unopposed?
of course thats not worse. thats a great idea. eugenics, re-education, world colonization...these are the stuff of legend. i dont know why anyone would even speak out against such a great plan.
also, can we invade thailand too? those fuckers are mutilating their women too. look at this shit:
![[image loading]](http://i1-news.softpedia-static.com/images/news2/The-Giraffe-Women-of-the-Neck-Rings-2.jpg)
they deserve to die.
|
On July 28 2013 12:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 12:06 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 12:02 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 28 2013 12:01 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 11:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I don't get the fuss. It's not objectively wrong, it's just culture. Okay. Great.
Well, what if my culture is to colonize and force my values onto sick fucks who mutilate women? What's wrong with that?
Or is that objectively wrong? If it's not acceptable to the Africans, let them decide. Now, if they come into my country and want FGM on Canadian women, fuck that. But that's not the case. Do you get it yet? What if my cultural values lead me to the conclusion that my country should take over them and force them to do it the right way? Why leave it up to them to decide? I think deciding for them is much better. Don't hide behind "what if". You still don't get it. If your cultural value led you to attack me, I will fight you. If you cultural value leads you to attack your own people, I have other things within my own country to worry about. So if my cultural values lead me to colonize them and enforce my morality upon them, they will resist? Okay. So what? Can they resist? I propose that most of the countries engaged in such practices are incapable of mounting a solid resistance to any kind of true colonization. Now, if you think colonization is morally wrong, than I propose the other question: Is it more wrong than enforcing genital mutilation on women? And if you are arguing that it's just not worth your time... okay. What if it is worth my time?
Your statement in bold reflects the arrogance of your position. Has Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq taught you nothing?
The ignorance of your position is also reflected in the fact that you think colonization ever occurred for cultural purposes. It is and will always be for economic gain.
/edit
Superficial moral outrage like this will be exploited and used as an excuse for controlling resources in those countries. You really think our politicians give a shit about Africans? We can barely get to them care about us - their own citizens.
|
On July 28 2013 12:06 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 12:02 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 28 2013 12:01 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 11:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I don't get the fuss. It's not objectively wrong, it's just culture. Okay. Great.
Well, what if my culture is to colonize and force my values onto sick fucks who mutilate women? What's wrong with that?
Or is that objectively wrong? If it's not acceptable to the Africans, let them decide. Now, if they come into my country and want FGM on Canadian women, fuck that. But that's not the case. Do you get it yet? What if my cultural values lead me to the conclusion that my country should take over them and force them to do it the right way? Why leave it up to them to decide? I think deciding for them is much better. Don't hide behind "what if". You still don't get it. If your cultural value led you to attack me (and my people), I will fight you. If you cultural value leads you to attack your own people, I have other things within my own country to worry about. Get it yet?
The "your own people" doesn't make any sense. You don't own those people, you no right to enforce your values on them (ironically much like you just argued internationally).
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
Plenty of colonialisation occurred for reasons other than economics
|
in india, they force girls to marry animals at young ages.
we should kill them too superfan.
|
On July 28 2013 12:16 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 12:06 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 12:02 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 28 2013 12:01 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 11:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I don't get the fuss. It's not objectively wrong, it's just culture. Okay. Great.
Well, what if my culture is to colonize and force my values onto sick fucks who mutilate women? What's wrong with that?
Or is that objectively wrong? If it's not acceptable to the Africans, let them decide. Now, if they come into my country and want FGM on Canadian women, fuck that. But that's not the case. Do you get it yet? What if my cultural values lead me to the conclusion that my country should take over them and force them to do it the right way? Why leave it up to them to decide? I think deciding for them is much better. Don't hide behind "what if". You still don't get it. If your cultural value led you to attack me (and my people), I will fight you. If you cultural value leads you to attack your own people, I have other things within my own country to worry about. Get it yet? The "your own people" doesn't make any sense. You don't own those people, you no right to enforce your values on them (ironically much like you just argued internationally).
I make that statement not in terms of ownership, but rather of belonging. It's weird that you think that I think I can own the entirety of "my people".
|
On July 28 2013 12:14 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 12:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 28 2013 12:06 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 12:02 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 28 2013 12:01 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 11:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I don't get the fuss. It's not objectively wrong, it's just culture. Okay. Great.
Well, what if my culture is to colonize and force my values onto sick fucks who mutilate women? What's wrong with that?
Or is that objectively wrong? If it's not acceptable to the Africans, let them decide. Now, if they come into my country and want FGM on Canadian women, fuck that. But that's not the case. Do you get it yet? What if my cultural values lead me to the conclusion that my country should take over them and force them to do it the right way? Why leave it up to them to decide? I think deciding for them is much better. Don't hide behind "what if". You still don't get it. If your cultural value led you to attack me, I will fight you. If you cultural value leads you to attack your own people, I have other things within my own country to worry about. So if my cultural values lead me to colonize them and enforce my morality upon them, they will resists? Okay. So what? Can they resist? I propose that most of the countries engaged in such practices are incapable of mounting a solid resistance to any kind of true colonization. Now, if you think colonization is morally wrong, than I propose the other question: Is it more wrong than enforcing genital mutilation on women? On July 28 2013 12:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 28 2013 12:02 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 28 2013 12:01 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 11:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I don't get the fuss. It's not objectively wrong, it's just culture. Okay. Great.
Well, what if my culture is to colonize and force my values onto sick fucks who mutilate women? What's wrong with that?
Or is that objectively wrong? If it's not acceptable to the Africans, let them decide. Now, if they come into my country and want FGM on Canadian women, fuck that. But that's not the case. Do you get it yet? What if my cultural values lead me to the conclusion that my country should take over them and force them to do it the right way? Why leave it up to them to decide? I think deciding for them is much better. exactly. we should invade their country, destroy their sovereignty, kill everyone who opposes us imposing our culture and then when all is said and done, our objective morality will reign supreme. since we won, we can rewrite the history books to make sure that everyone forgets all the shit we did to impose our morality, and also anyone who disputes it, we should kill them too. saying FGM is wrong is one thing, imposing our will on others is another. Why rewrite history? Why kill everyone? No. what you do is invade, crush their sovereignty, enforce standards of behavior and enact compulsory education for all children. Give it a generation or two and you will have bred most of the backwardness out of them. Of course you might have to break a few bad eggs, but at the end of the day, is that worse than allowing a horrific practice to continue unopposed? of course thats not worse. thats a great idea. eugenics, re-education, world colonization...these are the stuff of legend. i dont know why anyone would even speak out against such a great plan. also, can we invade thailand too? those fuckers are mutilating their women too. look at this shit: they deserve to die.
Eugenics? Who said anything about eugenics?
Re-education? Well I fail to see what's wrong with that.
World colonization? You could argue against it, but then again, colonization did bring vast benefits along with the vast costs. It's not so simple as: "colonization is wrong."
Obviously, being rational people, we can distinguish between archaic practices that should be advocated against, and brutal practices that deserve intervention. Arguing extremes and slippery slopes doesn't do your already shaky position any good.
|
On July 28 2013 11:59 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 11:21 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 11:14 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 11:01 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 10:33 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 09:11 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 08:47 DoubleReed wrote:On July 28 2013 08:41 Reason wrote:On July 28 2013 08:29 DoubleReed wrote:
I'm confused, Reason. You can have objectively bad things, especially if you're a consequentialist. Something is bad if it has bad consequences. And you define bad consequences as by its relation to human well-being. I might not have a perfect understanding of human well-being, but that's a problem with me, not human well-being.
Cutting off a dude's arm isn't a subjective thing. The arm is a real thing, being cut off. It shoots real electricity through somebody's nerves, and stuff like that. There's nothing subjective there. And if that arm had gangrene then it was hopefully worth it to save the dude's life. But I don't see where subjectivity fits into it.
I don't like the word "wrong" because it conflates incorrectness with badness, which are completely different. And it can cause you to be confrontational when you are just trying to correct somebody. Something is bad if it has bad consequences? Bad for who? It's subjective. It's bad for the dude getting his arm cut off, he's in a lot of pain. Guess what? I'm a sick fuck that enjoys cutting off arms and I'm getting loads of pleasure from this. From my subjective perspective it's not bad, it's awesome. Objectively? It's neither good nor bad. It's simply happening. It's a matter of perspective. It's subjective. + Show Spoiler +No dudes were harmed in the making of this post and the opinions expressed within do not necessarily reflect those of the author. I wonder how you define morality. Because it's not an easy word to define. If it's subjective, then I would think it impossible for people to say to other people that their actions are wrong, but in fact, people do this all the time. This just doesn't seem to fit the definition of morality that people actually use. Yes, under a subjective view of morality, then this is perfectly valid. But that, as far as I've seen, is simply not what people mean by morality. If they did, then people would not call other people immoral or bad. It encompasses more than just personal preferences. The best definition I've seen for what people actually mean by morality is the "optimization of human well-being." Now we can disagree on what "human well-being" means and all the details and stuff, but it suddenly loses all its subjectivity with this definition. As soon as you begin to attribute qualities that are dependent on the observer you're making a subjective observation. If we didn't exist black holes would still exist but there would be no one to think that they're cool. If we didn't exist there would be no declarations of cool or uncool, good or bad, right or wrong, etc things would simply be. For this reason any such declaration is by definition subjective. You cannot have an objective opinion, you either state an objective fact or you state a subjective opinion. Morals and ethics are matters of opinion, the world we live in demonstrates this clearly. Even if one day we all agree on matters of morality, which would be great, it would simply be a collective subjective agreement rather than an objective truth. You can't just dictate that "morals and ethics are a matter of opinion," because that's the whole discussion we're having. As I said, I think this is a definition dispute. I don't think this is a real argument. I don't agree on your definition of good and bad and I don't agree with your definition of morality as simply personal preference. I use the fact that people try to enforce their morality on others all the time as evidence that your definition is not the one that people use. The best way to get around definition disputes is to simply use different words. So let me ask you a different question: Regardless of your opinion of morality, do you think the 'optimization of human well-being' is objective? Do you think something like that could be objective? What exactly don't you agree with? USA thinks capital punishment is morally right, UK thinks it's morally wrong. You have a problem with that? Do you think there's an objective truth about whether capital punishment is right or wrong? Optimal well-being or minimal suffering, however you want to put it... I don't know. Some people think that all animals have a common ancestor. Some people don't. This does not say that evolution is subjective. This is saying that people have different information, different experiences, and arrive at different conclusions for the same question. Laws like capital punishment are trying to approximate morality. Like we do with everything, we do the best we can with what we have. So is your answer yes? You do believe there is an objective truth as to whether capital punishment is right or wrong? I don't think equating historical fact with moral judgements supports or weakens any position on objective or subjective morality so I'm at a loss as to why you've drawn such an analogy. Not knowing the answer yet isn't the same as an answer not existing. I don't know why you're asking me a sweeping question like capital punishment. That's not a good example, because at the very least it would be incredibly highly specific to the cases. I would suggest coming up with a specific hypothetical or something. I don't understand why you wrote the last line, because that's totally what I was going to say to you. Why are you saying that because people disagree, that means the answer doesn't exist? This does not follow. People disagree on things that are objective all the time, like evolution. This has no bearing on the answer to the question. Considering that we used to see nothing wrong with slavery, it should not be expected that us humans just magically know the correct answer of how to best treat each other or enhance human well-being. We don't know the answer. But we do try to figure it out. And even if we aren't very good at figuring things out, we are very good are disagreeing with each other.
So you think slavery is objectively wrong?
|
On July 28 2013 12:15 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 12:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 28 2013 12:06 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 12:02 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 28 2013 12:01 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 11:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I don't get the fuss. It's not objectively wrong, it's just culture. Okay. Great.
Well, what if my culture is to colonize and force my values onto sick fucks who mutilate women? What's wrong with that?
Or is that objectively wrong? If it's not acceptable to the Africans, let them decide. Now, if they come into my country and want FGM on Canadian women, fuck that. But that's not the case. Do you get it yet? What if my cultural values lead me to the conclusion that my country should take over them and force them to do it the right way? Why leave it up to them to decide? I think deciding for them is much better. Don't hide behind "what if". You still don't get it. If your cultural value led you to attack me, I will fight you. If you cultural value leads you to attack your own people, I have other things within my own country to worry about. So if my cultural values lead me to colonize them and enforce my morality upon them, they will resist? Okay. So what? Can they resist? I propose that most of the countries engaged in such practices are incapable of mounting a solid resistance to any kind of true colonization. Now, if you think colonization is morally wrong, than I propose the other question: Is it more wrong than enforcing genital mutilation on women? And if you are arguing that it's just not worth your time... okay. What if it is worth my time? Your statement in bold reflects the arrogance of your position. Has Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq taught you nothing? The ignorance of your position is also reflected in the fact that you think colonization ever occurred for cultural purposes. It is and will always be for economic gain. /edit Superficial moral outrage like this will be exploited and used as an excuse for controlling resources in those countries. You really think our politicians give a shit about Africans? We can barely get to them care about us - their own citizens.
I would argue that no true colonization occurred in Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq. Also, I would argue that colonization was never the goal or purpose of going into those places. Further, it could be argued (though that would be quite off-topic) that using colonization would have been much more effective in achieving desireable results in all three countries.
What it's for doesn't change the fact that many brutal practices were stamped out and many societies brought into the modern world through colonization. FMG would just be another in a long list of old-world practices that enlightened people (inb4 you accuse me of racism) did away with, often at the point of a bayonet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
