|
On July 28 2013 12:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 12:15 plogamer wrote: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.
the funniest part of this is that most european countries would say that they should be allowed to colonize the United States because of its backwards values and principles. i'm sure most of the europeans that frequent the general forum would likely agree.
|
On July 28 2013 12:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 12:15 plogamer wrote: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.
True colonization. Hahaha. You can use double-speak all you want, the resources put into getting boots on the ground in those countries easily dwarfed the resources available to the opposing forces.
Great. So you're no different than an Islamist's conversion at the point of a sword.
/edit
And you still don't get it. Colonization was not for stamping out cruel practices. Actually, slavery is a very good example of a practice that was beneficial economically, but cruel and continued under colonial rule.
|
On July 28 2013 12:18 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 12:16 Roe 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 (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".
My point remains
edit: I just noticed: belonging, not owning? right....
|
On July 28 2013 12:30 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 12:18 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 12:16 Roe 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 (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". My point remains
If Canada gets invaded because some country was FGM here and Canadians in general are resisting - I will too. You're kind of going off into tangent.
|
On July 28 2013 12:32 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 12:30 Roe wrote:On July 28 2013 12:18 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 12:16 Roe 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 (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". My point remains If Canada gets invaded because some country was FGM here and Canadians in general are resisting - I will too. You're kind of going off into tangent.
And I will too. But not because they're "my people". Because I find it morally the right thing to do based on argument, logic, evidence, etc. There's no tangent.
|
How did this become an argument about colonization...
1. No true colonization was attempted in Iraq Afghanistan or Vietnam yes
2. Pseudo-colonization certainly was the goal
3. If true colonization had been attempted yeah things probably would have been better since we would have had Afghan warlords and ex-Iraqi Army groups on our payroll from the start (instead of trying to kill them or marginalize them, which in Afghanistan didn't work out so well), actually we never would have disbanded the Iraqi army in the first place
A .333 average may get you into the baseball hall of fame but it's pretty bad everywhere else superfan.
|
I don't understand why so much of this thread is dedicated to war. You don't like FGM? Clearly you want to go to war! IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT, STEVE? WAR?
|
On July 28 2013 12:34 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 12:32 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 12:30 Roe wrote:On July 28 2013 12:18 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 12:16 Roe 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 (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". My point remains If Canada gets invaded because some country was FGM here and Canadians in general are resisting - I will too. You're kind of going off into tangent. And I will too. But not because they're "my people". Because I find it morally the right thing to do based on argument, logic, evidence, etc. There's no tangent.
Okay, that's fine by me. It does not infringe on me. And if you don't feel that Canadians are your people, that's you.
|
On July 28 2013 12:38 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 12:34 Roe wrote:On July 28 2013 12:32 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 12:30 Roe wrote:On July 28 2013 12:18 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 12:16 Roe 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 (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". My point remains If Canada gets invaded because some country was FGM here and Canadians in general are resisting - I will too. You're kind of going off into tangent. And I will too. But not because they're "my people". Because I find it morally the right thing to do based on argument, logic, evidence, etc. There's no tangent. Okay, that's fine by me. It does not infringe on me. And if you don't feel that Canadians are your people, that's you.
Who else would it be? rather clever aren't we? 
And still relevant, and still unanswered: how are Canadians "my" people? is it just that we have the same citizenship? You said I belong to Canada/Canadians but what does that mean? And why does this stop me from making moral evaluations concerning "other peoples"?
|
On July 28 2013 12:42 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 12:38 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 12:34 Roe wrote:On July 28 2013 12:32 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 12:30 Roe wrote:On July 28 2013 12:18 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 12:16 Roe 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:
[quote]
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". My point remains If Canada gets invaded because some country was FGM here and Canadians in general are resisting - I will too. You're kind of going off into tangent. And I will too. But not because they're "my people". Because I find it morally the right thing to do based on argument, logic, evidence, etc. There's no tangent. Okay, that's fine by me. It does not infringe on me. And if you don't feel that Canadians are your people, that's you. Who else would it be? rather clever aren't we? And still relevant, and still unanswered: how are Canadians "my" people? is it just that we have the same citizenship? You said I belong to Canada/Canadians but what does that mean? And why does this stop me from making moral evaluations concerning "other peoples"?
It doesn't stop you from making moral evaluations. But it helps draw a line when you make priorities when it comes to taking actions based on those evaluations.
Invest millions of dollars in fixing another country's problems? Or invest that into fixing our own?
/edit
And that's exactly why foreign intervention always comes with strings. Someone's gotta pay for it.
/edit
And how am I supposed to answer how you belong in Canada? I expressed how I feel my belonging. Your mileage may vary.
|
For most of this thread I've been quite annoyed with people talking about how tradition and culture somehow justifies the mutilation of the genitals of little girls, and I had an interesting thought.
Although the notion that we would go to war against countries which practice FGM is absurd, people have been speaking of it as if it were a legitimate possibility, most likely because a shitload of people don't understand international relations.
Regardless, it's funny to think that people are defending the mutilation of little girls on grounds that anything related to culture or tradition is automatically valid and acceptable. Wouldn't it mean, by extension, that our long western culture of fucking everybody else's shit also justified? We've been doing it for hundreds of years while they were mutilating children, perhaps we also have this acquired right?
Now I don't believe in acquired rights or sacred traditions, but I'm curious to see how people would argue with the idea. Perhaps tradition only matters when it belongs to minorities. That would be convenient.
|
On July 28 2013 12:54 Djzapz wrote:
For most of this thread I've been quite annoyed with people talking about how tradition and culture somehow justifies the mutilation of the genitals of little girls, and I had an interesting thought.
Although the notion that we would go to war against countries which practice FGM is absurd, people have been speaking of it as if it were a legitimate possibility, most likely because a shitload of people don't understand international relations.
Regardless, it's funny to think that people are defending the mutilation of little girls on grounds that anything related to culture or tradition is automatically valid and acceptable. Wouldn't it mean, by extension, that our long western culture of fucking everybody else's shit also justified? We've been doing it for hundreds of years while they were mutilating children, perhaps we also have this acquired right?
Now I don't believe in acquired rights, but I'm curious to see how people would argue with the argument. Perhaps tradition only matters when it belongs to minorities. That would be convenient.
For someone who critiques others' understanding of international relations, you don't seem the grasp the concept of autonomy and self-determination.
|
On July 28 2013 12:22 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 11:59 DoubleReed wrote: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?
Yes. Slavery is bad for human well-being. Principles of autonomy and freedom are important for people's happiness and things like that. Do you disagree with either of those statements?
I already know your claim is that slavery is just slavery and has no objective value judgement, because you're using a different definition. If you can't even say that slavery is wrong, then don't you think your version of morality is totally useless?
|
On July 28 2013 13:01 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 12:54 Djzapz wrote:
For most of this thread I've been quite annoyed with people talking about how tradition and culture somehow justifies the mutilation of the genitals of little girls, and I had an interesting thought.
Although the notion that we would go to war against countries which practice FGM is absurd, people have been speaking of it as if it were a legitimate possibility, most likely because a shitload of people don't understand international relations.
Regardless, it's funny to think that people are defending the mutilation of little girls on grounds that anything related to culture or tradition is automatically valid and acceptable. Wouldn't it mean, by extension, that our long western culture of fucking everybody else's shit also justified? We've been doing it for hundreds of years while they were mutilating children, perhaps we also have this acquired right?
Now I don't believe in acquired rights, but I'm curious to see how people would argue with the argument. Perhaps tradition only matters when it belongs to minorities. That would be convenient. For someone who critiques others' understanding of international relations, you don't seem the grasp the concept of autonomy and self-determination.
I want to preface my post by saying that I didn't even mention the concepts of autonomy and self-determination which is why your post is ridiculous and cheap.
I don't know why you think I don't understand the concepts simply because I've bypassed them in the exact same way that the people who argue for culture and tradition bypass FGM by saying that everything that falls under the category "culture and tradition" is automatically acceptable. I don't know why you arbitrarily get to choose that autonomy and self-determination somehow supersedes the idea that a little girl's genital should not be mutilated.
Anyway, if you bring self-determination to a micro scale, look at those individuals who have their "self-determination" yanked from them at a young age so that a country can get its own little platform. Perhaps you don't value that. I personally think a little girl's right not to be mutilated is more important than a nation's little bullshit customs.
This always happens... someone says "clearly you don't understand because you disagree". Get your stuff together. Internet arguments will always be plagued with remarks like that which would get laughs in real life.
|
On July 28 2013 12:30 plogamer wrote:
Great. So you're no different than an Islamist's conversion at the point of a sword.
Except for the one key difference in that my conversions would lead toward modernization and prosperity. There's would not.
And you still don't get it. Colonization was not for stamping out cruel practices. Actually, slavery is a very good example of a practice that was beneficial economically, but cruel and continued under colonial rule.
And once again the problem comes in with looking at only one side of the story. Those same colonizing powers that engaged in slavery (colonizers did not create slavery) were the ones who got rid of it.
Colonization certainly had an economic purpose. I've never argued otherwise. However, it also had a moral foundation (in some cases) and it DID lead to numerous benefits, not the least of which was the abolition of barbaric practices like FGM.
You can go ahead and keep looking at only the bad and saying: "Well, see bad stuff happened therefore it was all bad" and ignoring the net benefit to colonization all you want, but wiser minds will agree that sometimes it is the duty and burden of enlightened people to step in an uplift those masses who simply don't know any better.
|
On July 28 2013 12:29 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 12:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 28 2013 12:15 plogamer wrote: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. the funniest part of this is that most european countries would say that they should be allowed to colonize the United States because of its backwards values and principles. i'm sure most of the europeans that frequent the general forum would likely agree.
Yes, I can see how things like no Universal Health care and no guaranteed education/income are as heinous as mutilating a baby's genitals. That's a fine equivocation you have there.
|
On July 28 2013 13:05 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 13:01 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 12:54 Djzapz wrote:
For most of this thread I've been quite annoyed with people talking about how tradition and culture somehow justifies the mutilation of the genitals of little girls, and I had an interesting thought.
Although the notion that we would go to war against countries which practice FGM is absurd, people have been speaking of it as if it were a legitimate possibility, most likely because a shitload of people don't understand international relations.
Regardless, it's funny to think that people are defending the mutilation of little girls on grounds that anything related to culture or tradition is automatically valid and acceptable. Wouldn't it mean, by extension, that our long western culture of fucking everybody else's shit also justified? We've been doing it for hundreds of years while they were mutilating children, perhaps we also have this acquired right?
Now I don't believe in acquired rights, but I'm curious to see how people would argue with the argument. Perhaps tradition only matters when it belongs to minorities. That would be convenient. For someone who critiques others' understanding of international relations, you don't seem the grasp the concept of autonomy and self-determination. I don't know why you think I don't understand the concepts simply because I've bypassed them. I don't know why you arbitrarily get to choose that autonomy and self-determination somehow supersedes the idea that a little girl's genital should not be mutilated. Bring self-determination to a micro scale, look at those individuals who have their "self-determination" yanked from them at a young age so that a country can get its own little platform. Get your stuff together and don't pretend that people don't understand something just because they don't value the same insane BS you do.
Don't pretend to care about those little girls. You don't raise them, you don't feed them, you don't clothe them. You give a shit? Adopt them or something.
No taxation without representation. Why? Representatives make decisions for you. Do you make any contribution to those people (ala taxation), then you don't get to make decisions for them.
/edit
Having said this. I do not support Canada giving foreign-aid to any country that practices FGM. That's how I draw the line. We control OUR actions so that we can maintain our values without totally infringing on others' autonomy.
|
|
|
On July 28 2013 13:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 12:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 28 2013 12:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 28 2013 12:15 plogamer wrote: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. the funniest part of this is that most european countries would say that they should be allowed to colonize the United States because of its backwards values and principles. i'm sure most of the europeans that frequent the general forum would likely agree. Yes, I can see how things like no Universal Health care and no guaranteed education/income are as heinous as mutilating a baby's genitals. That's a fine equivocation you have there.
i was thinking more along the lines of male circumcision in the United States, treatment of LBGT rights, our history of causing wars for illegitimate reasons, creating rules and laws based on religious tenets rather than logic, etc. etc. a week doesnt go by that i dont see a new thread criticizing what the US does. should we invite colonization of america for our backwards ways?
|
On July 28 2013 13:15 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 13:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 28 2013 12:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 28 2013 12:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 28 2013 12:15 plogamer wrote: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. the funniest part of this is that most european countries would say that they should be allowed to colonize the United States because of its backwards values and principles. i'm sure most of the europeans that frequent the general forum would likely agree. Yes, I can see how things like no Universal Health care and no guaranteed education/income are as heinous as mutilating a baby's genitals. That's a fine equivocation you have there. i was thinking more along the lines of male circumcision in the United States, treatment of LBGT rights, our history of causing wars for illegitimate reasons, creating rules and laws based on religious tenets rather than logic, etc. etc. a week doesnt go by that i dont see a new thread criticizing what the US does. should we invite colonization of america for our backwards ways?
Well since 9/10 of those criticisms are bullshit I think we're safe
Also the fact that we'd kick their asses really really hard
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
