|
On July 28 2013 13:12 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 13:05 Djzapz wrote: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 represent 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.
Oh please. I don't actually care so my opinion is invalid, nice blanket statement. As for the second part, that's saying has british origins and it doesn't apply to the countries which don't have representatives. I'm pretty sure Egypt still has taxes right now, and I'm pretty sure that a few countries which practice FGM don't have proper representation.
I don't support military action against countries which have barbaric customs, that would be absolutely ridiculous, but I certainly think it's fine for me to criticize them very harshly. As I said in my post, I don't even believe what I said... the argument serves the purpose of depicting how ridiculous it is to defend FGM on the basis that tradition and culture justifies any custom of a given people and therefore us westerners should shut our mouths. No we shouldn't. We're a bunch of "holier than thou" white fucks with inflated egos and sometimes we're assholes but sometimes we see little girls getting mutilated and we don't like it, and rightly so.
|
On July 28 2013 13:12 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 13:05 Djzapz wrote: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.
This argument becomes a lot easier to ignore when you realise some people actually have no sense of empathy.
Also, fuck you.
|
On July 28 2013 13:26 RockIronrod wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 13:12 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 13:05 Djzapz wrote: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. This argument becomes a lot easier to ignore when you realise some people actually have no sense of empathy. Also, fuck you.
Yep, I'm the one without empathy because I think that a more comprehensive approach than foreign intervention would be better for everyone - including those little girls.
Removing the rest of the post? Bravo, that's not underhanded at all.
|
On July 28 2013 13:30 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 13:26 RockIronrod wrote:On July 28 2013 13:12 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 13:05 Djzapz wrote: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. This argument becomes a lot easier to ignore when you realise some people actually have no sense of empathy. Also, fuck you. Yep, I'm the one without empathy because I think that a more comprehensive approach than foreign intervention would be better for everyone - including those little girls. Removing the rest of the post? Bravo, that's not underhanded at all.
What do you mean by "comprehensive approach"? Also, "foreign intervention" is just as loose and indescriptive as it gets.
I mean wouldn't a comprehensive approach automatically be some sort of foreign intervention? Do you have something not foreign in mind? How does that work?
Do you view foreign intervention as inherently bad?
Are you perhaps just talking out of your ass, trying to solve complex problems with pourparler?
|
On July 28 2013 13:30 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 13:26 RockIronrod wrote:On July 28 2013 13:12 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 13:05 Djzapz wrote: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. This argument becomes a lot easier to ignore when you realise some people actually have no sense of empathy. Also, fuck you. Yep, I'm the one without empathy because I think that a more comprehensive approach than foreign intervention would be better for everyone - including those little girls. Removing the rest of the post? Bravo, that's not underhanded at all.
I'm not sure what your more comprehensive approach is as you've mostly interpreted support for any kind of foreign intervention as being support for a full-scale invasion and occupation which 95 times out of 100 is very easy to argue against.
Your statement in bold reflects the arrogance of your position. Has Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq taught you nothing?
You forget Germany, Japan, and Korea? Note the difference being that we fought all-out war in those places instead of half-assed war like we did in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. What did they teach us? If you're going to go in, flatten the place and rebuild it from scratch (more or less).
|
On July 28 2013 13:33 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 13:30 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 13:26 RockIronrod wrote:On July 28 2013 13:12 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 13:05 Djzapz wrote: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. This argument becomes a lot easier to ignore when you realise some people actually have no sense of empathy. Also, fuck you. Yep, I'm the one without empathy because I think that a more comprehensive approach than foreign intervention would be better for everyone - including those little girls. Removing the rest of the post? Bravo, that's not underhanded at all. What do you mean by comprehensive approach and "foreign intervention" is just as loose and indescriptive as it gets. I mean wouldn't a comprehensive approach automatically be some sort of foreign intervention? Do you have something not foreign in mind? How does that work? Do you view foreign intervention as inherently bad? Are you perhaps just talking out of your ass?
On July 28 2013 13:20 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 13:12 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 13:05 Djzapz wrote: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 represent 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. Oh please. I don't actually care so my opinion is invalid, nice blanket statement. As for the second part, that's saying has british origins and it doesn't apply to the countries which don't have representatives. I'm pretty sure Egypt still has taxes right now, and I'm pretty sure that a few countries which practice FGM don't have proper representation. I don't support military action against countries which have barbaric customs, that would be absolutely ridiculous, but I certainly think it's fine for me to criticize them very harshly. As I said in my post, I don't even believe what I said... the argument serves the purpose of depicting how ridiculous it is to defend FGM on the basis that tradition and culture justifies any custom of a given people and therefore us westerners should shut our mouths. No we shouldn't. We're a bunch of "holier than thou" white fucks with inflated egos and sometimes we're assholes but sometimes we see little girls getting mutilated and we don't like it, and rightly so.
It's one thing to criticize the practice. It's another to argue in favour of Western Interventions as 'cultural'.
Let Africans solve their own problems. We do not have a full grasp of the situation at hand because we don't live in it. The persons responsible for FGM are also the same persons who provide everything for the children.
To empathize means to understand, to see us in them and vice versa. We don't understand jack shit about those countries, and yet we feel we deserve to have a say in what goes on there? We should see ourselves in people who practice FGM. They are doing what they feel is best for their children. They are wrong, and they will realize it sooner or later.
Any efforts made to better their lives should be localized. It would be a safe assumption that even within countries that practice FGM, differing areas will have their ways and beliefs associated with it.
Also, no strings. Foreign intervention purely for the benefit of the people involved. What a sweet naive dream.
|
On July 28 2013 13:56 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 13:33 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2013 13:30 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 13:26 RockIronrod wrote:On July 28 2013 13:12 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 13:05 Djzapz wrote: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. This argument becomes a lot easier to ignore when you realise some people actually have no sense of empathy. Also, fuck you. Yep, I'm the one without empathy because I think that a more comprehensive approach than foreign intervention would be better for everyone - including those little girls. Removing the rest of the post? Bravo, that's not underhanded at all. What do you mean by comprehensive approach and "foreign intervention" is just as loose and indescriptive as it gets. I mean wouldn't a comprehensive approach automatically be some sort of foreign intervention? Do you have something not foreign in mind? How does that work? Do you view foreign intervention as inherently bad? Are you perhaps just talking out of your ass? Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 13:20 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2013 13:12 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 13:05 Djzapz wrote: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 represent 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. Oh please. I don't actually care so my opinion is invalid, nice blanket statement. As for the second part, that's saying has british origins and it doesn't apply to the countries which don't have representatives. I'm pretty sure Egypt still has taxes right now, and I'm pretty sure that a few countries which practice FGM don't have proper representation. I don't support military action against countries which have barbaric customs, that would be absolutely ridiculous, but I certainly think it's fine for me to criticize them very harshly. As I said in my post, I don't even believe what I said... the argument serves the purpose of depicting how ridiculous it is to defend FGM on the basis that tradition and culture justifies any custom of a given people and therefore us westerners should shut our mouths. No we shouldn't. We're a bunch of "holier than thou" white fucks with inflated egos and sometimes we're assholes but sometimes we see little girls getting mutilated and we don't like it, and rightly so. It's one thing to criticize the practice. It's another to argue in favour of Western Interventions as 'cultural'. Let Africans solve their own problems. We do not have a full grasp of the situation at hand because we don't live in it. The persons responsible for FGM are also the same persons who provide everything for the children. To empathize means to understand, to see us in them and vice versa. We don't understand jack shit about those countries, and yet we feel we deserve to have a say in what goes on there? We should see ourselves in people who practice FGM. They are doing what they feel is best for their children. They are wrong, and they will realize it sooner or later. Any efforts made to better their lives should be localized. It would be a safe assumption that even within countries that practice FGM, differing areas will have their ways and beliefs associated with it. Also, no strings. Foreign intervention purely for the benefit of the people involved. What a sweet naive dream.
I don't have a full grasp on the situation in the west of Canada but I still think murderers over there should be prosecuted. I've lived on Earth for long enough that I don't need to know the color of your underwear to say that murder is wrong. I don't need a full grasp to condemn FGM. I don't need a full grasp to empathize and to hope for a better tomorrow for people whom I don't completely understand.
I think that your failing as a human being comes from the fact that you give more importance to the country's freedom than to the individual's freedom. That sounds harsh, but when someone takes up that position, I don't hold them in high regard. You've chosen to defend a cause which seems just from the outside, but in practice, it's vile and despicable.
That said I'll leave it to that because I believe you're beyond redemption.
|
On July 28 2013 13:39 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 13:30 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 13:26 RockIronrod wrote:On July 28 2013 13:12 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 13:05 Djzapz wrote: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. This argument becomes a lot easier to ignore when you realise some people actually have no sense of empathy. Also, fuck you. Yep, I'm the one without empathy because I think that a more comprehensive approach than foreign intervention would be better for everyone - including those little girls. Removing the rest of the post? Bravo, that's not underhanded at all. I'm not sure what your more comprehensive approach is as you've mostly interpreted support for any kind of foreign intervention as being support for a full-scale invasion and occupation which 95 times out of 100 is very easy to argue against. Show nested quote +Your statement in bold reflects the arrogance of your position. Has Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq taught you nothing? You forget Germany, Japan, and Korea? Note the difference being that we fought all-out war in those places instead of half-assed war like we did in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. What did they teach us? If you're going to go in, flatten the place and rebuild it from scratch (more or less).
Good luck with carpet bombing population centres.
|
On July 28 2013 14:03 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 13:56 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 13:33 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2013 13:30 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 13:26 RockIronrod wrote:On July 28 2013 13:12 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 13:05 Djzapz wrote: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. This argument becomes a lot easier to ignore when you realise some people actually have no sense of empathy. Also, fuck you. Yep, I'm the one without empathy because I think that a more comprehensive approach than foreign intervention would be better for everyone - including those little girls. Removing the rest of the post? Bravo, that's not underhanded at all. What do you mean by comprehensive approach and "foreign intervention" is just as loose and indescriptive as it gets. I mean wouldn't a comprehensive approach automatically be some sort of foreign intervention? Do you have something not foreign in mind? How does that work? Do you view foreign intervention as inherently bad? Are you perhaps just talking out of your ass? On July 28 2013 13:20 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2013 13:12 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 13:05 Djzapz wrote: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 represent 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. Oh please. I don't actually care so my opinion is invalid, nice blanket statement. As for the second part, that's saying has british origins and it doesn't apply to the countries which don't have representatives. I'm pretty sure Egypt still has taxes right now, and I'm pretty sure that a few countries which practice FGM don't have proper representation. I don't support military action against countries which have barbaric customs, that would be absolutely ridiculous, but I certainly think it's fine for me to criticize them very harshly. As I said in my post, I don't even believe what I said... the argument serves the purpose of depicting how ridiculous it is to defend FGM on the basis that tradition and culture justifies any custom of a given people and therefore us westerners should shut our mouths. No we shouldn't. We're a bunch of "holier than thou" white fucks with inflated egos and sometimes we're assholes but sometimes we see little girls getting mutilated and we don't like it, and rightly so. It's one thing to criticize the practice. It's another to argue in favour of Western Interventions as 'cultural'. Let Africans solve their own problems. We do not have a full grasp of the situation at hand because we don't live in it. The persons responsible for FGM are also the same persons who provide everything for the children. To empathize means to understand, to see us in them and vice versa. We don't understand jack shit about those countries, and yet we feel we deserve to have a say in what goes on there? We should see ourselves in people who practice FGM. They are doing what they feel is best for their children. They are wrong, and they will realize it sooner or later. Any efforts made to better their lives should be localized. It would be a safe assumption that even within countries that practice FGM, differing areas will have their ways and beliefs associated with it. Also, no strings. Foreign intervention purely for the benefit of the people involved. What a sweet naive dream. I don't have a full grasp on the situation in the west of Canada but I still think murderers over there should be prosecuted. I've lived on Earth for long enough that I don't need to know the color of your underwear to say that murder is wrong. I don't need a full grasp to condemn FGM. I don't need a full grasp to empathize and to hope for a better tomorrow for people whom I don't completely understand. I think that your failing as a human being comes from the fact that you give more importance to the country's freedom than to the individual's freedom. That sounds harsh, but when someone takes up that position, I don't hold them in high regard. That said I'll leave it to that because I believe you're beyond redemption.
Your passive aggressive is duly noted. Just say it straight, but that's not very Canadian. I'm not from west of Canada. Colour of underwear to know murder is wrong? Is that what you call a deeper understanding of the situation on the ground?
You don't need a full grasp to shoot your mouth. That much we agree is true, and self-evident in your case.
|
On July 28 2013 13:30 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 13:26 RockIronrod wrote:On July 28 2013 13:12 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 13:05 Djzapz wrote: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. This argument becomes a lot easier to ignore when you realise some people actually have no sense of empathy. Also, fuck you. Yep, I'm the one without empathy because I think that a more comprehensive approach than foreign intervention would be better for everyone - including those little girls. Removing the rest of the post? Bravo, that's not underhanded at all.
Because the rest of your post was just dumb, not offensively fucking retarded.
Though it is kind of funny that you think withdrawing all foreign aid (ie. the fuck 'em, let 'em starve approach) is somehow better than sending teachers over to educate people on the repercussions of their actions. You've got this weird reverse xenophobia going where if we breathe on any foreigners we're monsters trying to invade their freedoms.
|
On July 28 2013 14:14 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 14:03 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2013 13:56 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 13:33 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2013 13:30 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 13:26 RockIronrod wrote:On July 28 2013 13:12 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 13:05 Djzapz wrote: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. This argument becomes a lot easier to ignore when you realise some people actually have no sense of empathy. Also, fuck you. Yep, I'm the one without empathy because I think that a more comprehensive approach than foreign intervention would be better for everyone - including those little girls. Removing the rest of the post? Bravo, that's not underhanded at all. What do you mean by comprehensive approach and "foreign intervention" is just as loose and indescriptive as it gets. I mean wouldn't a comprehensive approach automatically be some sort of foreign intervention? Do you have something not foreign in mind? How does that work? Do you view foreign intervention as inherently bad? Are you perhaps just talking out of your ass? On July 28 2013 13:20 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2013 13:12 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 13:05 Djzapz wrote: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 represent 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. Oh please. I don't actually care so my opinion is invalid, nice blanket statement. As for the second part, that's saying has british origins and it doesn't apply to the countries which don't have representatives. I'm pretty sure Egypt still has taxes right now, and I'm pretty sure that a few countries which practice FGM don't have proper representation. I don't support military action against countries which have barbaric customs, that would be absolutely ridiculous, but I certainly think it's fine for me to criticize them very harshly. As I said in my post, I don't even believe what I said... the argument serves the purpose of depicting how ridiculous it is to defend FGM on the basis that tradition and culture justifies any custom of a given people and therefore us westerners should shut our mouths. No we shouldn't. We're a bunch of "holier than thou" white fucks with inflated egos and sometimes we're assholes but sometimes we see little girls getting mutilated and we don't like it, and rightly so. It's one thing to criticize the practice. It's another to argue in favour of Western Interventions as 'cultural'. Let Africans solve their own problems. We do not have a full grasp of the situation at hand because we don't live in it. The persons responsible for FGM are also the same persons who provide everything for the children. To empathize means to understand, to see us in them and vice versa. We don't understand jack shit about those countries, and yet we feel we deserve to have a say in what goes on there? We should see ourselves in people who practice FGM. They are doing what they feel is best for their children. They are wrong, and they will realize it sooner or later. Any efforts made to better their lives should be localized. It would be a safe assumption that even within countries that practice FGM, differing areas will have their ways and beliefs associated with it. Also, no strings. Foreign intervention purely for the benefit of the people involved. What a sweet naive dream. I don't have a full grasp on the situation in the west of Canada but I still think murderers over there should be prosecuted. I've lived on Earth for long enough that I don't need to know the color of your underwear to say that murder is wrong. I don't need a full grasp to condemn FGM. I don't need a full grasp to empathize and to hope for a better tomorrow for people whom I don't completely understand. I think that your failing as a human being comes from the fact that you give more importance to the country's freedom than to the individual's freedom. That sounds harsh, but when someone takes up that position, I don't hold them in high regard. That said I'll leave it to that because I believe you're beyond redemption. Your passive aggressive is duly noted. Just say it straight, but that's not very Canadian. I'm not from west of Canada. Colour of underwear to know murder is wrong? Is that what you call a deeper understanding of the situation on the ground? You don't need a full grasp to shoot your mouth. That much we agree is true, and self-evident in your case.
I'll be sure to quit my poli sci masters from McGill because clearly it hasn't taught me much and make sure my students from UQAM are reimbursed.
Alternatively, maybe you think too highly of yourself. You know, these people are not disagreeing with you just for the fuck of it.
|
On July 28 2013 13:12 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 13:05 Djzapz wrote: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.
I'm 23 years old, single, have a job that pays $12/hr and gives me 35-40 hours a week on a good week. Adopting a child isn't really in my price-range, nor would any sane adoption agency (or government agency) allow me to adopt anyone, much less a child from 10,000 miles away whose parents are probably still alive. And please, don't try and act like anyone who doesn't support their "cultural right" to be mutilated doesn't care for them. The mental gymnastics that must be required to come to that conclusion would qualify you for the Olympics if they were physical.
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.
A colonizer would necessarily take economic responsibility over the people they are colonizing. Thus, any colonization that would occur (this is all hypothetical as the word: 'colonization' carries too many unfortunate baggage to be feasible in the realm of public opinion) would necessarily put the primary contribution on the shoulders of the colonizer and thus would give the right of decision, according to your logic, to them.
Autonomy is a privilege that the strong give the weak. I wish we could remember that and not give autonomy and sovereignty such sacred places. When the weak engage in practices that the strong find abhorrent and destructive, it is the right of the strong to abolish said practices. That would be the "utilitarian" point of view, ignoring all moral questions and prohibitions.
Morally speaking, the question of moral values would come into play. Is the practice of FGM so abhorrent that it merits a militaristic response?
|
On July 28 2013 14:18 RockIronrod wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 13:30 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 13:26 RockIronrod wrote:On July 28 2013 13:12 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 13:05 Djzapz wrote: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. This argument becomes a lot easier to ignore when you realise some people actually have no sense of empathy. Also, fuck you. Yep, I'm the one without empathy because I think that a more comprehensive approach than foreign intervention would be better for everyone - including those little girls. Removing the rest of the post? Bravo, that's not underhanded at all. Because the rest of your post was just dumb, not offensively fucking retarded. Though it is kind of funny that you think withdrawing all foreign aid (ie. the fuck 'em, let 'em starve approach) is somehow better than sending teachers over to educate people on the repercussions of their actions. You've got this weird reverse xenophobia going where if we breathe on any foreigners we're monsters trying to invade their freedoms.
Yeah, all the foreign aid has done so much for Africa. Guess what props up the intolerable and cruel warlords' inefficient governance? Foreign aid.
What kind of credibility will these teachers have over the local population? These teachers we send will not be a part of the tribes/communities and have enough know-how of the cultures involved.
The change has to come from within.
Without aid, yes, many will starve. But do you think all Africans will just lie on their belly and flop like a fish? Even more will struggle. They will carve out a share of the pie by themselves. How many starved before the French rebelled and offed their monarch?
|
On July 28 2013 14:28 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 14:18 RockIronrod wrote:On July 28 2013 13:30 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 13:26 RockIronrod wrote:On July 28 2013 13:12 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 13:05 Djzapz wrote: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. This argument becomes a lot easier to ignore when you realise some people actually have no sense of empathy. Also, fuck you. Yep, I'm the one without empathy because I think that a more comprehensive approach than foreign intervention would be better for everyone - including those little girls. Removing the rest of the post? Bravo, that's not underhanded at all. Because the rest of your post was just dumb, not offensively fucking retarded. Though it is kind of funny that you think withdrawing all foreign aid (ie. the fuck 'em, let 'em starve approach) is somehow better than sending teachers over to educate people on the repercussions of their actions. You've got this weird reverse xenophobia going where if we breathe on any foreigners we're monsters trying to invade their freedoms. Yeah, all the foreign aid has done so much for Africa.
That's amusing to me every time.
"I don't see the results". Do you expect them to be putting satellites into space or are you blind?  come on.
Your entire argument is based on the fact that you seem to think the only way a country will really change is if they internally want to, but if the international community were to jump start that desire, it could have the same effect. If you choose to be against speeding up the process, then you're just extending the time and the number of FGM victims because you want to be soft and nice.
Anyway off to bed, this is getting ridiculous.
|
On July 28 2013 14:20 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 14:14 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 14:03 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2013 13:56 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 13:33 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2013 13:30 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 13:26 RockIronrod wrote:On July 28 2013 13:12 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 13:05 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2013 13:01 plogamer wrote:
[quote]
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. This argument becomes a lot easier to ignore when you realise some people actually have no sense of empathy. Also, fuck you. Yep, I'm the one without empathy because I think that a more comprehensive approach than foreign intervention would be better for everyone - including those little girls. Removing the rest of the post? Bravo, that's not underhanded at all. What do you mean by comprehensive approach and "foreign intervention" is just as loose and indescriptive as it gets. I mean wouldn't a comprehensive approach automatically be some sort of foreign intervention? Do you have something not foreign in mind? How does that work? Do you view foreign intervention as inherently bad? Are you perhaps just talking out of your ass? On July 28 2013 13:20 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2013 13:12 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 13:05 Djzapz wrote: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 represent 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. Oh please. I don't actually care so my opinion is invalid, nice blanket statement. As for the second part, that's saying has british origins and it doesn't apply to the countries which don't have representatives. I'm pretty sure Egypt still has taxes right now, and I'm pretty sure that a few countries which practice FGM don't have proper representation. I don't support military action against countries which have barbaric customs, that would be absolutely ridiculous, but I certainly think it's fine for me to criticize them very harshly. As I said in my post, I don't even believe what I said... the argument serves the purpose of depicting how ridiculous it is to defend FGM on the basis that tradition and culture justifies any custom of a given people and therefore us westerners should shut our mouths. No we shouldn't. We're a bunch of "holier than thou" white fucks with inflated egos and sometimes we're assholes but sometimes we see little girls getting mutilated and we don't like it, and rightly so. It's one thing to criticize the practice. It's another to argue in favour of Western Interventions as 'cultural'. Let Africans solve their own problems. We do not have a full grasp of the situation at hand because we don't live in it. The persons responsible for FGM are also the same persons who provide everything for the children. To empathize means to understand, to see us in them and vice versa. We don't understand jack shit about those countries, and yet we feel we deserve to have a say in what goes on there? We should see ourselves in people who practice FGM. They are doing what they feel is best for their children. They are wrong, and they will realize it sooner or later. Any efforts made to better their lives should be localized. It would be a safe assumption that even within countries that practice FGM, differing areas will have their ways and beliefs associated with it. Also, no strings. Foreign intervention purely for the benefit of the people involved. What a sweet naive dream. I don't have a full grasp on the situation in the west of Canada but I still think murderers over there should be prosecuted. I've lived on Earth for long enough that I don't need to know the color of your underwear to say that murder is wrong. I don't need a full grasp to condemn FGM. I don't need a full grasp to empathize and to hope for a better tomorrow for people whom I don't completely understand. I think that your failing as a human being comes from the fact that you give more importance to the country's freedom than to the individual's freedom. That sounds harsh, but when someone takes up that position, I don't hold them in high regard. That said I'll leave it to that because I believe you're beyond redemption. Your passive aggressive is duly noted. Just say it straight, but that's not very Canadian. I'm not from west of Canada. Colour of underwear to know murder is wrong? Is that what you call a deeper understanding of the situation on the ground? You don't need a full grasp to shoot your mouth. That much we agree is true, and self-evident in your case. I'll be sure to quit my poli sci masters from McGill because clearly it hasn't taught me much and make sure my students from UQAM are reimbursed. Alternatively, maybe you think too highly of yourself. You know, these people are not disagreeing with you just for the fuck of it.
maybe its wrong but what these ONG really do? Unicef, red cross, and all these para-governmental ONG only input western ideologies and structures into their developpement projects. We care about little girl's clit but we don't give a shit about natives in our countries that still live in 3rd world conditions. not that i find genital mutilation OK, its just that WE(occident) only care when we have interest(monetary) to care. Most fundraises that ONGs manages to obtain ends up paying third world's dept to banks anyways.
moral of the story: fuck unicef.
|
On July 28 2013 14:35 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 14:28 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 14:18 RockIronrod wrote:On July 28 2013 13:30 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 13:26 RockIronrod wrote:On July 28 2013 13:12 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 13:05 Djzapz wrote: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. This argument becomes a lot easier to ignore when you realise some people actually have no sense of empathy. Also, fuck you. Yep, I'm the one without empathy because I think that a more comprehensive approach than foreign intervention would be better for everyone - including those little girls. Removing the rest of the post? Bravo, that's not underhanded at all. Because the rest of your post was just dumb, not offensively fucking retarded. Though it is kind of funny that you think withdrawing all foreign aid (ie. the fuck 'em, let 'em starve approach) is somehow better than sending teachers over to educate people on the repercussions of their actions. You've got this weird reverse xenophobia going where if we breathe on any foreigners we're monsters trying to invade their freedoms. Yeah, all the foreign aid has done so much for Africa. That's amusing to me every time. "I don't see the results". Do you expect them to be putting satellites into space or are you blind? come on. Your entire argument is based on the fact that you seem to think the only way a country will really change is if they internally want to, but if the international community were to jump start that desire, it could have the same effect. If you choose to be against speeding up the process, then you're just extending the time and the number of FGM victims because you want to be soft and nice. Anyway off to bed, this is getting ridiculous.
Speeding development? If anything, the number of failed states has increased over the years in the African region. Poli-sci masters degree you say? What specialty/focus? Clearly not international relations or development, or whatever it is called nowadays.
|
On July 28 2013 14:38 crazyweasel wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 14:20 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2013 14:14 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 14:03 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2013 13:56 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 13:33 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2013 13:30 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 13:26 RockIronrod wrote:On July 28 2013 13:12 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 13:05 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
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. This argument becomes a lot easier to ignore when you realise some people actually have no sense of empathy. Also, fuck you. Yep, I'm the one without empathy because I think that a more comprehensive approach than foreign intervention would be better for everyone - including those little girls. Removing the rest of the post? Bravo, that's not underhanded at all. What do you mean by comprehensive approach and "foreign intervention" is just as loose and indescriptive as it gets. I mean wouldn't a comprehensive approach automatically be some sort of foreign intervention? Do you have something not foreign in mind? How does that work? Do you view foreign intervention as inherently bad? Are you perhaps just talking out of your ass? On July 28 2013 13:20 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2013 13:12 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 13:05 Djzapz wrote: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 represent 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. Oh please. I don't actually care so my opinion is invalid, nice blanket statement. As for the second part, that's saying has british origins and it doesn't apply to the countries which don't have representatives. I'm pretty sure Egypt still has taxes right now, and I'm pretty sure that a few countries which practice FGM don't have proper representation. I don't support military action against countries which have barbaric customs, that would be absolutely ridiculous, but I certainly think it's fine for me to criticize them very harshly. As I said in my post, I don't even believe what I said... the argument serves the purpose of depicting how ridiculous it is to defend FGM on the basis that tradition and culture justifies any custom of a given people and therefore us westerners should shut our mouths. No we shouldn't. We're a bunch of "holier than thou" white fucks with inflated egos and sometimes we're assholes but sometimes we see little girls getting mutilated and we don't like it, and rightly so. It's one thing to criticize the practice. It's another to argue in favour of Western Interventions as 'cultural'. Let Africans solve their own problems. We do not have a full grasp of the situation at hand because we don't live in it. The persons responsible for FGM are also the same persons who provide everything for the children. To empathize means to understand, to see us in them and vice versa. We don't understand jack shit about those countries, and yet we feel we deserve to have a say in what goes on there? We should see ourselves in people who practice FGM. They are doing what they feel is best for their children. They are wrong, and they will realize it sooner or later. Any efforts made to better their lives should be localized. It would be a safe assumption that even within countries that practice FGM, differing areas will have their ways and beliefs associated with it. Also, no strings. Foreign intervention purely for the benefit of the people involved. What a sweet naive dream. I don't have a full grasp on the situation in the west of Canada but I still think murderers over there should be prosecuted. I've lived on Earth for long enough that I don't need to know the color of your underwear to say that murder is wrong. I don't need a full grasp to condemn FGM. I don't need a full grasp to empathize and to hope for a better tomorrow for people whom I don't completely understand. I think that your failing as a human being comes from the fact that you give more importance to the country's freedom than to the individual's freedom. That sounds harsh, but when someone takes up that position, I don't hold them in high regard. That said I'll leave it to that because I believe you're beyond redemption. Your passive aggressive is duly noted. Just say it straight, but that's not very Canadian. I'm not from west of Canada. Colour of underwear to know murder is wrong? Is that what you call a deeper understanding of the situation on the ground? You don't need a full grasp to shoot your mouth. That much we agree is true, and self-evident in your case. I'll be sure to quit my poli sci masters from McGill because clearly it hasn't taught me much and make sure my students from UQAM are reimbursed. Alternatively, maybe you think too highly of yourself. You know, these people are not disagreeing with you just for the fuck of it. maybe its wrong but what these ONG really do? Unicef, red cross, and all these para-governmental ONG only input western ideologies and structures into their developpement projects. We care about little girl's clit but we don't give a shit about natives in our countries that still live in 3rd world conditions. not that i find genital mutilation OK, its just that WE(occident) only care when we have interest(monetary) to care. Most fundraises that ONGs manages to obtain ends up paying third world's dept to banks anyways. moral of the story: fuck unicef.
Before I leave I'll toss in my two cents...
The UN is clearly handled by the west. UN agencies like UNICEF, as well as other organizations like the Red Cross, Child's Play and the other ONG (NGO in English) are just reinforcing our beloved capitalist powerhouse, but to deny the existence of benefits is disingenuous and shortsighted. I agree that it could be more balanced, especially since something like 80% of the yearly meetings of the UN's Security Council regard operations which take place in Africa.
The UN agencies like UNHCR and UNICEF get bad press because they're floating the US flag like motherfuckers (figuratively), but they're saving a shitload of lives. If UNHCR lost its funding and nobody picked it up, it would be a death sentence for thousands of people who would likely have died before without international help.
The system is poorly structured and ridiculously insufficient, we know that. But it does some work. So no, no "fuck UNICEF". UNICEF, despite some of its bullshit, does a lot of good in practice. UNICEF saves children, UNICEF works UNHCR to give children access to some of the basic needs and even basic education. UNICEF helps children reintegrate societies when they can.
Don't shit on UN agencies and the NGOs because they suck. At least they're doing something.
On July 28 2013 14:44 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 14:35 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2013 14:28 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 14:18 RockIronrod wrote:On July 28 2013 13:30 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 13:26 RockIronrod wrote:On July 28 2013 13:12 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 13:05 Djzapz wrote: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. This argument becomes a lot easier to ignore when you realise some people actually have no sense of empathy. Also, fuck you. Yep, I'm the one without empathy because I think that a more comprehensive approach than foreign intervention would be better for everyone - including those little girls. Removing the rest of the post? Bravo, that's not underhanded at all. Because the rest of your post was just dumb, not offensively fucking retarded. Though it is kind of funny that you think withdrawing all foreign aid (ie. the fuck 'em, let 'em starve approach) is somehow better than sending teachers over to educate people on the repercussions of their actions. You've got this weird reverse xenophobia going where if we breathe on any foreigners we're monsters trying to invade their freedoms. Yeah, all the foreign aid has done so much for Africa. That's amusing to me every time. "I don't see the results". Do you expect them to be putting satellites into space or are you blind? come on. Your entire argument is based on the fact that you seem to think the only way a country will really change is if they internally want to, but if the international community were to jump start that desire, it could have the same effect. If you choose to be against speeding up the process, then you're just extending the time and the number of FGM victims because you want to be soft and nice. Anyway off to bed, this is getting ridiculous. Speeding development? If anything, the number of failed states has increased over the years in the African region. Poli-sci masters degree you say? What specialty/focus? Clearly not international relations or development, or whatever it is called nowadays.
Did my bachelor in international relations and doing my masters in public admin. And foreign aid is insufficient and inadequate, as opposed to useless. The lack of results can be explained by the fact that it would likely be much worse without it.
Development is not happening because foreign aid doesn't get through for various reasons (corruptions, poor administration) and when it does, it gets poured in large part into immediate and emergency relief, thus not helping sustainable development, but preventing some deaths in the short term.
I like that our first interaction was when you tried to suggest that I didn't understand certain concepts which I wasn't even talking about, and now you're trying to suggest that I don't know what I'm talking about when just about everybody who reads your stuff actually knows that you've probably read a few wikis and a few bad opinion blogs and now you think you're an expert. And I'm not saying that to be a dick and to make myself look good, I couldn't care less. It's actually very apparent that you only know the very basics of the shit you're talking about.
Hitting the sack for real this time, hopefully. Cheers
|
On July 28 2013 14:28 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 14:18 RockIronrod wrote:On July 28 2013 13:30 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 13:26 RockIronrod wrote:On July 28 2013 13:12 plogamer wrote:On July 28 2013 13:05 Djzapz wrote: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. This argument becomes a lot easier to ignore when you realise some people actually have no sense of empathy. Also, fuck you. Yep, I'm the one without empathy because I think that a more comprehensive approach than foreign intervention would be better for everyone - including those little girls. Removing the rest of the post? Bravo, that's not underhanded at all. Because the rest of your post was just dumb, not offensively fucking retarded. Though it is kind of funny that you think withdrawing all foreign aid (ie. the fuck 'em, let 'em starve approach) is somehow better than sending teachers over to educate people on the repercussions of their actions. You've got this weird reverse xenophobia going where if we breathe on any foreigners we're monsters trying to invade their freedoms. Yeah, all the foreign aid has done so much for Africa. Guess what props up the intolerable and cruel warlords' inefficient governance? Foreign aid. What kind of credibility will these teachers have over the local population? These teachers we send will not be a part of the tribes/communities and have enough know-how of the cultures involved. The change has to come from within. Without aid, yes, many will starve. But do you think all Africans will just lie on their belly and flop like a fish? Even more will struggle. They will carve out a share of the pie by themselves. How many starved before the French rebelled and offed their monarch?
You talk about the French Revolution but do not know history; the humiliation of France in the Seven Years War put the intellectuals in a state of discontent with Louis XIV and the monarchy. It took an outside catalyst and a high level of internal education to plant the seeds of a revolution. However, the circumstances are much different in Africa today, because the dictators there are using the food as a weapon against their enemies. Any serious effort at rebelling leads to millions of deaths due to starvation. Additionally, the machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades used today are hundreds of times more deadly than the single-shot muskets of 1780s France.
As a human being, I cannot help but feel so much sadness for the people of many African countries, even those that don't practice FGM, and in my heart, I want nations to petition their governments to stop arming dictators, build non-religious schools that promote real education, end tariffs and subsidies that are in place to directly squelch competition from African nations, and to allow African people to nationalize their businesses and resources so that the profits from the raw goods they produce will go back to the people of Africa, not overseas corporations.
|
On July 28 2013 13:39 DeepElemBlues wrote:
You forget Germany, Japan, and Korea? Note the difference being that we fought all-out war in those places instead of half-assed war like we did in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. What did they teach us? If you're going to go in, flatten the place and rebuild it from scratch (more or less).
Being German, I defintevely gotta say sth. about this.
It was absolutely the total opposite of what you said! After WWI, that was sort of "flattening" - the treaty of Versailles after WWI put all the "guilt" and burden (so much reperation cost for Germany) on Germany. May historians point that out as one reason, why Hitler could come to power, just because Germany - in a way - got economically flattened (and led rise to the so-called "dagger-stab legend", on which Hitler and others could strive).
After WWII, they did a completely different approach. Sure, it was a total war and defeat (but sadly enough necessary). But then, they did real nation building, huge investment (called Marshall Plan) and building up democracy - surely not without pressure, but definetively not in an "imperialist manner", but supporting and strengthening those Germans, who wanted to contribute building up a democracy.
When you "need' to fight a war, and how to support positive change in a country are two totally different things, and "flattening everything and redoing from scratch" usually is the worst approach.
|
"FGM must be respected because it's their culture".
How is this any different from:
"Nazism must be respected because it's their culture."
"Racism must be respected because it's their culture."
"Violence must be respected because it's their culture."
?
For that matter...why bother having any laws? (Not the first time this has been asked recently -- cf. the Zimmerman verdict.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
