EPTOn July 27 2013 19:36 KwarK wrote:
Take up the white man's burden.
Take up the white man's burden.
you would take it up to the aliens too ...
all you'd need would be a technicality.
Female Genital Mutilation - Page 5
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
xM(Z
Romania5275 Posts
you would take it up to the aliens too ... all you'd need would be a technicality. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
I think we do great harm talking about what is and isn't necessary pain in a tradition. I mean, I picture a commission of Shival's choosing going down the line on a great many other traditions and having grounds to reject almost all of them. It's like traditions are either sanitized with Lysol or only for an 18 year old high school graduate (we wouldn't want the uneducated being swayed) or a crew would slap them down, end them all. I think every tradition that is painful to a child (or teenager), mentally or physical is abhorrent. There is no necessarily painful tradition, it's all unnecessary. That includes western traditions. I swear you're at war with traditions and use quite a sliding scale that you would call black and white. We take something ironclad like FGM (1&2&3&most of 4) and say everything if it causes mental or physical pain is abhorrent. My tradition is valuable for the child later in life, and the pain is momentary, but your drum playing really causes mental anguish because it is too darn loud. And that one cut on the thumb to symbolize that, oh that's physical pain, and I know blood brothers is abhorrent. It's cruel painful and designed to deprive sexual pleasure or mutilate for proof of virginity. Abhorrent aims, barbaric practices. Waxing large on all pain and cuts and possibility of mental pain is a recipe for war on traditions, for these could be used for near every small tribal practice in Africa apart from music (well, soft chanting. Loud might induce headaches in a child, and that certainly is mental pain) and paint. I injected some terms to see if anybody saw connections to the civilizing colonialism done in the past, but apparently the smudged gray line is a sharp black one in everybody else's book. We're here to help the backwards peoples from every tradition that might involve a cut or headache and all. Not FGM, but the rationale that seems universally applicable. The new gradebook on traditions is all pain, mental and physical, clean out. | ||
|
quonzoran
Germany31 Posts
On July 27 2013 20:31 T.O.P. wrote: Are the people of Iraq happy that America invaded Iraq, deposed their dictator, and instituted democracy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_the_Iraq_War#Iraqi_opinion I share the response to your argument - the fact, that "we" (Western culture) did a lot of things wrong in the past, too, should be no excuse to let just every cruelty happen in the world. (How and when to intervene in a specific case is much more complicated, because often "good intention backfires" if you neglect the local culture and situation, but that is whole other discussion). Anyway - when you cite something, would be good to cite it correctly. Wikipedia: The US government has long maintained its involvement there is with the support of the Iraqi people, but in 2005 when asked directly, 82–87% of the Iraqi populace was opposed to the US presence and wanted US troops to leave. 47% of Iraqis supported attacking US troops. However, in the same poll 77% of Iraqis said that ousting Saddam Hussein had been worth the hardships brought on by the war and that 64% of the ones polled said Iraq was going in the right direction. That says (one interpretation) - people where happy to get rid of Saddam, even though the war was horrible. But they dislike US presence afterwards (and there are a lot of facts, that a lot of mistakes were made then). Not my aim, to justify Iraq war, which I think was a bad thing. Want to counter your argument "people do not wish help from the outside to get rid of dictators/bad things, and they dislike democracy". They were happy, Saddam was gone, but US behaved more like "we have truth, you have to imply a Western style democracy right away". That they disliked and it did not work. As I tried to point out in another post, people DO want to decide themselves, how society evolves (democracy), but that often is a painful longer process and usually must include history and culture. Look at European and American history! Europe was the bloodiest battlefield for many centuries, witch burnings, crusades ... religious wars in Europe in the 17th century killed about 40 % (!) of the population. Spanish dictatorship (Franco) until 1977. US civil war. All painful processes with drawbacks (and I find it not for granted, we always have democracies). Important changes (like banning FM), and people in the long run want these changes. But also complex ones, when you go in without relating to what is there, you may end up doing more bad than good. | ||
|
GreenGringo
349 Posts
It's an immensely painful experience and still causes pain even decades after the operation. I'm getting all this from the biography, "Infidel". It's an extremely powerful and eye-opening book and you'll be well-advised to read it if you haven't. | ||
|
zalem95
Peru184 Posts
| ||
|
revel8
United Kingdom3022 Posts
On July 27 2013 13:53 JP Dayne wrote: While I don't agree with either female or male genital mutilation, I don't think anyone is in the place to use their own morals to judge or, even worse, intervene with those african cultures/practices/whatever. the "american freedom missile is coming for your rescue!" needs to take a break Actually people SHOULD use their own morals to judge things. I thought Apartheid was wrong in South Africa. You on the other hand would presumably have said that it was not your place to judge those Africans on their 'cultural' practices. You would have OK with the 'tradition' of forcing black people to use different washrooms to whites in certain American States. Or the Khmer Rouge murdering people because they wore glasses. Or the Hutu's slaughtering all those Tutsi. Yeah, let's not judge others and call them out for the awful things they might do, because they might accuse us of cultural imperialism. Let them get on with these injust practices and we can stay out of commenting so we can be politically correct. | ||
|
Shival
Netherlands643 Posts
On July 27 2013 21:53 Danglars wrote: I don't want to get far afield in comparing this to other rather painful bloody traditions, particularly coming of age rituals, since its exposition would necessarily derail this thread. I will say Kwark's central objection is more consistent than the one I previously quoted. The design being to do harm to the enjoyment of sex, or brand virginity into someone, that design oh yeah. I'm in agreement. I think we do great harm talking about what is and isn't necessary pain in a tradition. I mean, I picture a commission of Shival's choosing going down the line on a great many other traditions and having grounds to reject almost all of them. It's like traditions are either sanitized with Lysol or only for an 18 year old high school graduate (we wouldn't want the uneducated being swayed) or a crew would slap them down, end them all. I swear you're at war with traditions and use quite a sliding scale that you would call black and white. We take something ironclad like FGM (1&2&3&most of 4) and say everything if it causes mental or physical pain is abhorrent. My tradition is valuable for the child later in life, and the pain is momentary, but your drum playing really causes mental anguish because it is too darn loud. And that one cut on the thumb to symbolize that, oh that's physical pain, and I know blood brothers is abhorrent. It's cruel painful and designed to deprive sexual pleasure or mutilate for proof of virginity. Abhorrent aims, barbaric practices. Waxing large on all pain and cuts and possibility of mental pain is a recipe for war on traditions, for these could be used for near every small tribal practice in Africa apart from music (well, soft chanting. Loud might induce headaches in a child, and that certainly is mental pain) and paint. I injected some terms to see if anybody saw connections to the civilizing colonialism done in the past, but apparently the smudged gray line is a sharp black one in everybody else's book. We're here to help the backwards peoples from every tradition that might involve a cut or headache and all. Not FGM, but the rationale that seems universally applicable. The new gradebook on traditions is all pain, mental and physical, clean out. You do realize you're merely ridiculing yourself right now, don't you? I think everyone in this thread knows very well what I meant, and you're just grossly over exaggerating my position. Continuing this line of discussion is simply childish, so without further ado, have a good day. | ||
|
GreenGringo
349 Posts
On July 27 2013 21:13 cloneThorN wrote: Actually, no they didn't. This is an absurd cartoon caricature of an extremely complex history. If the colonists wanted to wage a war of expansion against the natives, the whole continent would have been converted to Christianity by the early 18th century at latest. Whereas the truth is the native possessed their own territories until the late 19th century...at which point conflict with miners brought affairs to a head. In South America, native peoples still continue to possess their territories right to this day.The europeans didn't try to civilize the natives, they outright killed them and took their territory. . Very different from the history of one particular other great monotheistic religion. Maybe read up on what happened to the Byzantium Empire if you want to see what a real war of conquest looks like. | ||
|
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
On July 27 2013 21:53 Danglars wrote: I don't want to get far afield in comparing this to other rather painful bloody traditions, particularly coming of age rituals, since its exposition would necessarily derail this thread. I will say Kwark's central objection is more consistent than the one I previously quoted. The design being to do harm to the enjoyment of sex, or brand virginity into someone, that design oh yeah. I'm in agreement. I think we do great harm talking about what is and isn't necessary pain in a tradition. I mean, I picture a commission of Shival's choosing going down the line on a great many other traditions and having grounds to reject almost all of them. It's like traditions are either sanitized with Lysol or only for an 18 year old high school graduate (we wouldn't want the uneducated being swayed) or a crew would slap them down, end them all. I swear you're at war with traditions and use quite a sliding scale that you would call black and white. We take something ironclad like FGM (1&2&3&most of 4) and say everything if it causes mental or physical pain is abhorrent. My tradition is valuable for the child later in life, and the pain is momentary, but your drum playing really causes mental anguish because it is too darn loud. And that one cut on the thumb to symbolize that, oh that's physical pain, and I know blood brothers is abhorrent. It's cruel painful and designed to deprive sexual pleasure or mutilate for proof of virginity. Abhorrent aims, barbaric practices. Waxing large on all pain and cuts and possibility of mental pain is a recipe for war on traditions, for these could be used for near every small tribal practice in Africa apart from music (well, soft chanting. Loud might induce headaches in a child, and that certainly is mental pain) and paint. I injected some terms to see if anybody saw connections to the civilizing colonialism done in the past, but apparently the smudged gray line is a sharp black one in everybody else's book. We're here to help the backwards peoples from every tradition that might involve a cut or headache and all. Not FGM, but the rationale that seems universally applicable. The new gradebook on traditions is all pain, mental and physical, clean out. Beware the slippery slope people! It is literally impossible to not oppose loud noises if you oppose FGM. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5275 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States41934 Posts
On July 27 2013 22:33 xM(Z wrote: but is the moral compass of evolution only a pleasure vs pain affair?. everything inducing pleasure is right while everything inducing pain is wrong?. how can that be a justification for anything?. This is a massive imposition of personal freedom, it is literally surgically removing the possibility of an experience from an individual. Even if it wasn't fraught with risks and an attack on free sexual expression motivated by a misogynistic religion as part of its war on women it would still be wrong. It's no different to forcibly cutting the hands off of boys to stop them masturbating. | ||
|
syriuszonito
Poland332 Posts
| ||
|
Shival
Netherlands643 Posts
On July 27 2013 22:33 xM(Z wrote: but is the moral compass of evolution only a pleasure vs pain affair?. everything inducing pleasure is right while everything inducing pain is wrong?. how can that be a justification for anything?. In some cases yes, but you're oversimplifying things. Sometimes we have to endure hardship if we want to stand for something we believe is morally correct. That very enduring of hardship is in fact painful, but is the right thing to do. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 27 2013 15:25 T.O.P. wrote: You may think their practices are barbaric. But they think the same way about western culture. IMO, people of their country should have the freedom to run their country as they wish. That means if Egyptians elect a Islamist government, then they should be allowed to conduct their Islamist practices. I think that's a pretty lame response. Just because they think the same thing of us doesn't mean their opinion is as good as ours... Not to mention, to say that Egyptians have elected any government is quite the contestable claim. But it's not like electing a government means everything that happens under that government is acceptable, come on... I understand that it's important to stand up for the little guy in a world which is largely dominated by the west, which has plenty of faults of its own. And also it's important to keep people who criticize non-western cultures for being bigoted douchebags, but sometimes it's justified to stand up against certain practices, which ARE barbaric. Nobody has managed to explain to me why disgusting practices like FGM can hide under the umbrella of a "foreign culture" to become perfectly immune to criticism... Can some of you turbo-liberals explain this to me? I'm asking because I consider myself to be a liberal but I feel like my position gets shaken up pretty seriously when my "peers" defend the stoning of rape victims other forums of cruel punishment for VICTIMS. They'll also defend the fact that grown men marry and consummate their marriage with innocent children and the maiming of little girls with razor blades. Why? You think this is barbaric but they think the same thing about you, this is the best shit you can come up with? You have to look at both sides - on one hand you have people being killed and mangled in order to keep women submissive, on the other hand there's your rainbow in the sky which says "wouldn't it be awesome if all cultures were all considered to be equal, just different". But they aren't, not all of them. I think people have gotten incredibly misguided My deep desire for equality and my deep respect for different cultures ends when a little girl gets her genitals maimed with a razor blade, because wouldn't it be awful if she cheated on her husband later? I don't even know how to explain it... Basically: women's rights supersede culture. I feel no shame when I look down at the (hopefully shrinking) cells of Islamic culture which still find this to be acceptable. I'm fully aware of the concept of "live and let live" and I live by it. I have the utmost respect for non-western cultures, until they themselves fail to operate according to the said "live and let live" philosophy. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5275 Posts
On July 27 2013 22:37 KwarK wrote: This is a massive imposition of personal freedom, it is literally surgically removing the possibility of an experience from an individual. Even if it wasn't fraught with risks and an attack on free sexual expression motivated by a misogynistic religion as part of its war on women it would still be wrong. It's no different to forcibly cutting the hands off of boys to stop them masturbating. you can not justify the goodness of a 'personal freedom' idea, when you impose yours onto others. the best you can do is hope/believe that the gratification would come later, after the act, but there is where the problem lies because when that gratification doesn't come, you ask for it, you demand it, just so you'd feel better about yourself, about what you did. if you carry a burden, at least own up to it; don't play pretends. you are never doing it for them. (you might be doing it for the future them but that's a different story; even so, those future them would be you, would think like you, would have your values, would share your idea of personal freedom because you taught it to them) | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
I don't really think that fundamental rights like the right to not have your body utterly mutilated at a young age (after being indoctrinated in misogyny) is something which culture should supersede. you can not justify the goodness of the 'personal freedom' idea, when you impose yours onto others. False dichotomy. Nobody's freedom is being impugned when someone says that FGM is bad and should be abolished. Why? Because the women who "consent" to FGM are not in a position to give informed consent, as they have been pressured/indoctrinated by a misogynistic philosophy; this should be obvious. Whose freedom is being infringed if we say that FGM is a massive imposition on personal freedom? | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5275 Posts
On July 27 2013 23:07 Shiori wrote: I am absolutely baffled that people are defending the practice on the grounds of "it's their culture." I think a lot of time is being wasted with Danglars' sort of sophistical point about where the line between harmful and merely temporarily uncomfortable should be drawn. Actually, Danglars' point is a good one, but I don't think it's relevant to this issue because, wherever the line is drawn regarding awful traditions vs okay ones, FGM is definitely on the awful side. I don't think anyone disputes that. With that in mind, I don't really think there's anything Western nations can do about it short of yelling at these tribes until they stop mutilating their women. I don't really think that fundamental rights like the right to not have your body utterly mutilated at a young age (after being indoctrinated in misogyny) is something which culture should supersede. False dichotomy. Nobody's freedom is being impugned when someone says that FGM is bad and should be abolished. Why? Because the women who "consent" to FGM are not in a position to give informed consent, as they have been pressured/indoctrinated by a misogynistic philosophy; this should be obvious. Whose freedom is being infringed if we say that FGM is a massive imposition on personal freedom? no one is defending anything. all i'm saying is: go there, screw them over (at least one generation would be screwed over; i'd say 2 - 3 generations to be generous), say i'm sorry, throw money at them, wait untill their believes = your believes, then take pride in the fact that who had the power won. it's how shit works. what constitutes freedom, comes from a set of beliefs. the freedom idea changes with said believes. you have been indoctrinated too. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 27 2013 23:17 xM(Z wrote: no one is defending anything. all i'm saying is: go there, screw them over (at least one generation would be screwed over; i'd say 2 - 3 generations to be generous), say i'm sorry, throw money at them, wait untill their believes = your believes, then take pride in the fact that who had the power won. it's how shit works. what constitutes freedom, comes from a set of beliefs. the freedom idea changes with said believes. you have been indoctrinated too. So what are you suggesting? My indoctrination wherein cutting little girls is unacceptable is equivalent to a different indoctrination where cutting little girls is just fine? | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
what constitutes freedom, comes from a set of beliefs. the freedom idea changes with said believes. you have been indoctrinated too. I don't think morality is relative. Ideas can change all they like, but the truth is the truth. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5275 Posts
On July 27 2013 23:20 Djzapz wrote: So what are you suggesting? My indoctrination wherein cutting little girls is unacceptable is equivalent to a different indoctrination where cutting little girls is just fine? it's not about right or wrong (fine or not fine), it's about who wins. if they win, your (grand)kids would end up believing that cutting little girls is acceptable. | ||
| ||
