|
Canada11381 Posts
I don't your angle xmz. What are you getting at? That our outrage is only worth something if it is effacious through the means of war? That we should not condemn something unless we mean to conquer, but then we are just another Machiavellian imperialist?
In your mind, is there nothing in between defending the practice due to cultural relativism and an invasion over ideology?
|
On July 27 2013 23:38 GreenGringo wrote:
People are not deep thinkers by their nature. They don't grasp principles, but only special cases. That's why ten years ago the UK was defending the rights of Holocaust deniers like David Irving, whereas today it's arresting people for offensive Twitter statements. They don't realize the inconsistency because they never understood the principle of freedom of speech; rather, they only took a few soundbytes.
Yet whenever we turn to a subject involving people with brown skin, everyone becomes a philosopher. The very fundamental principles of existence are questioned. What is pain? How do we know that pain is bad? What really is truth? Is truth merely our Western-centric version of truth? Does truth really vary between different communities with different perceptions of the truth? What right do we have to say that female genital mutilation is wrong? Were the Nazis wrong? Is anything wrong? What is the law, and how does it distinguish right from wrong? Do we really need juries? What is the use in innocent until proven guilty? Is it a reasonable procedure to use violent force against someone because you feel a little affronted? Does logic really matter, or do you just follow your "heart"? What is the use in freedom of speech? Is it okay to arrest people if they make offensive remarks on Twitter? Etc.
Unless you are there actively advocating, then those philosophical questions you bring up (contemptuously?) are the only interesting thing to discuss. Rather than people merely shouting "it's bad!" or not, we have to attempt to define why. It's not a useless endeavor either; any position you can refine closer to certainty, especially in thorny issues such as this, can be generalized to other issues. It's kind of like how theoretical math is useless in itself yet finds important applications.
On July 28 2013 01:02 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 01:00 Dagda99 wrote:
Why not battle both female and male genital mutilation? Why just focus on the females? Oh yeah, I forgot. MGM isn't important because it's considered normal in America to cut the foreskin off a baby for no medical benefit. That happens in different threads. Both things are different problems and they're done for entirely different reasons. It's fine to take both of those things separately. Also refer to page1, don't derail this thread and make it about dicks. Go to the dicks threads to talk about dicks.
That is an unfair comment. Is an FGM thread a "pussy thread"? It's not about the genitalia, but rather the actions people are committing on other's bodies. This raises another question: does intent really matter? I see many people arguing on the grounds that FGM is bad *because* it is intended to control female sexuality. If the intent changes, is it less bad? Also I would say it's pretty hard for us to apply a universal intent on an act that is occurring across a wide spread of cultures and geography. If I remember right, Indonesia also practices FGM, and as I shared in the links earlier, the USA used to perform "medical" clitoridectomies less than a century ago.
|
On July 28 2013 01:25 Mothra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 23:38 GreenGringo wrote:
People are not deep thinkers by their nature. They don't grasp principles, but only special cases. That's why ten years ago the UK was defending the rights of Holocaust deniers like David Irving, whereas today it's arresting people for offensive Twitter statements. They don't realize the inconsistency because they never understood the principle of freedom of speech; rather, they only took a few soundbytes.
Yet whenever we turn to a subject involving people with brown skin, everyone becomes a philosopher. The very fundamental principles of existence are questioned. What is pain? How do we know that pain is bad? What really is truth? Is truth merely our Western-centric version of truth? Does truth really vary between different communities with different perceptions of the truth? What right do we have to say that female genital mutilation is wrong? Were the Nazis wrong? Is anything wrong? What is the law, and how does it distinguish right from wrong? Do we really need juries? What is the use in innocent until proven guilty? Is it a reasonable procedure to use violent force against someone because you feel a little affronted? Does logic really matter, or do you just follow your "heart"? What is the use in freedom of speech? Is it okay to arrest people if they make offensive remarks on Twitter? Etc. Unless you are there actively advocating, then those philosophical questions you bring up (contemptuously?) are the only interesting thing to discuss. Rather than people merely shouting "it's bad!" or not, we have to attempt to define why. It's not a useless endeavor either; any position you can refine closer to certainty, especially in thorny issues such as this, can be generalized to other issues. It's kind of like how theoretical math is useless in itself yet finds important applications; same with philosophical discussion. Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 01:02 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2013 01:00 Dagda99 wrote:
Why not battle both female and male genital mutilation? Why just focus on the females? Oh yeah, I forgot. MGM isn't important because it's considered normal in America to cut the foreskin off a baby for no medical benefit. That happens in different threads. Both things are different problems and they're done for entirely different reasons. It's fine to take both of those things separately. Also refer to page1, don't derail this thread and make it about dicks. Go to the dicks threads to talk about dicks. That is an unfair comment. Is an FGM thread a "pussy thread"? It's not about the genitalia, but rather the actions people are committing on other's bodies. This raises another question: does intent really matter? I see many people arguing on the grounds that FGM is bad *because* it is intended to control female sexuality. If the intent changes, is it less bad? Also I would say it's pretty hard for us to apply a universal intent on an act that is occurring across a wide spread of cultures and geography.
If a male circumcision thread is a dick thread then yeah an FGM thread is a pussy thread. What's unfair about that? Page 1 mod note states not to discuss male circumcision in this thread and all he did is point that out.
The intention behind an act does not change the act, FGM is obviously bad but people are pointing out the "intent" behind it doesn't justify it in any way. If the intent was to save lives and if it wasn't done girls would die then it'd still be a horrible thing to do but it would be necessary, however controlling female sexuality in this manner isn't necessary, it's barbaric.
|
On July 28 2013 01:25 Mothra wrote:
That is an unfair comment. Is an FGM thread a "pussy thread"? It's not about the genitalia, but rather the actions people are committing on other's bodies. This raises another question: does intent really matter? I see many people arguing on the grounds that FGM is bad *because* it is intended to control female sexuality. If the intent changes, is it less bad? Also I would say it's pretty hard for us to apply a universal intent on an act that is occurring across a wide spread of cultures and geography. If I remember right, Indonesia also practices FGM, and as I shared in the links earlier, the USA used to perform "medical" clitoridectomies less than a century ago.
Look, disregard my comment about "dicks thread", I was just trying to make my point clear about the adjacent debate.
If you want to fiddle with semantics just for the hell of it, be my guest. This kind of stuff was fun to me a while ago but having been in a billion internet debates, it's actually getting tiring. Here we go: the end result is the same regardless of the justification. The "intent" matters only in that the intent is not a valid justification for the act.
FGM is bad because it's: 1- dangerous 2- serves no justified purpose.
We know this because 1- some kids die, others suffer, but all kids are maimed 2- the explanation ("intent") is despicable
I'm sure there are other reasons or intentions behind cutting female genitalia, but the explanation that is available to me doesn't weigh in in the balance as a justification. That's why the "intent" is useful to mention. And feel free to give me other explanations for FGM, odds are I'll be able to tell you why it's bullshit.
We can define other words if that exercise interests you.
|
Netherlands6826 Posts
Guys, don't get me wrong, this thread OP seems very informed and quickly glancing over the posts it seems this thread has met higher standards than most on TL (and TL does pretty well in general)
But I'm trying to play TL Mafia and there's this text in the corner of my eye that says "Female Genital Mutilation" and it's distracting.
|
On July 28 2013 01:30 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 01:25 Mothra wrote:On July 27 2013 23:38 GreenGringo wrote:
People are not deep thinkers by their nature. They don't grasp principles, but only special cases. That's why ten years ago the UK was defending the rights of Holocaust deniers like David Irving, whereas today it's arresting people for offensive Twitter statements. They don't realize the inconsistency because they never understood the principle of freedom of speech; rather, they only took a few soundbytes.
Yet whenever we turn to a subject involving people with brown skin, everyone becomes a philosopher. The very fundamental principles of existence are questioned. What is pain? How do we know that pain is bad? What really is truth? Is truth merely our Western-centric version of truth? Does truth really vary between different communities with different perceptions of the truth? What right do we have to say that female genital mutilation is wrong? Were the Nazis wrong? Is anything wrong? What is the law, and how does it distinguish right from wrong? Do we really need juries? What is the use in innocent until proven guilty? Is it a reasonable procedure to use violent force against someone because you feel a little affronted? Does logic really matter, or do you just follow your "heart"? What is the use in freedom of speech? Is it okay to arrest people if they make offensive remarks on Twitter? Etc. Unless you are there actively advocating, then those philosophical questions you bring up (contemptuously?) are the only interesting thing to discuss. Rather than people merely shouting "it's bad!" or not, we have to attempt to define why. It's not a useless endeavor either; any position you can refine closer to certainty, especially in thorny issues such as this, can be generalized to other issues. It's kind of like how theoretical math is useless in itself yet finds important applications; same with philosophical discussion. On July 28 2013 01:02 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2013 01:00 Dagda99 wrote:
Why not battle both female and male genital mutilation? Why just focus on the females? Oh yeah, I forgot. MGM isn't important because it's considered normal in America to cut the foreskin off a baby for no medical benefit. That happens in different threads. Both things are different problems and they're done for entirely different reasons. It's fine to take both of those things separately. Also refer to page1, don't derail this thread and make it about dicks. Go to the dicks threads to talk about dicks. That is an unfair comment. Is an FGM thread a "pussy thread"? It's not about the genitalia, but rather the actions people are committing on other's bodies. This raises another question: does intent really matter? I see many people arguing on the grounds that FGM is bad *because* it is intended to control female sexuality. If the intent changes, is it less bad? Also I would say it's pretty hard for us to apply a universal intent on an act that is occurring across a wide spread of cultures and geography. If a male circumcision thread is a dick thread then yeah an FGM thread is a pussy thread. What's unfair about that? Page 1 mod note states not to discuss male circumcision in this thread and all he did is point that out. The intention behind an act does not change the act, FGM is obviously bad but people are pointing out the "intent" behind it doesn't justify it in any way. If the intent was to save lives and if it wasn't done girls would die then it'd still be a horrible thing to do but it would be necessary, however controlling female sexuality in this manner isn't necessary, it's barbaric.
So IF it saved lives, it could be justified as necessary? I can't find the link but there was a "study" done by Egyptian doctors trying to prove FGM is beneficial to health. Such bullshit can be raised ad infinitum if there is support and money behind it. If it happens that FGM shifted to a medical setting and started to be justified on the grounds of hygiene and disease prevention, then you would have to start from the ground up again.
|
On July 28 2013 01:36 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 01:25 Mothra wrote:
That is an unfair comment. Is an FGM thread a "pussy thread"? It's not about the genitalia, but rather the actions people are committing on other's bodies. This raises another question: does intent really matter? I see many people arguing on the grounds that FGM is bad *because* it is intended to control female sexuality. If the intent changes, is it less bad? Also I would say it's pretty hard for us to apply a universal intent on an act that is occurring across a wide spread of cultures and geography. If I remember right, Indonesia also practices FGM, and as I shared in the links earlier, the USA used to perform "medical" clitoridectomies less than a century ago. Look, disregard my comment about "dicks thread", I was just trying to make my point clear about the adjacent debate. If you want to fiddle with semantics just for the hell of it, be my guest. This kind of stuff was fun to me a while ago but having been in a billion internet debates, it's actually getting tiring. Here we go: the end result is the same regardless of the justification. The "intent" matters only in that the intent is not a valid justification for the act. FGM is bad because it's: 1- dangerous 2- serves no justified purpose. We know this because 1- some kids die, others suffer, but all kids are maimed 2- the explanation ("intent") is despicable I'm sure there are other reasons or intentions behind cutting female genitalia, but the explanation that is available to me doesn't weigh in in the balance as a justification. That's why the "intent" is useful to mention. And feel free to give me other explanations for FGM, odds are I'll be able to tell you why it's bullshit. We can define other words if that exercise interests you.
How about cleanliness, disease prevention and tradition? It doesn't matter that the claims are nonsense, because if FGM is bad because of danger and intent alone, then proponents can merely try to lessen the danger, and dispute whether the intent is good or bad (no need to prove, just endlessly dispute if that is a major part of the grounds for objecting to the practice). If consent and bodily integrity are clearly defined, then FGM cannot be justified no matter what intent is given, or if it shifts to hospital settings.
|
On July 28 2013 02:06 Mothra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 01:36 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2013 01:25 Mothra wrote:
That is an unfair comment. Is an FGM thread a "pussy thread"? It's not about the genitalia, but rather the actions people are committing on other's bodies. This raises another question: does intent really matter? I see many people arguing on the grounds that FGM is bad *because* it is intended to control female sexuality. If the intent changes, is it less bad? Also I would say it's pretty hard for us to apply a universal intent on an act that is occurring across a wide spread of cultures and geography. If I remember right, Indonesia also practices FGM, and as I shared in the links earlier, the USA used to perform "medical" clitoridectomies less than a century ago. Look, disregard my comment about "dicks thread", I was just trying to make my point clear about the adjacent debate. If you want to fiddle with semantics just for the hell of it, be my guest. This kind of stuff was fun to me a while ago but having been in a billion internet debates, it's actually getting tiring. Here we go: the end result is the same regardless of the justification. The "intent" matters only in that the intent is not a valid justification for the act. FGM is bad because it's: 1- dangerous 2- serves no justified purpose. We know this because 1- some kids die, others suffer, but all kids are maimed 2- the explanation ("intent") is despicable I'm sure there are other reasons or intentions behind cutting female genitalia, but the explanation that is available to me doesn't weigh in in the balance as a justification. That's why the "intent" is useful to mention. And feel free to give me other explanations for FGM, odds are I'll be able to tell you why it's bullshit. We can define other words if that exercise interests you. How about cleanliness, disease prevention and tradition? It doesn't matter that the claims are nonsense, because if FGM is bad because of danger and intent alone, then proponents can merely try to lessen the danger, and dispute whether the intent is good or bad (no need to prove, just endlessly dispute if that is a major part of the grounds for objecting to the practice). If consent and bodily integrity are clearly defined, then FGM cannot be justified no matter what intent is given, or if they do it hospitals to make it safer.
Cleanliness, disease prevention and tradition...
What's clean about mutilating a little girl? Going to cut their ears off too, reduce the number of nooks and crannies of the human body so that it can't get dirty? There are consequences to doing this shit.
How does mutilating a little girl prevent diseases? They get infected and die from the procedure a lot of the time, but if they survive they won't want sex so it'll prevent them from getting diseases I guess? Seems like a good time.
And tradition, seriously? I don't understand why people keep pulling that ridiculous card. As it was pointed earlier, in India a long time ago, they had a tradition of burning or buying the widows of dead men, alive. It's cheap and disgusting to slap the "tradition" card on anything and expect it's ok.
The fact that those arguments are even used gives me ammunition, I can use those pitiful attempts at justifications to show how bad it is, and how desperate they are to try to justify their actions. You don't have to care about those arguments, you can look at the raw problem and say that it's bad, I agree... but you can also look at the elements that surround that problem to better understand it, and to know what's wrong with it and why.
|
On July 28 2013 01:25 Mothra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 23:38 GreenGringo wrote:
People are not deep thinkers by their nature. They don't grasp principles, but only special cases. That's why ten years ago the UK was defending the rights of Holocaust deniers like David Irving, whereas today it's arresting people for offensive Twitter statements. They don't realize the inconsistency because they never understood the principle of freedom of speech; rather, they only took a few soundbytes.
Yet whenever we turn to a subject involving people with brown skin, everyone becomes a philosopher. The very fundamental principles of existence are questioned. What is pain? How do we know that pain is bad? What really is truth? Is truth merely our Western-centric version of truth? Does truth really vary between different communities with different perceptions of the truth? What right do we have to say that female genital mutilation is wrong? Were the Nazis wrong? Is anything wrong? What is the law, and how does it distinguish right from wrong? Do we really need juries? What is the use in innocent until proven guilty? Is it a reasonable procedure to use violent force against someone because you feel a little affronted? Does logic really matter, or do you just follow your "heart"? What is the use in freedom of speech? Is it okay to arrest people if they make offensive remarks on Twitter? Etc. Unless you are there actively advocating, then those philosophical questions you bring up (contemptuously?) are the only interesting thing to discuss. Rather than people merely shouting "it's bad!" or not, we have to attempt to define why. It's not a useless endeavor either; any position you can refine closer to certainty, especially in thorny issues such as this, can be generalized to other issues. It's kind of like how theoretical math is useless in itself yet finds important applications. And why the hell would these "philosophical" questions only come up when brown people are involved? Why don't equivalent questions ever get raised when the subject is employee rights, or the minimum wage, or all kinds of other political/moral questions? On these questions, most pundits not only refrain from "deep thinking"; they're actually incredibly shallow. It's only when the "white guilt" factor comes into play that the deep questions get asked. And the reason they get asked is to kick up sand into the conversation and avoid committing to an opinion.
I didn't see the multiculti liberals second-guessing themselves when it came to Zimmerman. No, they'd have nothing better than to put him away for 20 years. Where was all the nuance and the caution then?
|
On July 28 2013 00:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 23:52 xM(Z wrote:On July 27 2013 23:35 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2013 23:30 xM(Z wrote:On July 27 2013 23:20 Djzapz wrote:On July 27 2013 23:17 xM(Z wrote: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. 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? 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? 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. OK, so? What exactly are you trying to argue? that winners don't need justification and that playing the vigilante card, is just disguised hypocrisy. On July 27 2013 23:34 Djzapz wrote:On July 27 2013 23:30 xM(Z wrote:
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. That seems off topic, nobody's talking about going to war. Advocacy is not to be dismissed... I guess you can "win" with pressure but yeah... Not sure what your angle is. ideological wars are the bloodiest and this is what we are doing here. mine is right, yours is wrong so let's see who wins. Your argument is morally bankrupt, you are advocating the abdication of rational judgement, the thing that makes us better than animals, in favour of ideological passivity. You can bitch all you like about how it's all subjective and the winner decides what is normal and good but it's not true, maybe not everything I believe is right and true and good but I'm damn sure that my belief that you shouldn't cut off the clitoris of girls and sew their vaginas shut isn't one of them. Sure enough to impose my beliefs on others who disagree. People disagree all the time but that doesn't mean that there aren't right answers, it just means some people are dumb. What's worse than the dumb people though are people like you who have so little conviction that they'd rather see evil go on in front of them than take a stance, at least the dumb people don't know they're dumb, you claim to look at all the evidence and yet can't come to a conclusion.
Assuming that every human being can use "Rational judgement" to come up with the same conclusion is flawed anyway. In those countries, they're not using the same premises as you so they won't get to the same conclusion (that "FGM is bad").
For example, over there religious dogma is much more powerful than in western countries and can be the basis for a "reasoned" argument ("God wants A, hence B" is perfectly fine), which is kind of inconceivable for you.
So I agree with xMZ that in the end it comes down to a power struggle between cultures. If you want your "right thing" to prevail, fight and impose it on others.
And btw, there isn't really anything to discuss or debate in this thread, I'm sure nobody here actually support the practice :D. Good OP nonetheless, informative at least.
|
On July 28 2013 02:17 GreenGringo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 01:25 Mothra wrote:On July 27 2013 23:38 GreenGringo wrote:
People are not deep thinkers by their nature. They don't grasp principles, but only special cases. That's why ten years ago the UK was defending the rights of Holocaust deniers like David Irving, whereas today it's arresting people for offensive Twitter statements. They don't realize the inconsistency because they never understood the principle of freedom of speech; rather, they only took a few soundbytes.
Yet whenever we turn to a subject involving people with brown skin, everyone becomes a philosopher. The very fundamental principles of existence are questioned. What is pain? How do we know that pain is bad? What really is truth? Is truth merely our Western-centric version of truth? Does truth really vary between different communities with different perceptions of the truth? What right do we have to say that female genital mutilation is wrong? Were the Nazis wrong? Is anything wrong? What is the law, and how does it distinguish right from wrong? Do we really need juries? What is the use in innocent until proven guilty? Is it a reasonable procedure to use violent force against someone because you feel a little affronted? Does logic really matter, or do you just follow your "heart"? What is the use in freedom of speech? Is it okay to arrest people if they make offensive remarks on Twitter? Etc. Unless you are there actively advocating, then those philosophical questions you bring up (contemptuously?) are the only interesting thing to discuss. Rather than people merely shouting "it's bad!" or not, we have to attempt to define why. It's not a useless endeavor either; any position you can refine closer to certainty, especially in thorny issues such as this, can be generalized to other issues. It's kind of like how theoretical math is useless in itself yet finds important applications. And why the hell would these "philosophical" questions only come up when brown people are involved? Why don't equivalent questions ever get raised when the subject is employee rights, or the minimum wage, or all kinds of other political/moral questions? On these questions, most pundits not only refrain from "deep thinking"; they're actually incredibly shallow. It's only when the "white guilt" factor comes into play that the deep questions get asked. And the reason they get asked is to kick up sand into the conversation and avoid committing to an opinion.
The questions also seem to arise on abortion, police brutality, military, prisons etc. I don't think it's only rooted in race. Perhaps the closer the topic is to one's own life (examples you gave), the more likely one is to trust their own experience, and resist examining underlying beliefs.
|
On July 28 2013 02:30 Mothra wrote:
The questions also seem to arise on abortion, police brutality, military, prisons etc. I don't think it's only rooted in race. Perhaps the closer the topic is to one's own life (examples you gave), the more likely one is to trust their own experience, and resist examining underlying beliefs. Er, what? Care to give some examples of people questioning how you can know anything to be true, and what is pain, and how can you judge anything to be wrong (all questions we've seen raised in the current thread), in the context of abortion, military and prisons?
|
wow..... really scary read
|
On July 28 2013 02:23 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 00:25 KwarK wrote:On July 27 2013 23:52 xM(Z wrote:On July 27 2013 23:35 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2013 23:30 xM(Z wrote:On July 27 2013 23:20 Djzapz wrote:On July 27 2013 23:17 xM(Z wrote: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. 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? 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? 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. OK, so? What exactly are you trying to argue? that winners don't need justification and that playing the vigilante card, is just disguised hypocrisy. On July 27 2013 23:34 Djzapz wrote:On July 27 2013 23:30 xM(Z wrote:
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. That seems off topic, nobody's talking about going to war. Advocacy is not to be dismissed... I guess you can "win" with pressure but yeah... Not sure what your angle is. ideological wars are the bloodiest and this is what we are doing here. mine is right, yours is wrong so let's see who wins. Your argument is morally bankrupt, you are advocating the abdication of rational judgement, the thing that makes us better than animals, in favour of ideological passivity. You can bitch all you like about how it's all subjective and the winner decides what is normal and good but it's not true, maybe not everything I believe is right and true and good but I'm damn sure that my belief that you shouldn't cut off the clitoris of girls and sew their vaginas shut isn't one of them. Sure enough to impose my beliefs on others who disagree. People disagree all the time but that doesn't mean that there aren't right answers, it just means some people are dumb. What's worse than the dumb people though are people like you who have so little conviction that they'd rather see evil go on in front of them than take a stance, at least the dumb people don't know they're dumb, you claim to look at all the evidence and yet can't come to a conclusion. Assuming that every human being can use "Rational judgement" to come up with the same conclusion is flawed anyway. In those countries, they're not using the same premises as you so they won't get to the same conclusion (that "FGM is bad"). For example, over there religious dogma is much more powerful than in western countries and can be the basis for a "reasoned" argument ("God wants A, hence B" is perfectly fine), which is kind of inconceivable for you. So I agree with xMZ that in the end it comes down to a power struggle between cultures. If you want your "right thing" to prevail, fight and impose it on others. And btw, there isn't really anything to discuss or debate in this thread, I'm sure nobody here actually support the practice :D. Good OP nonetheless, informative at least.
The fact here is that there is no real "actual right." This is all based on perception. Zenith, you are very right to point out cultural differences, I wasn't going to comment in this thread, but I have to quote your comment because of how on point it is. The U.N. exists in a Western way, whereas these countries don't. The differences because of this make us think the action is barbaric, which isn't the case for a lot of the people taking part in it. The process is slowly dying, for various reasons, and while I don't agree with it, we as westerners have no place telling other people that what they are doing is "objectively bad" even if we find the process detestable.
|
On July 28 2013 02:32 GreenGringo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 02:30 Mothra wrote:
The questions also seem to arise on abortion, police brutality, military, prisons etc. I don't think it's only rooted in race. Perhaps the closer the topic is to one's own life (examples you gave), the more likely one is to trust their own experience, and resist examining underlying beliefs. Er, what? Care to give some examples of people questioning how you can know anything to be true, and what is pain, and how can you judge anything to be wrong (all questions we've seen raised in the current thread), in the context of abortion, military and prisons?
Well there was the discussion on whether or not solitary confinement is torture (pain). For abortion, the discussion centers around how can we know if an embryo is a human being, whether it feels pain and if that is relevant, and whether it is as wrong to kill a "potential" human as an actual one. For military actions there is often the question "do the ends justify the means", or if one can be punished for doing "wrong" if they acted with imperfect information? I would say the fundamental questions you are talking about underlie all those topics.
|
On July 28 2013 02:42 docvoc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 02:23 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 00:25 KwarK wrote:On July 27 2013 23:52 xM(Z wrote:On July 27 2013 23:35 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2013 23:30 xM(Z wrote:On July 27 2013 23:20 Djzapz wrote:On July 27 2013 23:17 xM(Z wrote: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. 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? 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? 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. OK, so? What exactly are you trying to argue? that winners don't need justification and that playing the vigilante card, is just disguised hypocrisy. On July 27 2013 23:34 Djzapz wrote:On July 27 2013 23:30 xM(Z wrote:
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. That seems off topic, nobody's talking about going to war. Advocacy is not to be dismissed... I guess you can "win" with pressure but yeah... Not sure what your angle is. ideological wars are the bloodiest and this is what we are doing here. mine is right, yours is wrong so let's see who wins. Your argument is morally bankrupt, you are advocating the abdication of rational judgement, the thing that makes us better than animals, in favour of ideological passivity. You can bitch all you like about how it's all subjective and the winner decides what is normal and good but it's not true, maybe not everything I believe is right and true and good but I'm damn sure that my belief that you shouldn't cut off the clitoris of girls and sew their vaginas shut isn't one of them. Sure enough to impose my beliefs on others who disagree. People disagree all the time but that doesn't mean that there aren't right answers, it just means some people are dumb. What's worse than the dumb people though are people like you who have so little conviction that they'd rather see evil go on in front of them than take a stance, at least the dumb people don't know they're dumb, you claim to look at all the evidence and yet can't come to a conclusion. Assuming that every human being can use "Rational judgement" to come up with the same conclusion is flawed anyway. In those countries, they're not using the same premises as you so they won't get to the same conclusion (that "FGM is bad"). For example, over there religious dogma is much more powerful than in western countries and can be the basis for a "reasoned" argument ("God wants A, hence B" is perfectly fine), which is kind of inconceivable for you. So I agree with xMZ that in the end it comes down to a power struggle between cultures. If you want your "right thing" to prevail, fight and impose it on others. And btw, there isn't really anything to discuss or debate in this thread, I'm sure nobody here actually support the practice :D. Good OP nonetheless, informative at least. The fact here is that there is no real "actual right." This is all based on perception. Zenith, you are very right to point out cultural differences, I wasn't going to comment in this thread, but I have to quote your comment because of how on point it is. The U.N. exists in a Western way, whereas these countries don't. The differences because of this make us think the action is barbaric, which isn't the case for a lot of the people taking part in it. The process is slowly dying, for various reasons, and while I don't agree with it, we as westerners have no place telling other people that what they are doing is "objectively bad" even if we find the process detestable.
So there is nothing objectively wrong with rape or murder either? The only bad thing about them is the possibility of getting caught?
|
On July 28 2013 02:42 docvoc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 02:23 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 00:25 KwarK wrote:On July 27 2013 23:52 xM(Z wrote:On July 27 2013 23:35 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2013 23:30 xM(Z wrote:On July 27 2013 23:20 Djzapz wrote:On July 27 2013 23:17 xM(Z wrote: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. 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? 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? 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. OK, so? What exactly are you trying to argue? that winners don't need justification and that playing the vigilante card, is just disguised hypocrisy. On July 27 2013 23:34 Djzapz wrote:On July 27 2013 23:30 xM(Z wrote:
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. That seems off topic, nobody's talking about going to war. Advocacy is not to be dismissed... I guess you can "win" with pressure but yeah... Not sure what your angle is. ideological wars are the bloodiest and this is what we are doing here. mine is right, yours is wrong so let's see who wins. Your argument is morally bankrupt, you are advocating the abdication of rational judgement, the thing that makes us better than animals, in favour of ideological passivity. You can bitch all you like about how it's all subjective and the winner decides what is normal and good but it's not true, maybe not everything I believe is right and true and good but I'm damn sure that my belief that you shouldn't cut off the clitoris of girls and sew their vaginas shut isn't one of them. Sure enough to impose my beliefs on others who disagree. People disagree all the time but that doesn't mean that there aren't right answers, it just means some people are dumb. What's worse than the dumb people though are people like you who have so little conviction that they'd rather see evil go on in front of them than take a stance, at least the dumb people don't know they're dumb, you claim to look at all the evidence and yet can't come to a conclusion. Assuming that every human being can use "Rational judgement" to come up with the same conclusion is flawed anyway. In those countries, they're not using the same premises as you so they won't get to the same conclusion (that "FGM is bad"). For example, over there religious dogma is much more powerful than in western countries and can be the basis for a "reasoned" argument ("God wants A, hence B" is perfectly fine), which is kind of inconceivable for you. So I agree with xMZ that in the end it comes down to a power struggle between cultures. If you want your "right thing" to prevail, fight and impose it on others. And btw, there isn't really anything to discuss or debate in this thread, I'm sure nobody here actually support the practice :D. Good OP nonetheless, informative at least. The fact here is that there is no real "actual right." This is all based on perception. Zenith, you are very right to point out cultural differences, I wasn't going to comment in this thread, but I have to quote your comment because of how on point it is. The U.N. exists in a Western way, whereas these countries don't. The differences because of this make us think the action is barbaric, which isn't the case for a lot of the people taking part in it. The process is slowly dying, for various reasons, and while I don't agree with it, we as westerners have no place telling other people that what they are doing is "objectively bad" even if we find the process detestable.
True. And yet it must not prevent us from intervening if we think it's not right.
It just won't be for the sake of doing the "objective right thing", that would be naive to think that way :D
On July 28 2013 02:50 Mothra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 02:42 docvoc wrote:On July 28 2013 02:23 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 00:25 KwarK wrote:On July 27 2013 23:52 xM(Z wrote:On July 27 2013 23:35 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2013 23:30 xM(Z wrote:On July 27 2013 23:20 Djzapz wrote:On July 27 2013 23:17 xM(Z wrote: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.
[quote]
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. 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. OK, so? What exactly are you trying to argue? that winners don't need justification and that playing the vigilante card, is just disguised hypocrisy. On July 27 2013 23:34 Djzapz wrote:On July 27 2013 23:30 xM(Z wrote:
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. That seems off topic, nobody's talking about going to war. Advocacy is not to be dismissed... I guess you can "win" with pressure but yeah... Not sure what your angle is. ideological wars are the bloodiest and this is what we are doing here. mine is right, yours is wrong so let's see who wins. Your argument is morally bankrupt, you are advocating the abdication of rational judgement, the thing that makes us better than animals, in favour of ideological passivity. You can bitch all you like about how it's all subjective and the winner decides what is normal and good but it's not true, maybe not everything I believe is right and true and good but I'm damn sure that my belief that you shouldn't cut off the clitoris of girls and sew their vaginas shut isn't one of them. Sure enough to impose my beliefs on others who disagree. People disagree all the time but that doesn't mean that there aren't right answers, it just means some people are dumb. What's worse than the dumb people though are people like you who have so little conviction that they'd rather see evil go on in front of them than take a stance, at least the dumb people don't know they're dumb, you claim to look at all the evidence and yet can't come to a conclusion. Assuming that every human being can use "Rational judgement" to come up with the same conclusion is flawed anyway. In those countries, they're not using the same premises as you so they won't get to the same conclusion (that "FGM is bad"). For example, over there religious dogma is much more powerful than in western countries and can be the basis for a "reasoned" argument ("God wants A, hence B" is perfectly fine), which is kind of inconceivable for you. So I agree with xMZ that in the end it comes down to a power struggle between cultures. If you want your "right thing" to prevail, fight and impose it on others. And btw, there isn't really anything to discuss or debate in this thread, I'm sure nobody here actually support the practice :D. Good OP nonetheless, informative at least. The fact here is that there is no real "actual right." This is all based on perception. Zenith, you are very right to point out cultural differences, I wasn't going to comment in this thread, but I have to quote your comment because of how on point it is. The U.N. exists in a Western way, whereas these countries don't. The differences because of this make us think the action is barbaric, which isn't the case for a lot of the people taking part in it. The process is slowly dying, for various reasons, and while I don't agree with it, we as westerners have no place telling other people that what they are doing is "objectively bad" even if we find the process detestable. So there is nothing objectively wrong with rape or murder either? The only bad thing about them is the possibility of getting caught?
Well, no there isn't. It's morally wrong for sure in our societies (and most societies, as a matter of fact), but objectively =/= morally.
Basically when discussing morality, right or wrong, nothing is ever "objective" and 100% rational. There will always be some elements of culture, religion, history, philosophy, etc..
|
On July 28 2013 02:44 Mothra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 02:32 GreenGringo wrote:On July 28 2013 02:30 Mothra wrote:
The questions also seem to arise on abortion, police brutality, military, prisons etc. I don't think it's only rooted in race. Perhaps the closer the topic is to one's own life (examples you gave), the more likely one is to trust their own experience, and resist examining underlying beliefs. Er, what? Care to give some examples of people questioning how you can know anything to be true, and what is pain, and how can you judge anything to be wrong (all questions we've seen raised in the current thread), in the context of abortion, military and prisons? Well there was the discussion on whether or not solitary confinement is torture (pain). For abortion, the discussion centers around how can we know if an embryo is a human being, whether it feels pain and if that is relevant, and whether it is as wrong to kill a "potential" human as an actual one. For military actions there is often the question "do the ends justify the means", or if one can be punished for doing "wrong" if they acted with imperfect information? I would say the fundamental questions you are talking about underlie all those topics. These seem like pretty natural questions that human beings would ask when confronted these problems.
It's not even remotely in the same league as casting doubt on whether you can ever judge somebody to be wrong. That is madness.
|
On July 28 2013 02:50 Mothra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 02:42 docvoc wrote:On July 28 2013 02:23 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 00:25 KwarK wrote:On July 27 2013 23:52 xM(Z wrote:On July 27 2013 23:35 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2013 23:30 xM(Z wrote:On July 27 2013 23:20 Djzapz wrote:On July 27 2013 23:17 xM(Z wrote: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.
[quote]
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. 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. OK, so? What exactly are you trying to argue? that winners don't need justification and that playing the vigilante card, is just disguised hypocrisy. On July 27 2013 23:34 Djzapz wrote:On July 27 2013 23:30 xM(Z wrote:
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. That seems off topic, nobody's talking about going to war. Advocacy is not to be dismissed... I guess you can "win" with pressure but yeah... Not sure what your angle is. ideological wars are the bloodiest and this is what we are doing here. mine is right, yours is wrong so let's see who wins. Your argument is morally bankrupt, you are advocating the abdication of rational judgement, the thing that makes us better than animals, in favour of ideological passivity. You can bitch all you like about how it's all subjective and the winner decides what is normal and good but it's not true, maybe not everything I believe is right and true and good but I'm damn sure that my belief that you shouldn't cut off the clitoris of girls and sew their vaginas shut isn't one of them. Sure enough to impose my beliefs on others who disagree. People disagree all the time but that doesn't mean that there aren't right answers, it just means some people are dumb. What's worse than the dumb people though are people like you who have so little conviction that they'd rather see evil go on in front of them than take a stance, at least the dumb people don't know they're dumb, you claim to look at all the evidence and yet can't come to a conclusion. Assuming that every human being can use "Rational judgement" to come up with the same conclusion is flawed anyway. In those countries, they're not using the same premises as you so they won't get to the same conclusion (that "FGM is bad"). For example, over there religious dogma is much more powerful than in western countries and can be the basis for a "reasoned" argument ("God wants A, hence B" is perfectly fine), which is kind of inconceivable for you. So I agree with xMZ that in the end it comes down to a power struggle between cultures. If you want your "right thing" to prevail, fight and impose it on others. And btw, there isn't really anything to discuss or debate in this thread, I'm sure nobody here actually support the practice :D. Good OP nonetheless, informative at least. The fact here is that there is no real "actual right." This is all based on perception. Zenith, you are very right to point out cultural differences, I wasn't going to comment in this thread, but I have to quote your comment because of how on point it is. The U.N. exists in a Western way, whereas these countries don't. The differences because of this make us think the action is barbaric, which isn't the case for a lot of the people taking part in it. The process is slowly dying, for various reasons, and while I don't agree with it, we as westerners have no place telling other people that what they are doing is "objectively bad" even if we find the process detestable. So there is nothing objectively wrong with rape or murder either? The only bad thing about them is the possibility of getting caught?
Let's throw out the worst things people can do to each other and say they are vaguely related to the topic at hand! No. There is a difference between a ritual that is accepted by a group of people as necessary for a women, one that the women in the area consent to (barring any of the bullshit "brainwashing" talk that people seem to think is any different than the cultures they live in) and someone raping a women, something she doesn't consent to at all. People consent to scarration all the time, or to labia/clitoris rings or piercings in western society, but I'm guessing that's all fine and dandy because it isn't called mutilation is it Mothra.
|
On July 28 2013 02:56 docvoc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 02:50 Mothra wrote:On July 28 2013 02:42 docvoc wrote:On July 28 2013 02:23 ZenithM wrote:On July 28 2013 00:25 KwarK wrote:On July 27 2013 23:52 xM(Z wrote:On July 27 2013 23:35 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2013 23:30 xM(Z wrote:On July 27 2013 23:20 Djzapz wrote:On July 27 2013 23:17 xM(Z wrote:
[quote]
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? 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. OK, so? What exactly are you trying to argue? that winners don't need justification and that playing the vigilante card, is just disguised hypocrisy. On July 27 2013 23:34 Djzapz wrote:On July 27 2013 23:30 xM(Z wrote:
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. That seems off topic, nobody's talking about going to war. Advocacy is not to be dismissed... I guess you can "win" with pressure but yeah... Not sure what your angle is. ideological wars are the bloodiest and this is what we are doing here. mine is right, yours is wrong so let's see who wins. Your argument is morally bankrupt, you are advocating the abdication of rational judgement, the thing that makes us better than animals, in favour of ideological passivity. You can bitch all you like about how it's all subjective and the winner decides what is normal and good but it's not true, maybe not everything I believe is right and true and good but I'm damn sure that my belief that you shouldn't cut off the clitoris of girls and sew their vaginas shut isn't one of them. Sure enough to impose my beliefs on others who disagree. People disagree all the time but that doesn't mean that there aren't right answers, it just means some people are dumb. What's worse than the dumb people though are people like you who have so little conviction that they'd rather see evil go on in front of them than take a stance, at least the dumb people don't know they're dumb, you claim to look at all the evidence and yet can't come to a conclusion. Assuming that every human being can use "Rational judgement" to come up with the same conclusion is flawed anyway. In those countries, they're not using the same premises as you so they won't get to the same conclusion (that "FGM is bad"). For example, over there religious dogma is much more powerful than in western countries and can be the basis for a "reasoned" argument ("God wants A, hence B" is perfectly fine), which is kind of inconceivable for you. So I agree with xMZ that in the end it comes down to a power struggle between cultures. If you want your "right thing" to prevail, fight and impose it on others. And btw, there isn't really anything to discuss or debate in this thread, I'm sure nobody here actually support the practice :D. Good OP nonetheless, informative at least. The fact here is that there is no real "actual right." This is all based on perception. Zenith, you are very right to point out cultural differences, I wasn't going to comment in this thread, but I have to quote your comment because of how on point it is. The U.N. exists in a Western way, whereas these countries don't. The differences because of this make us think the action is barbaric, which isn't the case for a lot of the people taking part in it. The process is slowly dying, for various reasons, and while I don't agree with it, we as westerners have no place telling other people that what they are doing is "objectively bad" even if we find the process detestable. So there is nothing objectively wrong with rape or murder either? The only bad thing about them is the possibility of getting caught? Let's throw out the worst things people can do to each other and say they are vaguely related to the topic at hand! No. There is a difference between a ritual that is accepted by a group of people as necessary for a women, one that the women in the area consent to (barring any of the bullshit "brainwashing" talk that people seem to think is any different than the cultures they live in) and someone raping a women, something she doesn't consent to at all. People consent to scarration all the time, or to labia/clitoris rings or piercings in western society, but I'm guessing that's all fine and dandy because it isn't called mutilation is it Mothra.
I actually don't think using the word mutilation is helpful, based what the women themselves say in those articles. But that is what people refer to it as here. I don't know what evidence you're relying on that FGM of children has their informed consent. That really is the heart of the issue, and it is funny that you liken FGM to consensual body modification and distance it from non consensual sex in the same breath.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
