|
United States43061 Posts
On August 24 2007 07:57 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 07:30 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 07:23 fight_or_flight wrote:
I call for tolerance in this thread of other cultures please. This is perhaps my biggest problem with modern liberals. While I consider myself a liberal democrat (ie committed to both liberal values and democracy) I find the apologism within modern liberalism absolutely astounding. The idea that all cultures are equal and should be respected equally is politically correct bullshit. This is a culture which hangs children for being gay. Tolerance is not the solution. The argument that it's 'just their culture' is both demeaning to their intelligence and to humanity as a whole. This is not a case in which each culture can learn something from the other and should be treated as equals. This is a cruel, repressive and downright vicious culture which we have evolved beyond in the western world. It is a blight on the conscience of our species and the sooner it is eradicated the better. It is nothing more than denial of human rights. Now take the Amish, they don't hurt anybody, it is simply a variation of lifestyle. And more importantly, they get the choice. That is a variation in culture I will respect. This, this is just barbarism. The existence of a culture which degenerates the human spirit this way is an insult to everything that humanity strives to become. My feelings agree with you, but I simply don't see how you can make this arguement. How can you judge what another culture can and cannot do, and what is right or not? First of all, we must look at this from an evolutionary standpoint. If a culture continues to grow in population, and can survive difficulties, how can it be wrong? For example, with ants, there are many workers. Some species in africa even kill themselves to make bridges across water, etc for the other ants. Do you say thats wrong, that ants shouldn't do that? If the Incas sacrificed virgins to the gods, but it helped keep the people working together and united, how can you say its wrong? I just can't see the line being drawn for tolerating some things but not others. The only thing you shouldn't tolerate is if it directly threatens your way of life (because then you would cease to grow in population). If any other measure is used, then it becomes an arbitrary judgement on your part. So you don't like them hanging people? Now you don't like then giving lashes? Maybe women have lower rights then men, can we also say that is wrong? Where do you draw the line? It seems to me that eventually you want them to live with exactly the same beliefs you have..... including tolerance. Its ok if they have a different religion, eat different foods, and basically do anything that you say is ok. They, having the same beliefs, should also tolerate your actions. However, if they don't posses the same tolerance as you (eg. they give lashes for things they don't tolerate), then they are wrong. It seems to me that tolerance is an all-or-nothing deal. You either tolerate everything unless it threatens you, or you clearly state the things that are and are not acceptable (even if a large number of things are acceptable). If you say "its ok as long as no one is physically hurt", then that is a stated limit. They may have a different opinion....you can either go to war about it or live with it. But they may also think (and do) that your culture is the shitty one. How can one culture be right and another be wrong? (if both have existed for thousands of years?)
All your stuff about evolution is irrelevant. Nature has no morality, but humans are not mere animals. We have our own subjective morality which is constantly evolving. While I admit that Western culture is far from perfect there are some changes in western morality which I feel are milestones in civilisation.
Firstly, whatever takes place behind closed doors is no business of the state. This concept is both a milestone in personal liberty and in tolerance of others. It's the concept that as long as you're not enfringing on the rights of others you can do whatever you like. Gay, straight etc... It's all okay. This does not exist in many cultures around the world and it is nothing more than a denial of human rights.
Punishment is not a goal of justice. Society gains nothing from punishment. If a man is a threat to society then remove him from it, forcibly if necessary. Prisons etc are necessary. However the goal should be prevention and rehabilitation. State governed vengeance is both pointless and barbaric. And this lashing is nothing more than that.
Thirdly, the free will of the individual is sacrosanct. You suggested that sacrificing a few may keep the many happy. When asked how many innocents they'd be willing to kill to cure cancer the answer should always be 0. The common good is always second to the free will of the individual and unless the individual was willing to be sacrificed then it would not be an option. This concept does not conflict with laws that govern a state because those laws come from a popular mandate governed by the free will of the people. Liberalism is intrinsicly linked to democracy.
Tolerance is not an absolute. Nobody could argue that. If a friend told me they were gay I'd be fine with it. If a friend told me they were a rapist I'd be less fine. Both are his choice. I'm not judging it as an absolutist, saying whatever you choose is fine, but rather by the outcome. With the first nobody gets hurt. With the second innocent women are preyed upon. And thus I tolerate the first and not the second. Similarly with a society I am tolerant of a society the outcome of which is that nobody gets hurt. The factors I will judge this by are the 3 above. When it starts violating them I am much less tolerant of it.
Basically, intolerance of evil is fine.
|
United States43061 Posts
On August 24 2007 08:17 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 08:14 Rev0lution wrote:On August 24 2007 07:57 fight_or_flight wrote:On August 24 2007 07:30 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 07:23 fight_or_flight wrote:
I call for tolerance in this thread of other cultures please. This is perhaps my biggest problem with modern liberals. While I consider myself a liberal democrat (ie committed to both liberal values and democracy) I find the apologism within modern liberalism absolutely astounding. The idea that all cultures are equal and should be respected equally is politically correct bullshit. This is a culture which hangs children for being gay. Tolerance is not the solution. The argument that it's 'just their culture' is both demeaning to their intelligence and to humanity as a whole. This is not a case in which each culture can learn something from the other and should be treated as equals. This is a cruel, repressive and downright vicious culture which we have evolved beyond in the western world. It is a blight on the conscience of our species and the sooner it is eradicated the better. It is nothing more than denial of human rights. Now take the Amish, they don't hurt anybody, it is simply a variation of lifestyle. And more importantly, they get the choice. That is a variation in culture I will respect. This, this is just barbarism. The existence of a culture which degenerates the human spirit this way is an insult to everything that humanity strives to become. My feelings agree with you, but I simply don't see how you can make this arguement. How can you judge what another culture can and cannot do, and what is right or not? First of all, we must look at this from an evolutionary standpoint. If a culture continues to grow in population, and can survive difficulties, how can it be wrong? For example, with ants, there are many workers. Some species in africa even kill themselves to make bridges across water, etc for the other ants. Do you say thats wrong, that ants shouldn't do that? If the Incas sacrificed virgins to the gods, but it helped keep the people working together and united, how can you say its wrong? I just can't see the line being drawn for tolerating some things but not others. The only thing you shouldn't tolerate is if it directly threatens your way of life (because then you would cease to grow in population). If any other measure is used, then it becomes an arbitrary judgement on your part. So you don't like them hanging people? Now you don't like then giving lashes? Maybe women have lower rights then men, can we also say that is wrong? Where do you draw the line? It seems to me that eventually you want them to live with exactly the same beliefs you have..... including tolerance. Its ok if they have a different religion, eat different foods, and basically do anything that you say is ok. They, having the same beliefs, should also tolerate your actions. However, if they don't posses the same tolerance as you (eg. they give lashes for things they don't tolerate), then they are wrong. It seems to me that tolerance is an all-or-nothing deal. You either tolerate everything unless it threatens you, or you clearly state the things that are and are not acceptable (even if a large number of things are acceptable). If you say "its ok as long as no one is physically hurt", then that is a stated limit. They may have a different opinion....you can either go to war about it or live with it. But they may also think (and do) that your culture is the shitty one. How can one culture be right and another be wrong? (if both have existed for thousands of years?) This is fucking stupid. Your basically saying that as long as it dont hurt me or my people they can keep killing each other til they all die. As long as I stay away from it then I just dont give a crap. Your comment is selfish and racist. Like I said in the first 5 words of my post, I agree with you. I just don't understand how you can impose some beliefs on others but not other beliefs.
Short answer is that tolerance is not an absolute. It is based upon whether an action infringes upon human rights. If it does not then we tolerate it. If it does then we do not.
|
On August 24 2007 08:18 Kwark wrote:
Basically, intolerance of evil is fine.
This reminded me of something...
+ Show Spoiler +
(like I said we need something more to go off of than feelings....underlying problem is still not solved in my mind)
|
Did you all know in Singapore a blowjob is a crime if no actual intercourse occurs after the sucking?
|
On August 24 2007 08:20 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 08:17 fight_or_flight wrote:On August 24 2007 08:14 Rev0lution wrote:On August 24 2007 07:57 fight_or_flight wrote:On August 24 2007 07:30 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 07:23 fight_or_flight wrote:
I call for tolerance in this thread of other cultures please. This is perhaps my biggest problem with modern liberals. While I consider myself a liberal democrat (ie committed to both liberal values and democracy) I find the apologism within modern liberalism absolutely astounding. The idea that all cultures are equal and should be respected equally is politically correct bullshit. This is a culture which hangs children for being gay. Tolerance is not the solution. The argument that it's 'just their culture' is both demeaning to their intelligence and to humanity as a whole. This is not a case in which each culture can learn something from the other and should be treated as equals. This is a cruel, repressive and downright vicious culture which we have evolved beyond in the western world. It is a blight on the conscience of our species and the sooner it is eradicated the better. It is nothing more than denial of human rights. Now take the Amish, they don't hurt anybody, it is simply a variation of lifestyle. And more importantly, they get the choice. That is a variation in culture I will respect. This, this is just barbarism. The existence of a culture which degenerates the human spirit this way is an insult to everything that humanity strives to become. My feelings agree with you, but I simply don't see how you can make this arguement. How can you judge what another culture can and cannot do, and what is right or not? First of all, we must look at this from an evolutionary standpoint. If a culture continues to grow in population, and can survive difficulties, how can it be wrong? For example, with ants, there are many workers. Some species in africa even kill themselves to make bridges across water, etc for the other ants. Do you say thats wrong, that ants shouldn't do that? If the Incas sacrificed virgins to the gods, but it helped keep the people working together and united, how can you say its wrong? I just can't see the line being drawn for tolerating some things but not others. The only thing you shouldn't tolerate is if it directly threatens your way of life (because then you would cease to grow in population). If any other measure is used, then it becomes an arbitrary judgement on your part. So you don't like them hanging people? Now you don't like then giving lashes? Maybe women have lower rights then men, can we also say that is wrong? Where do you draw the line? It seems to me that eventually you want them to live with exactly the same beliefs you have..... including tolerance. Its ok if they have a different religion, eat different foods, and basically do anything that you say is ok. They, having the same beliefs, should also tolerate your actions. However, if they don't posses the same tolerance as you (eg. they give lashes for things they don't tolerate), then they are wrong. It seems to me that tolerance is an all-or-nothing deal. You either tolerate everything unless it threatens you, or you clearly state the things that are and are not acceptable (even if a large number of things are acceptable). If you say "its ok as long as no one is physically hurt", then that is a stated limit. They may have a different opinion....you can either go to war about it or live with it. But they may also think (and do) that your culture is the shitty one. How can one culture be right and another be wrong? (if both have existed for thousands of years?) This is fucking stupid. Your basically saying that as long as it dont hurt me or my people they can keep killing each other til they all die. As long as I stay away from it then I just dont give a crap. Your comment is selfish and racist. Like I said in the first 5 words of my post, I agree with you. I just don't understand how you can impose some beliefs on others but not other beliefs. Short answer is that tolerance is not an absolute. It is based upon whether an action infringes upon human rights. If it does not then we tolerate it. If it does then we do not.
I think the problem is that Iran doesn't see this as an infringement on human rights, but more as taking the "moral high ground."
It's difficult because in their minds they are doing the right thing, when it is obviously a barbaric and cruel act. I don't tolerate what they have done / are doing, but in all honesty there's nothing that can really be done about it which is sad.
|
A lashing can be far far worse than many people think in terms of the damage it can do to the person being lashed (I know no one has said anything to this effect but it's something that I used to think wasn't that bad until I learned about it a bit more). It can REALLY REALLY fuck you up, even 10 lashes can be permanently damaging.
|
On August 24 2007 07:48 StripedBlueCrow wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 07:36 Element)LoGiC wrote:On August 24 2007 07:27 Mora wrote:
there's like 4 hot guys in that picture.
rock on. Photoshop circles around them. I WANNA SEE I only found two for sure, maybe three. Definitely not four. One of the masked men is too fat, the other one has potential.
The one in the top left is a total badass.
|
United States43061 Posts
On August 24 2007 08:35 RowdierBob wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 08:20 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 08:17 fight_or_flight wrote:On August 24 2007 08:14 Rev0lution wrote:On August 24 2007 07:57 fight_or_flight wrote:On August 24 2007 07:30 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 07:23 fight_or_flight wrote:
I call for tolerance in this thread of other cultures please. This is perhaps my biggest problem with modern liberals. While I consider myself a liberal democrat (ie committed to both liberal values and democracy) I find the apologism within modern liberalism absolutely astounding. The idea that all cultures are equal and should be respected equally is politically correct bullshit. This is a culture which hangs children for being gay. Tolerance is not the solution. The argument that it's 'just their culture' is both demeaning to their intelligence and to humanity as a whole. This is not a case in which each culture can learn something from the other and should be treated as equals. This is a cruel, repressive and downright vicious culture which we have evolved beyond in the western world. It is a blight on the conscience of our species and the sooner it is eradicated the better. It is nothing more than denial of human rights. Now take the Amish, they don't hurt anybody, it is simply a variation of lifestyle. And more importantly, they get the choice. That is a variation in culture I will respect. This, this is just barbarism. The existence of a culture which degenerates the human spirit this way is an insult to everything that humanity strives to become. My feelings agree with you, but I simply don't see how you can make this arguement. How can you judge what another culture can and cannot do, and what is right or not? First of all, we must look at this from an evolutionary standpoint. If a culture continues to grow in population, and can survive difficulties, how can it be wrong? For example, with ants, there are many workers. Some species in africa even kill themselves to make bridges across water, etc for the other ants. Do you say thats wrong, that ants shouldn't do that? If the Incas sacrificed virgins to the gods, but it helped keep the people working together and united, how can you say its wrong? I just can't see the line being drawn for tolerating some things but not others. The only thing you shouldn't tolerate is if it directly threatens your way of life (because then you would cease to grow in population). If any other measure is used, then it becomes an arbitrary judgement on your part. So you don't like them hanging people? Now you don't like then giving lashes? Maybe women have lower rights then men, can we also say that is wrong? Where do you draw the line? It seems to me that eventually you want them to live with exactly the same beliefs you have..... including tolerance. Its ok if they have a different religion, eat different foods, and basically do anything that you say is ok. They, having the same beliefs, should also tolerate your actions. However, if they don't posses the same tolerance as you (eg. they give lashes for things they don't tolerate), then they are wrong. It seems to me that tolerance is an all-or-nothing deal. You either tolerate everything unless it threatens you, or you clearly state the things that are and are not acceptable (even if a large number of things are acceptable). If you say "its ok as long as no one is physically hurt", then that is a stated limit. They may have a different opinion....you can either go to war about it or live with it. But they may also think (and do) that your culture is the shitty one. How can one culture be right and another be wrong? (if both have existed for thousands of years?) This is fucking stupid. Your basically saying that as long as it dont hurt me or my people they can keep killing each other til they all die. As long as I stay away from it then I just dont give a crap. Your comment is selfish and racist. Like I said in the first 5 words of my post, I agree with you. I just don't understand how you can impose some beliefs on others but not other beliefs. Short answer is that tolerance is not an absolute. It is based upon whether an action infringes upon human rights. If it does not then we tolerate it. If it does then we do not. I think the problem is that Iran doesn't see this as an infringement on human rights, but more as taking the "moral high ground." It's difficult because in their minds they are doing the right thing, when it is obviously a barbaric and cruel act. I don't tolerate what they have done / are doing, but in all honesty there's nothing that can really be done about it which is sad.
Political and economic sanctions. Whereas war to change a state is an aggressive and hypocritical course of actions non co-operation is passive and yet, if enough states join it, just as bad. Hell, look at North Korea. A combination of sanctions and sweeteners managed to get them to completely give up on their nuclear project. If enough countries are willing to look beyond trade (read Iranian oil) and act to preserve human rights Iran could be changed. So basically political lobbying, raising attention of issues and a fair amount of idealism.
|
what's the law from anyway? religion?
|
On August 24 2007 08:53 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 08:35 RowdierBob wrote:On August 24 2007 08:20 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 08:17 fight_or_flight wrote:On August 24 2007 08:14 Rev0lution wrote:On August 24 2007 07:57 fight_or_flight wrote:On August 24 2007 07:30 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 07:23 fight_or_flight wrote:
I call for tolerance in this thread of other cultures please. This is perhaps my biggest problem with modern liberals. While I consider myself a liberal democrat (ie committed to both liberal values and democracy) I find the apologism within modern liberalism absolutely astounding. The idea that all cultures are equal and should be respected equally is politically correct bullshit. This is a culture which hangs children for being gay. Tolerance is not the solution. The argument that it's 'just their culture' is both demeaning to their intelligence and to humanity as a whole. This is not a case in which each culture can learn something from the other and should be treated as equals. This is a cruel, repressive and downright vicious culture which we have evolved beyond in the western world. It is a blight on the conscience of our species and the sooner it is eradicated the better. It is nothing more than denial of human rights. Now take the Amish, they don't hurt anybody, it is simply a variation of lifestyle. And more importantly, they get the choice. That is a variation in culture I will respect. This, this is just barbarism. The existence of a culture which degenerates the human spirit this way is an insult to everything that humanity strives to become. My feelings agree with you, but I simply don't see how you can make this arguement. How can you judge what another culture can and cannot do, and what is right or not? First of all, we must look at this from an evolutionary standpoint. If a culture continues to grow in population, and can survive difficulties, how can it be wrong? For example, with ants, there are many workers. Some species in africa even kill themselves to make bridges across water, etc for the other ants. Do you say thats wrong, that ants shouldn't do that? If the Incas sacrificed virgins to the gods, but it helped keep the people working together and united, how can you say its wrong? I just can't see the line being drawn for tolerating some things but not others. The only thing you shouldn't tolerate is if it directly threatens your way of life (because then you would cease to grow in population). If any other measure is used, then it becomes an arbitrary judgement on your part. So you don't like them hanging people? Now you don't like then giving lashes? Maybe women have lower rights then men, can we also say that is wrong? Where do you draw the line? It seems to me that eventually you want them to live with exactly the same beliefs you have..... including tolerance. Its ok if they have a different religion, eat different foods, and basically do anything that you say is ok. They, having the same beliefs, should also tolerate your actions. However, if they don't posses the same tolerance as you (eg. they give lashes for things they don't tolerate), then they are wrong. It seems to me that tolerance is an all-or-nothing deal. You either tolerate everything unless it threatens you, or you clearly state the things that are and are not acceptable (even if a large number of things are acceptable). If you say "its ok as long as no one is physically hurt", then that is a stated limit. They may have a different opinion....you can either go to war about it or live with it. But they may also think (and do) that your culture is the shitty one. How can one culture be right and another be wrong? (if both have existed for thousands of years?) This is fucking stupid. Your basically saying that as long as it dont hurt me or my people they can keep killing each other til they all die. As long as I stay away from it then I just dont give a crap. Your comment is selfish and racist. Like I said in the first 5 words of my post, I agree with you. I just don't understand how you can impose some beliefs on others but not other beliefs. Short answer is that tolerance is not an absolute. It is based upon whether an action infringes upon human rights. If it does not then we tolerate it. If it does then we do not. I think the problem is that Iran doesn't see this as an infringement on human rights, but more as taking the "moral high ground." It's difficult because in their minds they are doing the right thing, when it is obviously a barbaric and cruel act. I don't tolerate what they have done / are doing, but in all honesty there's nothing that can really be done about it which is sad. Political and economic sanctions. Whereas war to change a state is an aggressive and hypocritical course of actions non co-operation is passive and yet, if enough states join it, just as bad. Hell, look at North Korea. A combination of sanctions and sweeteners managed to get them to completely give up on their nuclear project. If enough countries are willing to look beyond trade (read Iranian oil) and act to preserve human rights Iran could be changed. So basically political lobbying, raising attention of issues and a fair amount of idealism.
So its basically tolerance with a little political pressure added, which seems like a good action to take. However, isn't this basically discrimination?
|
On August 24 2007 08:53 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 08:35 RowdierBob wrote:On August 24 2007 08:20 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 08:17 fight_or_flight wrote:On August 24 2007 08:14 Rev0lution wrote:On August 24 2007 07:57 fight_or_flight wrote:On August 24 2007 07:30 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 07:23 fight_or_flight wrote:
I call for tolerance in this thread of other cultures please. This is perhaps my biggest problem with modern liberals. While I consider myself a liberal democrat (ie committed to both liberal values and democracy) I find the apologism within modern liberalism absolutely astounding. The idea that all cultures are equal and should be respected equally is politically correct bullshit. This is a culture which hangs children for being gay. Tolerance is not the solution. The argument that it's 'just their culture' is both demeaning to their intelligence and to humanity as a whole. This is not a case in which each culture can learn something from the other and should be treated as equals. This is a cruel, repressive and downright vicious culture which we have evolved beyond in the western world. It is a blight on the conscience of our species and the sooner it is eradicated the better. It is nothing more than denial of human rights. Now take the Amish, they don't hurt anybody, it is simply a variation of lifestyle. And more importantly, they get the choice. That is a variation in culture I will respect. This, this is just barbarism. The existence of a culture which degenerates the human spirit this way is an insult to everything that humanity strives to become. My feelings agree with you, but I simply don't see how you can make this arguement. How can you judge what another culture can and cannot do, and what is right or not? First of all, we must look at this from an evolutionary standpoint. If a culture continues to grow in population, and can survive difficulties, how can it be wrong? For example, with ants, there are many workers. Some species in africa even kill themselves to make bridges across water, etc for the other ants. Do you say thats wrong, that ants shouldn't do that? If the Incas sacrificed virgins to the gods, but it helped keep the people working together and united, how can you say its wrong? I just can't see the line being drawn for tolerating some things but not others. The only thing you shouldn't tolerate is if it directly threatens your way of life (because then you would cease to grow in population). If any other measure is used, then it becomes an arbitrary judgement on your part. So you don't like them hanging people? Now you don't like then giving lashes? Maybe women have lower rights then men, can we also say that is wrong? Where do you draw the line? It seems to me that eventually you want them to live with exactly the same beliefs you have..... including tolerance. Its ok if they have a different religion, eat different foods, and basically do anything that you say is ok. They, having the same beliefs, should also tolerate your actions. However, if they don't posses the same tolerance as you (eg. they give lashes for things they don't tolerate), then they are wrong. It seems to me that tolerance is an all-or-nothing deal. You either tolerate everything unless it threatens you, or you clearly state the things that are and are not acceptable (even if a large number of things are acceptable). If you say "its ok as long as no one is physically hurt", then that is a stated limit. They may have a different opinion....you can either go to war about it or live with it. But they may also think (and do) that your culture is the shitty one. How can one culture be right and another be wrong? (if both have existed for thousands of years?) This is fucking stupid. Your basically saying that as long as it dont hurt me or my people they can keep killing each other til they all die. As long as I stay away from it then I just dont give a crap. Your comment is selfish and racist. Like I said in the first 5 words of my post, I agree with you. I just don't understand how you can impose some beliefs on others but not other beliefs. Short answer is that tolerance is not an absolute. It is based upon whether an action infringes upon human rights. If it does not then we tolerate it. If it does then we do not. I think the problem is that Iran doesn't see this as an infringement on human rights, but more as taking the "moral high ground." It's difficult because in their minds they are doing the right thing, when it is obviously a barbaric and cruel act. I don't tolerate what they have done / are doing, but in all honesty there's nothing that can really be done about it which is sad. Political and economic sanctions. Whereas war to change a state is an aggressive and hypocritical course of actions non co-operation is passive and yet, if enough states join it, just as bad. Hell, look at North Korea. A combination of sanctions and sweeteners managed to get them to completely give up on their nuclear project. If enough countries are willing to look beyond trade (read Iranian oil) and act to preserve human rights Iran could be changed. So basically political lobbying, raising attention of issues and a fair amount of idealism.
We both know this isn't going to happen. North Korea doesn't have anything the Western World needs, whereas Iran is very influential in the Middle East which as we know is the one of the biggest producers of the black gold...
|
On August 24 2007 08:41 Auspicious wrote:
A lashing can be far far worse than many people think in terms of the damage it can do to the person being lashed (I know no one has said anything to this effect but it's something that I used to think wasn't that bad until I learned about it a bit more). It can REALLY REALLY fuck you up, even 10 lashes can be permanently damaging.
Can you elaborate? I believe you I just want to know what kind of damage we're talking about and I'm too lazy to look it up.
|
Iran lays down the law bitches.
|
|
|
IMHO they still live 500 years back in time. when u think about it the Inquisition did exactly that and much worse in its days. whenever u let the church get power thats when the problems start.for good or for worse the concept of democracy is far from the minds of those people simply because of their religion . maybe u dont know but many of the islamic countries are being led by religious leaders instead of real politicians. and there is a big gap between living with a moral (religion based) code and living under religious RULES.
u also have to consider the fact that it is almost impossible to change the mind set of masses of people and it usually takes a long time to do so. we see this flogging as "bad" only because we were brought up in democratic and liberal countries and history tells us that religious rules can be exploited and generally harmful for liberal societies.
i actually have lots of fellow students from islamic countries that when they came here to study ( in germany) didnt drink liquor, nor did they smoke pot and such but now the majority of them do. still sadly almost all of them still see women as inferior beings....but im getting off topic...
to sum it up : give them some time and the concepts of democracy and liberalism will sink in. might take a while but a man cant change something like that with force or it backfires.
|
United States43061 Posts
On August 24 2007 09:01 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2007 08:53 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 08:35 RowdierBob wrote:On August 24 2007 08:20 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 08:17 fight_or_flight wrote:On August 24 2007 08:14 Rev0lution wrote:On August 24 2007 07:57 fight_or_flight wrote:On August 24 2007 07:30 Kwark wrote:On August 24 2007 07:23 fight_or_flight wrote:
I call for tolerance in this thread of other cultures please. This is perhaps my biggest problem with modern liberals. While I consider myself a liberal democrat (ie committed to both liberal values and democracy) I find the apologism within modern liberalism absolutely astounding. The idea that all cultures are equal and should be respected equally is politically correct bullshit. This is a culture which hangs children for being gay. Tolerance is not the solution. The argument that it's 'just their culture' is both demeaning to their intelligence and to humanity as a whole. This is not a case in which each culture can learn something from the other and should be treated as equals. This is a cruel, repressive and downright vicious culture which we have evolved beyond in the western world. It is a blight on the conscience of our species and the sooner it is eradicated the better. It is nothing more than denial of human rights. Now take the Amish, they don't hurt anybody, it is simply a variation of lifestyle. And more importantly, they get the choice. That is a variation in culture I will respect. This, this is just barbarism. The existence of a culture which degenerates the human spirit this way is an insult to everything that humanity strives to become. My feelings agree with you, but I simply don't see how you can make this arguement. How can you judge what another culture can and cannot do, and what is right or not? First of all, we must look at this from an evolutionary standpoint. If a culture continues to grow in population, and can survive difficulties, how can it be wrong? For example, with ants, there are many workers. Some species in africa even kill themselves to make bridges across water, etc for the other ants. Do you say thats wrong, that ants shouldn't do that? If the Incas sacrificed virgins to the gods, but it helped keep the people working together and united, how can you say its wrong? I just can't see the line being drawn for tolerating some things but not others. The only thing you shouldn't tolerate is if it directly threatens your way of life (because then you would cease to grow in population). If any other measure is used, then it becomes an arbitrary judgement on your part. So you don't like them hanging people? Now you don't like then giving lashes? Maybe women have lower rights then men, can we also say that is wrong? Where do you draw the line? It seems to me that eventually you want them to live with exactly the same beliefs you have..... including tolerance. Its ok if they have a different religion, eat different foods, and basically do anything that you say is ok. They, having the same beliefs, should also tolerate your actions. However, if they don't posses the same tolerance as you (eg. they give lashes for things they don't tolerate), then they are wrong. It seems to me that tolerance is an all-or-nothing deal. You either tolerate everything unless it threatens you, or you clearly state the things that are and are not acceptable (even if a large number of things are acceptable). If you say "its ok as long as no one is physically hurt", then that is a stated limit. They may have a different opinion....you can either go to war about it or live with it. But they may also think (and do) that your culture is the shitty one. How can one culture be right and another be wrong? (if both have existed for thousands of years?) This is fucking stupid. Your basically saying that as long as it dont hurt me or my people they can keep killing each other til they all die. As long as I stay away from it then I just dont give a crap. Your comment is selfish and racist. Like I said in the first 5 words of my post, I agree with you. I just don't understand how you can impose some beliefs on others but not other beliefs. Short answer is that tolerance is not an absolute. It is based upon whether an action infringes upon human rights. If it does not then we tolerate it. If it does then we do not. I think the problem is that Iran doesn't see this as an infringement on human rights, but more as taking the "moral high ground." It's difficult because in their minds they are doing the right thing, when it is obviously a barbaric and cruel act. I don't tolerate what they have done / are doing, but in all honesty there's nothing that can really be done about it which is sad. Political and economic sanctions. Whereas war to change a state is an aggressive and hypocritical course of actions non co-operation is passive and yet, if enough states join it, just as bad. Hell, look at North Korea. A combination of sanctions and sweeteners managed to get them to completely give up on their nuclear project. If enough countries are willing to look beyond trade (read Iranian oil) and act to preserve human rights Iran could be changed. So basically political lobbying, raising attention of issues and a fair amount of idealism. So its basically tolerance with a little political pressure added, which seems like a good action to take. However, isn't this basically discrimination?
Yes. I'm all for discriminating against racism, sexism, persecution on the grounds of religion, corporal punishment, draconian impositions on free will and tyranny. Aren't you?
Discrimination and tolerance are just words. Until you apply them to something they are neither good nor bad. Tolerance is negative if it means tolerance of evil. Discrimination is positive if it means rejection of evil.
|
|
|
United States43061 Posts
On August 24 2007 09:26 str wrote:
IMHO they still live 500 years back in time. when u think about it the Inquisition did exactly that and much worse in its days. whenever u let the church get power thats when the problems start.for good or for worse the concept of democracy is far from the minds of those people simply because of their religion . maybe u dont know but many of the islamic countries are being led by religious leaders instead of real politicians. and there is a big gap between living with a moral (religion based) code and living under religious RULES.
u also have to consider the fact that it is almost impossible to change the mind set of masses of people and it usually takes a long time to do so. we see this flogging as "bad" only because we were brought up in democratic and liberal countries and history tells us that religious rules can be exploited and generally harmful for liberal societies.
i actually have lots of fellow students from islamic countries that when they came here to study ( in germany) didnt drink liquor, nor did they smoke pot and such but now the majority of them do. still sadly almost all of them still see women as inferior beings....but im getting off topic...
to sum it up : give them some time and the concepts of democracy and liberalism will sink in. might take a while but a man cant change something like that with force or it backfires.
Actually the evidence very much suggests that if you don't repress western values they are accepted eagerly by the people. Take the example of Turkey, or Japan for that matter. Or any of the ex-Soviet countries. The reason for this is that western values are generally good for the people involved. ie women like not being treated as second class citizens. gay people like not being hung. If the state lets the people choose I have confidence that they will make the humane choice.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
typical western values might include, i dunno, ship building, bread and butter, and a bit of the individualism expected of a society not long freed from hunting and raiding.
seriously, some of these 'western values' is not really western. but meh.
|
On August 24 2007 08:18 Kwark wrote:
All your stuff about evolution is irrelevant. Nature has no morality, but humans are not mere animals. We have our own subjective morality which is constantly evolving. While I admit that Western culture is far from perfect there are some changes in western morality which I feel are milestones in civilisation.
Firstly, whatever takes place behind closed doors is no business of the state. This concept is both a milestone in personal liberty and in tolerance of others. It's the concept that as long as you're not enfringing on the rights of others you can do whatever you like. Gay, straight etc... It's all okay. This does not exist in many cultures around the world and it is nothing more than a denial of human rights.
Punishment is not a goal of justice. Society gains nothing from punishment. If a man is a threat to society then remove him from it, forcibly if necessary. Prisons etc are necessary. However the goal should be prevention and rehabilitation. State governed vengeance is both pointless and barbaric. And this lashing is nothing more than that.
Thirdly, the free will of the individual is sacrosanct. You suggested that sacrificing a few may keep the many happy. When asked how many innocents they'd be willing to kill to cure cancer the answer should always be 0. The common good is always second to the free will of the individual and unless the individual was willing to be sacrificed then it would not be an option. This concept does not conflict with laws that govern a state because those laws come from a popular mandate governed by the free will of the people. Liberalism is intrinsicly linked to democracy.
Tolerance is not an absolute. Nobody could argue that. If a friend told me they were gay I'd be fine with it. If a friend told me they were a rapist I'd be less fine. Both are his choice. I'm not judging it as an absolutist, saying whatever you choose is fine, but rather by the outcome. With the first nobody gets hurt. With the second innocent women are preyed upon. And thus I tolerate the first and not the second. Similarly with a society I am tolerant of a society the outcome of which is that nobody gets hurt. The factors I will judge this by are the 3 above. When it starts violating them I am much less tolerant of it.
Basically, intolerance of evil is fine.
happy birthday kwark!
first off lots of good posts in this thread. i'm kinda undecided, but here are some thoughts:
I think a lot of people mistakenly take the idea that people should be able to do whatever they want without harming others and extend it so that countries can do whatever they want without harming others. This doesn't work because the individual person is the unit that makes decisions; what the leaders of a country decide might go against many individuals. So in principle it's OK to be intolerant of cultures/countries for reprehensible actions against their citizens even if they don't harm other countries, but less OK to be intolerant of individuals for their own actions if they don't harm other individuals.
That said, you do need to carefully consider intolerance; you can't just go by your gut feeling of what feels right or wrong, because that's largely built up by your own culture/upbringing.
In this case, presumably the guy being punished went against the law of the land and basically knew that he could face these consequences if caught. As Kwark said, society needs to protect itself from actions that hurt the population at large. Presumably, Iran believes that adultery (or was it just premarital sex?) hurts their society. Maybe they think it leads to more adultery, more unhappy marriages, STDs, jealousy, even murder. It's even possible that they're right in their case. Now one way of protecting themselves from this is the promise of punishment as a deterrent (just like fines or jailtime). Maybe a public display of punishment is even more effective, I don't know.
It's not only Iran that limits individual (or couples) rights for society's sake. A weaker parallel to their law of sex outside of marriage is say 20 year olds having sex with 17 year olds in the US being illegal, calling it pedophilia. Or laws against suicide or euthanasia. Or seatbelt laws, drug usage, carrying guns, etc. You can't draw an absolute line and say what's right and wrong when individual rights conflict with society's best interests. At some point, judgment calls have to be made, and different cultures with different prevailing attitudes will make different decisions. And of course, it's imperfect, but if someone lives in a country with radically different attitudes than their own; they do have some freedom of emigration (like how Canada's immigration website had record traffic after Bush's 2004 re-election).
I will exercise abstinence for this poll since I'm not sure if I should vote heart or brain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://blog.kir.com/archives/George-Bush%20frowning.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://nandaba.net/pics/iran.jpg)
