That's just like, your opinion, man. Cultural relativism

Muslims! They're backwards, women-abusing conservative fuckwits OR! They're just following the mores of their culture. We shouldn't judge them based on our standards.

I think it's interesting that as we've developed more individual freedoms in the West, we're keen to apply those standards when dealing with other cultures. Therefore, even though most of their society is barbaric and xenophobic, we're less likely to shout "Kill the 'eathens! They dun like it up 'em!" and invade and give their women their clits and the right to show their faces back. These days, with our cultural relativism, we're more likely to say "Well, I disapprove, but who are we to apply our morals to them? It's perfectly alright by their standards.

Thoughts?

I am not sure where you would like us to take this topic?

Take it wherever you like. Call me a racist. Decry their culture. Uphold their right to run their own country. Tell me YOUR opinion.

Busting out with the second controversy-inspiring topic. Big-ups.

Nick wrote:I am not sure where you would like us to take this topic?

You're not familiar with this whole 'Forum' thing, are you?

Sorry, but I just can't resist the burning of Nick. I'm like some sort of Bad-Ass pyromaniac around him.

Marc wrote:Thoughts?

The first thing I'd want to say is to do with your comment on "as we developed more individual freedoms". The way in which you put it, though it may have been unintentional, seems to place a fair amount of emphasis on the agent, namely Us, in that we did something active in order to bring about those changes. That could be true, but I'm certainly more inclined to think of it in a different light, that is, one in which certain ideals were ripe at a certain time, for certain reasons, and they just took hold. Rather than any rational/moral process that any single culture instigated.
In addition to that, I've also found it interesting to see, and feel, that "individual" freedoms gain so much of the high ground, and be positioned front row-centre when it comes to goals to achieve. Whereas in certain cultures, in particular Asian ones come to mind, their view of the individual is more to be not one; rather, be a part of the structure of the society that you find yourself receiving from/contributing to, or something. I think that's really interesting, and my own personal interests lay more in the different effects these cultures have on people's self-identity/'consciousness' (for lack of better words).

Andrew.C wrote:in certain cultures, in particular Asian ones come to mind...

I think you'll find the highly family orientated Northern European cultures (Like Norway) have this kind of a view too- i don't have hard facts other than their public health care systems are better than anywhere else, and in addition to this- their child minding setup is unbelievable- Australia is like 25 years behind when it comes to Long day care... i think the reason is the social fostering of family ideals- i.e. that the family is the most important thing, etc.

Glenjamin wrote:Northern European cultures (Like Norway) have this kind of a view too

Mmm, I agree with you in respects to their better health care and what not, even maybe the family stuff, but I think it's miles removed from what I'm referring to in these Asian cultures. In these cultures, the little about it that I've read/heard, there's what could almost be described as a entirely different world view as to the role humans play - though maybe that's taking it too far - whereas I think Norway has been very much influenced (or perhaps was even engaged in the influencing themselves) by the 'Western' views. The only examples I can think of at the moment relate to Linguistics, as that was why I was reading into it, and how there was really very different ways (occasionally) in the manner in which people communicated with each other, reflecting this view. I don't actually have some cold hard examples on me... though I guess I'll try find them if you want.

To just pick a more concrete path and spur this topic on in that direction, I’ll take my comment on individual freedoms’ golden status and try to flesh it out a little more.

Allowing the freedom of the individual to trump, well, almost everything else is the extreme end of a scale, and I won’t suggest that anyone holds this view, but I’ll just use it as the launch pad.

I noticed that in another topic the phrase “freedom of [blank]” was used quite a lot. But, as we all know, there’s a huge caveat (perhaps tacit, I’m not familiar with any actual legislation/Bill of freedoms) placed on all of those statements, that says something like this: “you have the freedom to [blank], UNLESS it infringes upon anyone else’s rights”. So we obviously recognise the need to curtail, to some extent, people’s individual rights, probably for some ‘greater good’ e.g. society at large. Though, the point of doing that is probably because a stable society is better for individuals, in the long run, than an unstable one.

My main point, to look at it in a more biological light – which is what I’ve been wanting to do to some post for some time, is about deriving Ought from Is (I think). It’s no surprise that, being the organisms we are, we most like satisfying all our desires; that’s just the way it is. But why is setting up a system that allows that any better/moraler than one that may not do that to the same extent i.e. We all like to live in a society where MY view is respected, where MY dreams can be realised, where I can focus on doing what’s best for me. All animals do. That is the way we is set up. In the same vein, just to spell it out, we don’t usually like the idea of living in and working for a society whose main goals are something different from our own, if it means we may not be able to achieve ours. This is an especially strong emotion because we’ve all lived all of our life in a society which emphasises strongly the individual. But I don’t see how we can say that this way is righter than the other; sure it’s nicer: I like stuff, I love having stuff and doing things, especially when it’s things that I love doing. But then again, I have trouble controlling those pathways that are beyond our control.

My thoughts?

I say, FUCK your culture. If you don't follow this:

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Then I'm invading your fucking country.

Oh yeah? And the man in the White House? Ha! Not likely.
Well, I guess you did just say that they were your thoughts, and at least you’ve responded with something... So who am I to argue?

But I will say that you didn’t tell me why your culture’s better; you just said you’d kill me for disagreeing (hey, that Christianity’s blossoming nicely – Nah, sorry, that was below the belt. I’s just kidding. And I kid because I love.)

You can’t solve all your issues by killing those who oppose you. Actually...

Simmo! wrote:My thoughts?

I say, FUCK your culture. If you don't follow this:

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Then I'm invading your fucking country.

But that was the point of this post. We don't do that anymore, because by the lights of our culture, they have the right to maintain theirs. Our standards preclude us from enforcing them.

But you seem to think they shouldn't; so, how do we justify this kind of force to a non-aggressor? Also, bear in mind what happened/is still happening in Iraq. There was a segment of the population that wanted democracy and actually supported the invading troops (a segment that was possibly exaggerated when America was attempting to justify the invasion), but there was also a segment that obviously didn't, as they still run guerilla activities against the occupying forces. How can you turn an invasion into a long-term, systemic change? Particularly when large portions of the people in the country concerned don't want that change?

After the first sentence in the second paragraph, it kinda sounds like I'm trying to change the point to make you seem wrong, but I'm not. It was just supposed to be a natural outgrowth of the conversation already in progress.

I could be going down the wrong track, but are we now arguing for the full-scale invasion of countries? Wait, I think I hear something...

America...
America...
America, fuck yeah!
Coming again, to save the mother fuckin' day yeah,
America, fuck yeah!
Freedom is the only way yeah,

Woooo!!!

Terrorists, you're game is through
''cause now you have ta answer to

America, fuck Yeah!
So lick my butt and suck on my balls

America, fuck Yeah!
Whatcha' gonna do when we come for you now

It's the dream that we all share
It's the hope for tomorrow
fuck Yeah!

McDonald's, fuck Yeah!
Wal-Mart, fuck Yeah!
The Gap, fuck Yeah!
Baseball, fuck Yeah!
The NFL, fuck Yeah!
Rock N' Roll, fuck Yeah!
The Internet, fuck Yeah!
Slavery, fuck Yeah![
fuck Yeah!

Starbucks, fuck Yeah!
Disneyworld, fuck Yeah!
Porno, fuck Yeah!
Valium, fuck Yeah!
Reeboks, fuck Yeah!
Fake Tits, fuck Yeah!
Sushi, fuck Yeah!
Taco Bell, fuck Yeah!
Rodeos, fuck Yeah!
Bed, Bath and Beyond, fuck Yeah!, fuck Yeah!

Liberty, fuck Yeah!
White Slips, fuck Yeah!
The Alamo, fuck Yeah!
Band-aids, fuck Yeah!
Las Vegas, fuck Yeah!
Christmas, fuck Yeah!
Immigrants, fuck Yeah!
Popeyes, fuck Yeah!
Democrats, fuck Yeah!
Republicans, fuck Yeah!, fuck Yeah!
Sportsmanship, fuck Yeah!
Books, fuck Yeah!





p.s.(I tryed to find some good firework animated gifs but they all sucked)

Andrew.C wrote:I could be going down the wrong track, but are we now arguing for the full-scale invasion of countries?

I wasn't.

Beautiful flag work, Nick. Nice waving.

Marc wrote:I wasn't.

Oh, sorry, I must have misinterpreted these quotes...

Marc wrote:so, how do we justify this kind of force to a non-aggressor?

Marc wrote:How can you turn an invasion into a long-term, systemic change?

I found them in The Sun, so they can't have been out of context.

I was asking Simmo to back up his statement, by proving that it can be justified and proving it can work.

...are you questioning my journalistic skills?

...a little.

Marc wrote:

Andrew.C wrote:I could be going down the wrong track, but are we now arguing for the full-scale invasion of countries?

I wasn't.

I am. To put my point romantically, there is a lot of evil in the world, and evil flourishes when good men do nothing.

So you think that's enough, that you disagree with them? That's enough to justify an invasion?

No, not just a disagreement. If there is human rights abuse happening on a large scale, and diplomatic efforts fail, then you can invade. Thats just how I roll.

Marc wrote:How can you turn an invasion into a long-term, systemic change?

It can happen. Just because the American's seem to be sucking at it doesn't mean it's not a possible thing. Look at the Norman invasion of Britain in 1066 as an example. It completely reworked the governing of the entire nation. The only difference is then it was more like 'Hey guys, check out my leet warriors. I'm the fucking pope now.' and these days its more like 'Hey guys, watch me bomb the shit out of everything for a while, then you can set up your own government.' It's slower and it sucks but there's a good chance that it will work in the long run, and for the greater good.