Malaysia imposes dress code for non-muslims, THE FRENCH WAY

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Proud_Muslim, Jan 11, 2004.

  1. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Quote:If 97 per cent of American heterosexual people advocate killing homosexuals, does that mean it is ok? Suppose you are homosexual. What right do you have to interfere in the "other" culture, to impose your moral views on them?

    If I felt compelled to defend against an atrocity happening right under my nose then I would be the first on the front lines believe me. If the atrocity happened elsewhere one could lobby their government to accept the refugees of such a situation. I placed the article for you to understand that the women who take part in and ultimately CONTROL the future of the custom are RESPONSIBLE. I am not going to knock on some woman's door uninvited and attempt to convince her of something she doesn't see as a problem. Let those local women who are working towards change knock on her door and try and convince her. If they fail then it isn't the right time for such change. I hope you noticed that in that link the EU stated that it is not their position to try and change FMG in other nations but that they would try and enact laws within the Union banning the custom. I applaud their position.

    Quote: Compare your view. You say that even having this kind of debate is a waste of time. We should let sleeping dogs lie, and never try to change anybody's mind about anything.

    No darlink, I am saying that I would never bother discussing the issue with someone who isn't OPEN. You don't have to go far on a subject to know who is resistant and who is willing to discuss and entertain another point of view without acrimony, disrespect or insult. I am having this dialogue with you because I am genuinly curious about your position and can tell that you are open and willing to consider my views. Now this doesn't mean you will change mine or that I will change yours, it means we are simply OPEN. I never discuss religion when abroad...NEVER! Why? Because I know that in many countries local custom and belief are so entreched that to question them would be considered an insult. If I go to their temples I show the utmost respect, even if Buddha doesn't mean jack to me. I show reverence for their space because it is not my space. I don't insist that they accept my view of superstition etc. Why would I? Same thing with discussing FMG, which I have with Gambian men and women in Belgium, I listen to what they have to say and learn their point of view, I don't call them barbarians and tell them they should be shot because it is none of my business. They are not trying to forcing the custom on me or my culture, they have a right to their own customs. The first time a Gambian woman said to me that it had been done to her and has happened for generations and was none of business then I left it alone. Her daughter lives with her not with me.

    Quote:Suppose the government passes a law making abortion illegal. Suppose you become pregnant and have some problem which threatens your life unless you have an abortion. Is abortion good or bad, then? Your society has decided it is bad.

    I would fight the law. I would encourage others to disobey the law. I would leave the country and have the abortion anyway.

    Quote:Another hypothetical: Suppose abortion is legal, no questions asked. Your friend becomes pregnant, but decides after 7 months, for purely selfish reasons, that she doesn't want the baby after all. She decides instead to have an abortion. Is abortion good or bad, then?

    If she is my friend I would hold her hand and sit in the waiting room.

    Quote: What if your friend is from Molvania, where the general opinion is that late-term abortion for whatever reason is fine, as long as the woman wants it? Would you advise your friend not to go ahead? Obviously not, if you're consistent with your expressed views. This abortion is ok for her, or her society, so who are you to interfere. Right?

    I would never interfere with a womans choice to have an abortion plain and simple. It is not my life nor my body. If she is fine with her decision so am I.

    Quote:Name me a society in which the majorit of members do not believe that incest between a mother and her son is wrong. Show me one where the majority thinks rape is ok.

    The question of incest is commonly taboo but that doesn't make it illegal. If an adult son wants to sleep with his mother and she approves its no skin off my nose. Interestingly enough Anais Nin at the age of thirty consciously seduced her father and had an affair with him for a short period of time. She told Antonin Artaud and others, they were horrified. If a friend of mine told me she was planning on moving in with her father as his wife I would suggest therapy, but if she chooses to do so then I would roll my eyes and leave it alone. Rape seems to be 'ok' in cultures where arranged marriages are imposed. A woman cannot decide she is unwilling to sleep with her husband without consequence.

    Quote

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    roposition: it is all right to kill another person for no particular reason, if you want to.I can give many reasons why this is wrong. I can argue on religious grounds. I can argue on utilitarian grounds. I can make a "do unto others..." argument. How many reasons can you give for this being a moral course of action?

    Too bad you weren't around to explain that to the Khmer Rouge...I am sure they would have shot you dead on moral grounds.

    Quote:Believing something is not the same as having good grounds for that belief.

    If I have a gun behind your head it doesn't matter who believes what because then all grounds are good grounds for dying. Please dont misunderstand me, I agree it sucks but that is the way these things occur. We are all happy lovey civilized folk until the shit hits the fan and then its about living and dying not believing and morality. If you can convince a fighting unit to put down their guns then peacefully then by all means try, but the chances are you won't have much luck. Ever hear of a war being quelled through words alone? Ghandi died trying and now Pakistan and India are still going at it. They talk and talk but the guerillas fight and fight.

    Quote:Surely you don't believe that?

    Yes I do believe that. Slave owners didn't have to justify themselves to anyone especially their slaves. The end of slavery began on the front lines where people were willing to die over the issue.

    Quote: At one time, it was perfectly legal to own slaves. Was that morally justified, then? Who are we to judge the morality of the slave-owning culture?

    Look you do not understand me. Saying something is bad is useless and unproductive. A plantation owner with a bunch of slaves didn't care how others labeled or judged the issue. When slavery was legal they had the law behind them, that was enough justification needed to own another human being.

    Quote:I'm not at all confused. I am quite happy to interfere with somebody's liberty if by doing so I will reduce their interference with the liberties of other people, but only if there is a net positive outcome.

    The only net positive outcome you will find is a bullet in the behind.

    Quote:But you shouldn't stand by and simply watch injustices without acting. To do so is to abdicate your responsibility to live a moral life.

    If the injustice is happening in my midst then I will act if I have the power to do so. I will act if asked to do so by those directly involved. But outside of that no. By the way where was the U.N during the Pol Pot era? Out fishing I suppose. Where were they during the Sarejevo siege? Tibet? They are the ones you should pose this question to since you believe it is their DUTY to act. Every problem that occurs in the world is not my responsibility or duty, even the U.N doesn't always think its their duty.(which is where I find their hypocrisy and complete impotence). Having said that I do not trust them enough to give them more power. They are the ones who get a hard-on by sending their troops into places just to have them stand around and watch. Perverts!

    Quote:
    This is your argument in a nutshell: "That's just the way it is. We should never try to change anything."I say that religions are not perfect. They get some things wrong. Some of their moral arguments are faulty. We should work towards educating people about the things which are wrong with religions. We should try to change opinions where they are wrong.

    YOu know what my position is. If you think that the religious have things wrong then I suggest you send them a letter letting them know this and I am sure they will read it and then completely ignor it.

    Quote:Which society or culture would that be? My house? My neighbourhood? My state? My country? The world? You draw an arbitrary line.

    Please don't take this wrong but it is only the naive who think they can change the world. You can change yourself and maybe even change a few around you, but you will never change the world nor human nature. How many wars have happened since the conception of the U.N? How many continue? How many peacemakers have there been? How many have been martyred? If you want to die for a cause that is fine. If you want to scream and shout that is fine. If you want to engage in local politics to change what can be changed that is even better. In other words work on changing what you can DIRECTLY, what you have POWER to change. By working on what is right in front of you you create a domino effect that inadvertently changes other things, that may or may not change other things. If you think about THE WORLD then you will be as impotent and exhausted as the U.N on a Saturday night, and no further towards your goal.

    Quote:Who are these "others"? We all live in the one world.

    Others are all those who do not belong to the community to which I contribute and directly affect.

    Quote:What has that got to do with anything?

    Well you wrote that China was only beginning to open up to captialism and I am indicating to you that China has had capitalism. War, corruption by the elite and outsiders, mistreatment of the massess led to revolution.

    Quote:
    "Europe is not in the business of preaching and imposing its culture on other countries and nations. However, Europe must be very clear in defending its values which are built around justice, equality of the sexes and human rights. Therefore, we cannot tolerate that within our borders, a cultural practice becomes an excuse for the violation of fundamental human rights. Irrational traditional practices do not have a place in modern societies, especially since they are aimed at continuing to subjugate women. The global community has clearly itself to human rights and this is reflected both in conventions and international agreements."

    I agree with them but this has no bearing on the countries where women insist on FMG. If it did then they would not have to discuss the matter. If simply being exposed to the West were enough then the EU would not have to legislate the matter. The fact is that women continue to practise the custom no matter what others think. The law will help but there will always be those within EU borders who will do it anyway, or what is usual, take their daughters away on holiday and have it done in their indigenous countries.

    Quote:
    I don't believe people are inherently "good", but they do share some common moral ideas, as I have pointed out previously. As you say, human beings are complex. They do not have only one motivation, but many, sometimes conflicting, desires. The questions of morality concern which of these conflicting aims ought to take precedence. Some people act morally; others do not. But most know when they are acting immorally.

    I completely disagree. I think that civility is a thin veil hiding darker urges and given the chance those urges will rise to the surface, when they do the participants couldn't give a fart. I think morality is a product of society not nature.

    I must say James that I find this debate really quite stimulating, refreshing and important.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Flores Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,245

    Your posts are too long..Can you try to follow up every one of your posts with a summary containing the cream of the crop highlights.

    Thanks for the summary, and I agree whole heartedly.....really...duh! I don't think that I implied the need for any foreign intervention??? I was merely discussing the merits of such practices...I have no inclination to change them, just an assessment. Do you have an assessment on some so called religious practices like Hijab, female mutilation, dress code and how it may affect rape, ect...? Again, I don't plan on using the information to intervene with a foreign governmnet, just an innocent assessment.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    LOL. They are long because I have been responding to James and his specific points and questions.

    At least you are attempting to understand my point of view (as is james) others simply browsed came across one line and then assumed something.

    I am not sure if I could make a definite assessment linking rape with Hijab or dress code, for one to do that rape would have to be studied in each culture specifically, compare the commonality and differences, and then assess those differences and where they stem from. I think rape can be linked with perceptions of a females sexual conduct, power, pathological criminal behaviour and possibly other factors like the rape gene theory someone mentioned. For example consider how long in the West it was assumed that a husband could not rape his wife? Or how many men don't believe a prostitute can be raped? Off the top of my head I would think that if a muslim man was raised to identify a 'clean/decent/good/chaste' woman by her dress, and he was also raised to believe that other women were not clean/good/decent/chaste then it is easier to violate a woman on those assumptions. In my opinion rape is linked to a society's perception of female sexuality. Just look at the Kobe Bryant case, the defense is telling the public the woman had multiple sex partners a few days before the rape, that is an attempt to cast doubt on the woman's 'virtue', her sexual conduct. If they paint her as a promiscuous woman then she will not be viewed as clean/good/decent/chaste and Byant becomes a victim of a bad/insane/promiscuous woman. The defense says they are using her past sexual history to prove she could have suffered vaginal injury from 'having too much sex'. See what I'm getting at? It would be interesting to know the stats on rape in places where FMG is practised and whether non-circumcised women are more prone to be raped, but I don't have any information on that. If anyone does it would be welcome. And by the way, James and I were discussing many topics, the problems associated with regime change was simply one of them.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Lucysnow:

    Before I respond to your latest posts, I'd like to say that I also find this a thought-provoking discussion. It is rare to find somebody who has thought through their opinions to the extent that you obviously have, and who can back them up with references and personal experience. Although I disagree with you in some respects (which I will continue to go into below), I thank you for forcing me to examine my own views carefully and to consider what is wrong with the alternative (if anything). Often on sciforums, and elsewhere, it is very easy to trot out a pat explanation for something, because the person you're talking to is simply uninformed and obviously doesn't know what he or she is talking about, or because he or she oversimplifies the issues. I hope other people will read this thread and see how to conduct a real debate.

    /end mutual back-slapping session. We now return you to your usual programme of criticism....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I find your approach to the issues we have been discussing both fatalistic and overly pessimistic. That may just be a difference in temperament between us. No doubt you will claim that you are not pessimistic, but realistic, and that I see the world through rose-coloured glasses.

    You seem to be saying that an individual can only hope to change opinions and realities locally; we're all so insignificant that addressing issues beyond our immediate reach is a waste of time and energy. I beg to differ. Although I have no illusions that anything I say will immediately change hearts and minds across the country or the planet, I am happy if I can change the minds of just a few people - perhaps readers of sciforums. These things can have a ripple effect. And who knows? Sometimes one person can have considerable impact on thousands of others - e.g. well-known authors, journalists, politicians and other kinds of commentators. Everybody has to start somewhere. Ultimately, it is the visionaries in society who eventually produce the greatest changes. (Please don't think I'm trying to set myself up as some kind of guru here. I realise I'm not special.)

    In response to your comments...

    That's commendable, and I applaud your efforts. I just don't think that acting locally necessarily precludes also thinking about wider issues. Sometimes the big picture gets lost in the details.

    I agree that, ultimately, people have to be active in solving their own problems. But I don't think that should prevent me from expressing an opinion.

    It is often hard to know if you will be affected by an issue or not. For example, if Texas passes a law banning the teaching of the theory of evolution, I take a keen interest in it, even though I live in a different country. Why? It is not something which would seem to have any consequences at all for my life. But think about it. What if there's some child in a Texan school who has the potential to grow up to be a brilliant biologist, and possibly discover a cure for cancer, but she is prevented from ever learning any real biology because she never finds out about evolution? Surely, that should concern me, and it might ultimately directly affect my life if I ever get cancer. It's a very long shot, but you never know. A law which prevents the teaching of evolution affects many thousands of children. But what can I do about it? Well, I can try to educate the school boards who choose the curriculum and the judges who rule on the validity of laws. Failing that, I can try to directly educate those children with internet access about evolution.

    Is this important? Do I have any right to interfere with education in another nation? I think I do, because ultimately you cannot force people to believe anything. They will always make up their own mind. The best thing to do is to give them as much information as possible on which to make an informed judgment.

    Exactly the same kinds of arguments apply to issues like FGM. I agree that, ultimately, the only way such practices will be eliminated is to change the minds of the people who perform them. I believe that, to reduce overall harm to other people, it is valuable to try to give people relevant information on the pros and cons of their actions. Then, they can make up their own minds.

    I take your point, and I totally agree that we need to be culturally sensitive. However, it is extremely patronising to deny people information because you think they aren't ready for it. You seem quite willing to debate FGM in Western nations, but why is a similar dialogue suddenly not allowed when it comes to African nations, for example? Surely African people are just as able to put up arguments for and against as westerners? If they can justify the practice, good for them. But let's not assume they are too stupid to listen to other views and make their own decisions.

    Why set up arbitrary boundaries? Why stop the information flow at national borders? How are <b>any</b> local women ever going to be informed of international thinking on these matters in the first place?

    They have no choice due to political realities. In practice, one country cannot (most of the time) simply invade another and fight over a particular human-rights issue. So, they fix what they can fix first - matters in their own countries. It's not that they don't want to see change elsewhere; it is that it is harder to bring about elsewhere than at home.

    I agree. But sometimes people <b>do</b> change their minds. In the heat of argument that practically never happens, but on reflection, people can slowly change their opinions, perhaps long after the arguing is done. The important thing is often to plant the seed of an idea.

    Same with me. An understanding of and respect for difference is very important. Too often, people decide things in a binary manner. They decide Buddhism is bad (i.e. <b>ALL</b> of Buddhism is bad), even before they know anything about it beyond the superficial. But something as complex as Buddhism is almost guaranteed to contain some good ideas, along with any bad features it may have. I think we should be very careful in making snap judgments about things, before we know about them in sufficient depth.

    Did you know that "female circumcision" encompasses a range of practices? In some cultures, it means no more than a ceremony of rubbing certain herbs on the female genitals. It is a symbolic process. If you ask people whether they approve of the process, they will totally endorse it for religious or other reasons, not knowing how their custom differs from the practices of cultures who severely mutilate the female genitalia. This is why many publications refer specifically to "female genital mutilation".

    Having said that, I still differ from you in that I believe that nobody has a right to mutilate another person before that person can have any kind of real understanding of what is being done to them. This is a violation of the fundamental right of a person to control their own body. "Culture" is simply not a viable excuse for such actions.

    So, presumably, you would never interfere with a woman's choice to mutilate her daughter's genitals, because it is not your life or your body. It shouldn't matter if it is your next-door neighbour.

    No, it's not illegal. Do you wonder why? Answer: because it hardly ever happens. It is (practically) univerally considered amoral. Human nature fights against it, so the law doesn't need to.

    In such cultures, "rape" is redefined. There is simply no concept or accepted possibility of the rape of a woman by her husband. Rape is still considered immoral, but husbands have "conjugal rights".

    (BTW, this view on rape in marriage is likewise morally reprehensible because it violates the basic right to control over one's own body.)

    Don't try to tell me the Khmer Rouge believed that killing other people for no reason was right.

    Wars are, in the end, almost always quelled through words alone.

    The Civil War would never have happen if the Union states had not taken a moral stand on slavery, and tried to force their beliefs on the Confederate states. The United States would not exist in its current form if people had not been willing to interfere in another culture.

    Laws don't make morals. It works the other way around. The values come first, and the laws follow to entrench those values. In fact, the treatment of slaves varied greatly from owner to owner, from humane treatment through to treating the slaves as subhuman. Some plantation owners did care very much how others judged them.

    The UN is often hamstrung by political disputes, and does not have any kind of enforcement powers of its own. It is far from a perfect organisation. That could be changed, if the will was there.

    There are two types of UN missions - peacekeeping and observer. In both types, the involvement of UN forces is restricted to particular agreed guidelines, both to protect UN forces themselves and to allow local political processes to take their course. In peacekeeping operations, the aim is to protect fundamental human rights. In observer operations, the aim is primarily to keep the UN member states properly informed of developments which might affect them or their interests.

    Since you do not seem to believe there are any fundamental human rights, it is not surprising that you see no role for UN peacekeepers.

    Some people do change the world, as I said at the top of this post. It is better to try and fail than never to try at all.

    There is an organisation (Greenpeace?) which often uses the motto: "Think globally, act locally." That is the most any individual can do. You, on the other hand, say "Think locally, don't worry about the global!" But if you never put anything into a wider context, how do you know you're doing the right thing?

    We will have to agree to disagree on this. I think that morality, like just about every other aspect of human nature, is a produce of both nature and nurture, and the complex interaction between the two. Currently knowledge in biology and evolutionary psychology tends to support me on this one, by the way.
     
  8. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    *James*

    Quote: I agree that, ultimately, people have to be active in solving their own problems. But I don't think that should prevent me from expressing an opinion.

    I am not saying that one should not express an opinion. There is a huge difference between expressing an opinion and trying to change a resistant mind.

    Quote:I just don't think that acting locally necessarily precludes also thinking about wider issues. Sometimes the big picture gets lost in the details.

    You're right it doesn't. One can and should think about wider issues, but offering solidarity to those who are working towards change is different than attempting to change those who are unwilling.

    Quote:It is often hard to know if you will be affected by an issue or not. For example, if Texas passes a law banning the teaching of the theory of evolution, I take a keen interest in it, even though I live in a different country. Why? It is not something which would seem to have any consequences at all for my life. But think about it. What if there's some child in a Texan school who has the potential to grow up to be a brilliant biologist, and possibly discover a cure for cancer, but she is prevented from ever learning any real biology because she never finds out about evolution?

    LOL. Think about this one James, how many early scientists formulated new scientific theories under a strict christian hierarchy. I don't think any of those kids will have problems becoming biologists or discovering evolution. They will be no more contaminated than those kids raised in strict religious families who adhere to religious interpretation and learn about evolution in school.

    Quote: Surely, that should concern me, and it might ultimately directly affect my life if I ever get cancer. It's a very long shot, but you never know. A law which prevents the teaching of evolution affects many thousands of children. But what can I do about it? Well, I can try to educate the school boards who choose the curriculum and the judges who rule on the validity of laws. Failing that, I can try to directly educate those children with internet access about evolution.

    Since school boards are elected by locals, represent locals and disposed of by locals, they would simply dismiss you. Judges are appointed but again are more concerned with local opinion than those living in another country or another state. Personally I think that if a local community is so religious that they can move their school board to overturn evolution in favor of religious interpretation then they should be free to do so. I wouldn't want some religious zealot writing to the members of my school board complaining and trying to force their beliefs on my child. Educating over the internet is fine, if someone is looking for information they will surely find it. But how will you affect those kids who are only looking for religious information? (It would be like trying to convince Okinrus of a womans right to choose) How will you affect women who practise fmg but live in rural areas with no net access?

    Quote: Is this important? Do I have any right to interfere with education in another nation? I think I do, because ultimately you cannot force people to believe anything. They will always make up their own mind. The best thing to do is to give them as much information as possible on which to make an informed judgment.Exactly the same kinds of arguments apply to issues like FGM. I agree that, ultimately, the only way such practices will be eliminated is to change the minds of the people who perform them. I believe that, to reduce overall harm to other people, it is valuable to try to give people relevant information on the pros and cons of their actions. Then, they can make up their own minds.

    When I tried to give the pros and cons of FMG to a Gambian woman she said something to the effect of "I have been circumcised, you have not. What can you tell me?" And she was right. I can only tell her about the risks of infection etc. but she still knows more than I could dream of because it has been done to her and she has taken part in the custom that has been in her family for generations. And get this, those with money can afford to have the ritual done and bypass many of the complications (like with male circumcision). So come on now, out with it! You say it is your right to interfere with the education of people in another nation. So what's the plan? And what makes you think you can do more or be more effective than indigenous activists they have on the front lines?

    Quote: I take your point, and I totally agree that we need to be culturally sensitive. However, it is extremely patronising to deny people information because you think they aren't ready for it. You seem quite willing to debate FGM in Western nations, but why is a similar dialogue suddenly not allowed when it comes to African nations, for example? Surely African people are just as able to put up arguments for and against as westerners? If they can justify the practice, good for them. But let's not assume they are too stupid to listen to other views and make their own decisions.

    You completely miss my point. I never said one cannot have dialogue with Africans concerning FMG what I am saying is that there ARE Africans dealing with FMG.

    Here is another link for you. (smiles) Don't worry she's one of your peeps:

    http://home.sandiego.edu/~baber/gender/culturalrelativism.html

    Now read this one which highlights why Africans in particular are so resistant to the West when we try and 'help' and why education is necessary but very difficult. Its long but since you show a genuine interest on the subject of education I know you will find it enlightening and worthwile. I would really like to know what you think about its points and premise.

    http://www.cwru.edu/affil/sce/Texts_2002/Thaut.html

    All parties want to see the same results but how best to do so is the question. Both articles outline our assertions from our differing points of view. I know that there are enough indigineous educators, scholars and activists who are working towards changing their own society and believe they can do so on their own. Let's make sure that when trying to help others it isn't really compassionate-neo-imperialism or perceived as such. I think considering the history of the West concerning other people we have to check ourselves constantly.

    Quote:Why set up arbitrary boundaries? Why stop the information flow at national borders? How are any local women ever going to be informed of international thinking on these matters in the first place?

    Hear this: THERE ARE MANY MANY AND MORE THAN ENOUGH INDIGENOUS EDUCATORS, ACTIVISTS AND SCHOLARS DOING SO ALREADY!!! THEY DON'T NEED YOU!!!! IF THEY DO THEY WILL ASK FOR ASSISTANCE!!! Please excuse the yelling.

    Quote:They have no choice due to political realities. In practice, one country cannot (most of the time) simply invade another and fight over a particular human-rights issue. So, they fix what they can fix first - matters in their own countries. It's not that they don't want to see change elsewhere; it is that it is harder to bring about elsewhere than at home.

    You understand that point when the EU makes it but not when I make it.


    Quote:...I still differ from you in that I believe that nobody has a right to mutilate another person before that person can have any kind of real understanding of what is being done to them. This is a violation of the fundamental right of a person to control their own body. "Culture" is simply not a viable excuse for such actions.

    Well lets put it this way, I don't believe I have a right to mutilate another person. Others exercise that right because they see it as their right. Okay so what about the Gambian woman who completely intends to circumcise her daughter (and I ain't talkin about oil and herbs)? What would you have done or said to a woman who has been circumcised lives inbetween the Europe and Gambia, and insists her daughter will undergoe the ritual? It is HER daughter, there is no way to fight for her daughter legally or otherwise unless you resort to kidnapping.

    Quote: So, presumably, you would never interfere with a woman's choice to mutilate her daughter's genitals, because it is not your life or your body. It shouldn't matter if it is your next-door neighbour.

    If its my next door neighbor I can call the police because I presently live in the West. But if I were in Gambia it would be out of my control. I can write a book and show my outrage but stop it from happening, no that would not be possible other than staging a kidnapping. Think about this James if information were all someone needed then this practise wouldn't be so difficult to curb or outlaw. When one tries to change something in a culture they have to realize it is held there by many other aspects of a culture that would also have to change. Cultural practises are knit together very intricately with many other ideas, traditons and customs, it is not just a matter or changing one custom. Hell many years ago I attended a birthday party where a young woman was having her clit peirced in the midst of her guests as a right of passage ceremony. She was laying on the bed with her legs spread, someone was filming the event, all the males in the room hovered to watch. I was disgusted, amazed but I certainly couldn't change her mind about it.

    Quote:No, it's not illegal. Do you wonder why? Answer: because it hardly ever happens. It is (practically) univerally considered amoral. Human nature fights against it, so the law doesn't need to.

    Trust me it happens but it is not the kind of thing people go around advertising. I do not consider it amoral simply genetically impractical when it comes to offspring. There is no law against this because unless the son or daughter is underage there is no basis to interfere. Where is the crime and who would be the victim in a concensual affair between a parent and adult child?

    Quote: In such cultures, "rape" is redefined. There is simply no concept or accepted possibility of the rape of a woman by her husband. Rape is still considered immoral, but husbands have "conjugal rights".

    I know, it is what I said in the above post to Flores.

    Quote

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    on't try to tell me the Khmer Rouge believed that killing other people for no reason was right.

    At the time they most certainly did and did so often and without a shred of guilt.

    Quote:Wars are, in the end, almost always quelled through words alone.

    Oh you mean the last speech and hand-shake that takes place after stepping over all the dead bodies?

    Quote:The Civil War would never have happen if the Union states had not taken a moral stand on slavery, and tried to force their beliefs on the Confederate states. The United States would not exist in its current form if people had not been willing to interfere in another culture.

    The civil war was fought to hold on to the union not simply because they found slavery 'immoral' there were many in the north who were racist to the core. One nation one issue, the cultural differences between north and south is not the same as crossing into another nation and you know it.

    Quote:Laws don't make morals. It works the other way around. The values come first, and the laws follow to entrench those values. In fact, the treatment of slaves varied greatly from owner to owner, from humane treatment through to treating the slaves as subhuman. Some plantation owners did care very much how others judged them.

    Right and there were also compassionate colonists. Of course the treatment of slaves varies from owner to owner. Doesnt the life of a dog vary from owner to owner? But just because you put a pretty collar around its neck, buy it a sweater with matching booties, feed it from a silver bowl and allow it to lay on your bed doesn't make it any less a dog. A slave is a slave. You need to remind african-american decendents about all those masters who treated them humanely, I am sure it will come as a welcome observation. But in this sentence you back my point: laws follow to entrench those values. This is the same all over the world. If human rights were universal then these values wouldnt be so varied and change over time and circumstance.

    Quote:The UN is often hamstrung by political disputes, and does not have any kind of enforcement powers of its own. It is far from a perfect organisation. That could be changed, if the will was there.

    Stop making excuses for them its pathetic. What is the point in giving an organization more money and power when they have already proven themselves incompetent and impotent?

    Quote: There are two types of UN missions - peacekeeping and observer. In both types, the involvement of UN forces is restricted to particular agreed guidelines, both to protect UN forces themselves and to allow local political processes to take their course. In peacekeeping operations, the aim is to protect fundamental human rights. In observer operations, the aim is primarily to keep the UN member states properly informed of developments which might affect them or their interests.Since you do not seem to believe there are any fundamental human rights, it is not surprising that you see no role for UN peacekeepers

    I am already aware. Now explain to me please what the peacekeepers were doing in Srebrenica? I dont believe in pipe dreams nor get weepy eyed while listening to Lennon's Imagine all the people... Reality proves otherwise.

    http://truthnews.com/comment/2002_05_un_peacekeeping.html

    Quote:Some people do change the world, as I said at the top of this post. It is better to try and fail than never to try at all.

    I say they don't change the world they only make a difference. Martin Luther King helped change law, methods of protest, etc. he didn't change racism or hatred. Peace prophets die under the gun, they change a few, but the world just moves on to another atrocity. More death, more bullshit. Communist dreams did not change poverty or the working mans struggle. The world does not change it simply moves to a different level of madness and brutality.

    Quote:There is an organisation (Greenpeace?) which often uses the motto: "Think globally, act locally." That is the most any individual can do. You, on the other hand, say "Think locally, don't worry about the global!" But if you never put anything into a wider context, how do you know you're doing the right thing?

    Yes and isn't it very Confucian of me? He said if you want to peace in the world first make peace with yourself. Then work on making peace with your family and them with each other. Then work on making peace with ones neighbor. Then the neighbor with his family and then his neighbor. Then the community with itself and then the neighboring community. Then the nation having peace within itself must make peace with its neighboring nation. And that nation having gone through the same process can make peace with its neighbor nation. Then you will have peace in the world. And I am telling you its true but unnatural and unrealistic. Such a peace would be frightening because it would just mean we are on our way to another war. Wars are part of a natural and necessary cycle (creation/sustenance/destruction). I dont like it but it seems to be true. Now if human nature were to be changed fundamentally then maybe this utopian dream could become a reality. Why do you have to put something in a wider context to know you are doing the right thing? You mean if I feed the homeless in my community and don't think of the starving elsewhere then I should be confused as to whether feeding an individual is the right thing to do? Just a footnote: Greenpeace in its fight against seal fur almost shattered the Inuit in Greenland and Canada who subsist on the fur trade. They did not kill baby seals and used all parts of the seal, but it didn't matter because it was never considered in Greenpeaces overzealous attempt to right a perceived wrong. The Greenpeace campaign showed no discernment. So their local act did indeed have a global significance.

    Quote:We will have to agree to disagree on this. I think that morality, like just about every other aspect of human nature, is a produce of both nature and nurture, and the complex interaction between the two. Currently knowledge in biology and evolutionary psychology tends to support me on this one, by the way.

    What proof is there in biology and evolutionary psychology that morals are universal? We don't agree on what is moral and what isn't, what keeps this from becoming a flame war for example is our ability to accept our differences and agree to disagree. That I can live with.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2004
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Lucysnow:

    Actually, there is fairly good evidence that religious suppression impedes scientific advance. How much science was done under the Taliban?

    OF course there is likely to be stiff opposition. I would expect that.

    Would you have a different opinion if the federal government legislated to prevent the teaching of evolution? For the sake of argument, let's assume that 55% of the population of the US would support such legislation.

    I'm not sure she was right. Perhaps you could have told her things she wasn't aware of. There are ways of doing that without coming across as "holier than thou".

    If there <b>are</b> indigenous activists, then I probably won't be able to make a big impact on my own. But on many of these kinds of issues foreigners are sometimes the only ones working for positive change. Or, more often, there are small groups of locals who need the support of foreigners to maintain their fight.

    That's ok, but possibly we're talking at cross purposes here. You can't generalise and say that there are plenty of indigenous educators etc etc. On some matters there are; on others there aren't. You'd need to specify what specific issues you're talking about, and where you're talking about them.

    If I had any kind of extended contact with her, and the topic came up, I would explain why I think the practice is harmful. I would try to change her mind. I am well aware that I would most likely be unsuccessful. People are very resistant to change, particularly when it comes to customs.

    I agree with you, of course. This is not a new idea for me. But you cannot conclude that because it is difficult to bring about cultural change, it is pointless to try. Cultures <b>do</b> change, and <b>most</b> often due to outside influences, not internal pressures.

    Actually, my personal view is that, provided there are no children from the relationship, there is no real problem with this. Nevertheless, I find the whole concept extremely distasteful. That's my genetic heritage talking. Take a poll and I bet you'll find that a large majority of people have an instinctive negative reaction to the idea.

    Yup! Were you talking about something else?

    Yes, I know slavery wasn't the only driving force.

    I think it was. There were two cultures. They just weren't split across easily-defined geographic lines, which is what made many aspects of the war so messy. Such is the nature of civil war.

    My comments were not a defence of slavery in any form. I was simply making the point that slave owners <b>did</b> care what other people thought of them. Sometimes, they even cared what their slaves thought of them.

    The UN has been hamstrung from its formation by a lack of effective enforcement apparatus. Despite the difficult working conditions, the UN has done a remarkable job in establishing standards for international law and diplomacy, and in enabling far-ranging agreements between many nations. The organisation is not impotent, although it is weak in its policing capacity. It is far from incompetent.

    Pardon me, but I am not sufficiently aware of all the relevant matters to be able to comment on this.

    So, were his efforts a total waste of time and energy, then? I don't believe so. Far from it.

    As I said before, I find this a very pessimistic outlook.

    Well, I'm pretty content with myself, my family and my neighbours, so I figure I'll have a go at my community, the nation and the world. Kill three birds with one stone, so to speak. Although, it may take a little time...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Natural, perhaps. Necessary, no. The human race would be much better off without wars. (Duh!)

    Not at all. Once you've made the moral decision that feeding the hungry is the right thing to do, you should strive to see as many hungry people fed as you can. Why stop at some arbitrary border? (Yes, I know I'm repeating myself here.)

    Again, I don't know the full facts, so I can't comment on that. I have not claimed that Greenpeace is a perfect organisation.

    There are many studies of all kinds of different cultures, ranging from natives in Papua New Guinea through African tribespeople to Chinese herdsmen to Hawaiian islanders to Britons. They show that certain moral ideas and taboos are common across all cultures, regardless of their state of technological or cultural advancement.

    The set of common morals is significant, but it doesn't include all moral ideas, by far. There is obviously huge cultural variation in the kinds of practices that are considered acceptable and unacceptable (which is what this thread is all about).

    I have already given some examples of common values of all cultures. To take one more, let's look at the idea of wrongful killing, for example. All cultures say that certain types of killing of other human beings are wrong (that's the universal moral ground I keep talking about). All cultures have ideas of "us" and "them", and the proscriptions on killing are often not as strong (and sometimes absent) when it comes to killing outsiders. Many cultures have a general proscription against "murder", but this is modified in various different ways. Different peoples don't all define the same acts as "murder". Different peoples allow different justifications which can mitigate what would otherwise be murder (e.g. self-defence). The point is: all human cultures have a concept of wrongful killing. The devil, as always, is in the detail, but at some base level, we share a common humanity and a common morality.
     
  10. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Quote:Actually, there is fairly good evidence that religious suppression impedes scientific advance. How much science was done under the Taliban?

    What absolute rubbish! Not only do you think values universal but all situations too! How can you compare uneducated students of a guerilla war with the situation in American schools? Its an incredibly inappropritate and inadequate example and I think you know that.

    Quote:Would you have a different opinion if the federal government legislated to prevent the teaching of evolution? For the sake of argument, let's assume that 55% of the population of the US would support such legislation.

    Yes I would.

    Quote:I'm not sure she was right. Perhaps you could have told her things she wasn't aware of. There are ways of doing that without coming across as "holier than thou".

    She was right. She knew all about FMG, she is an educated Gambian woman with financial means, and her opinon does not mirror many from her class. I can tell you have never spoken with an African woman concerning these issues, especially one that does not agree...I am only 'holier than thou' with what seems to be quite a few americans since they tend to speak much and know or experience so little...especially on these topics.

    Quote:If there are indigenous activists, then I probably won't be able to make a big impact on my own. But on many of these kinds of issues foreigners are sometimes the only ones working for positive change. Or, more often, there are small groups of locals who need the support of foreigners to maintain their fight.

    If there are? Unbelievable! If you had read the second link on fmg in the last post I had sent you you would see that foreigners are not and rarely if ever the only ones working towards postitive change and very often make a poor difference. The fact that you think this though is indeed interesting. I suggest you spend more time 'educating' in foreign lands and less time 'speaking' of educating, it would give you clarity. Needing support is one thing and orgs that ask tend to receive help.

    Quote:That's ok, but possibly we're talking at cross purposes here. You can't generalise and say that there are plenty of indigenous educators etc etc. On some matters there are; on others there aren't. You'd need to specify what specific issues you're talking about, and where you're talking about them.

    I was referring to FMG specifically but they are in EVERY area you can possibly imagine.Just write the U.N for information I am sure they would accomodate you.

    Quote:If I had any kind of extended contact with her, and the topic came up, I would explain why I think the practice is harmful. I would try to change her mind. I am well aware that I would most likely be unsuccessful. People are very resistant to change, particularly when it comes to customs.

    She knew quite well what the West thinks of FMG and she also knows what harm it causes, which is why she believes it should be done by medical doctors who women of her class usually utilize in such affairs.

    Quote:I agree with you, of course. This is not a new idea for me. But you cannot conclude that because it is difficult to bring about cultural change, it is pointless to try. Cultures do change, and most often due to outside influences, not internal pressures.

    I never said it is pointless to I say it is the responisbility of the members of those cultures. Every ngo worker, journalist, cultural anthropologist I know acknowledges this...but then again they are on the front lines with it. Cultures change and give up customs positively when revolutionized from the inside. Cultures give up customs when they no longer have a purpose. This usually happens because a variety of dynamic changes are being revolutionized (politics, new social movements, increase in wealth, environmental changes, etc.). This idea of yours is not new but it is controversial which is why I suggest you read the various articles and referrences by sholars, educators and reformers who are actually out there doing this internationally.

    Quote:Actually, my personal view is that, provided there are no children from the relationship, there is no real problem with this. Nevertheless, I find the whole concept extremely distasteful. That's my genetic heritage talking. Take a poll and I bet you'll find that a large majority of people have an instinctive negative reaction to the idea.

    As do I.

    Quote:Yup! Were you talking about something else?

    The inevitable 'talk' that occurs after a war (or during) as the dead bodies pile up and stink the air proves my point not yours.

    Quote:I think it was. There were two cultures. They just weren't split across easily-defined geographic lines, which is what made many aspects of the war so messy. Such is the nature of civil war.

    We are still speaking of one nation and the struggle and resolution taking place between members of that one nation. The fact that Southeners had minor cultural differences from Northeners is moot. There is a big difference between this example you offered and say the deeply entrenched ethnic clashes that take place in say Africa.

    Quote: I was simply making the point that slave owners did care what other people thought of them. Sometimes, they even cared what their slaves thought of them.

    Prove it.

    Quote:The UN has been hamstrung from its formation by a lack of effective enforcement apparatus. Despite the difficult working conditions, the UN has done a remarkable job in establishing standards for international law and diplomacy, and in enabling far-ranging agreements between many nations. The organisation is not impotent, although it is weak in its policing capacity. It is far from incompetent.

    Prove it.

    Quote

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ardon me, but I am not sufficiently aware of all the relevant matters to be able to comment on this.

    I have offered more than one link concerning Srebrenica for you to say you don't know the 'relevant matters' and I am surprised you do not know about considering the huge international incident it was. Just check google for Srebrenica and U.N failing.

    Quote:So, were his efforts a total waste of time and energy, then? I don't believe so. Far from it.

    Of course it wasn't a waste of time, and that is not the point I am making. I credit King FOR CHANGING WHAT HE COULD CHANGE, WHAT WAS IN HIS POWER TO CHANGE.

    Quote:As I said before, I find this a very pessimistic outlook.

    Call it what you like it, that does not diminish its validity and truth. The proof is in the entire history of man.

    Quote:Well, I'm pretty content with myself, my family and my neighbours, so I figure I'll have a go at my community, the nation and the world. Kill three birds with one stone, so to speak. Although, it may take a little time...

    Good for you.

    Quote:Natural, perhaps. Necessary, no. The human race would be much better off without wars. (Duh!)

    For every example of a war you say in unnecessary I can give you an example where it was. To say the human race would be better off without wars (Duh!) is not a sufficient response. Why not also add 'without disease, hungar, brutality, ignorance, hate, selfishness, injustice, mental illness, drought, poverty, corruption, unhappiness, divorce, natural disasters, unwanted children, destruction of nature, pollution,....

    Quote:Not at all. Once you've made the moral decision that feeding the hungry is the right thing to do, you should strive to see as many hungry people fed as you can. Why stop at some arbitrary border? (Yes, I know I'm repeating myself here.)

    Should? No you 'should' since you have decided it is YOUR duty. With all the experts and active participants working towards change your neatly packed simplistic assertions make a mockery of their efforts and the very real obstacles they face. You wan't to know how I know you have never put your hands where your mouth is on a multi-cultural international scene? Because you constantly highlight the ideal and not the reality. Something I have never known a genuine participant to do.

    Quote:Again, I don't know the full facts, so I can't comment on that. I have not claimed that Greenpeace is a perfect organisation

    Who is speaking of perfection? I am just pointing out the oversite on their part and how complicated these issues are. If you don't know about it then I suggest you do some research. By the way Greenpeace apologized for their simplistic stance and not being able to foresee all the ramifications.

    Quote:I have already given some examples of common values of all cultures. To take one more, let's look at the idea of wrongful killing, for example. All cultures say that certain types of killing of other human beings are wrong (that's the universal moral ground I keep talking about). All cultures have ideas of "us" and "them", and the proscriptions on killing are often not as strong (and sometimes absent) when it comes to killing outsiders. Many cultures have a general proscription against "murder", but this is modified in various different ways. Different peoples don't all define the same acts as "murder". Different peoples allow different justifications which can mitigate what would otherwise be murder (e.g. self-defence). The point is: all human cultures have a concept of wrongful killing. The devil, as always, is in the detail, but at some base level, we share a common humanity and a common morality.

    Again I ask you what about the Khmer Rouge who were killing their own (autogenocide) with impunity not for self-defence, the other was their own, and do not and have not admitted it was 'wrong'? Even now as the international community is trying to force a human rights abuses trial many in their society believe it is pointless or are downright against it, seeing this as again another foreign attempt to control them. Again I agree we share a common humanity but not a common morality (morality is a man made notion).
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2004
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Lucysnow:

    I have had a chance to read a number of the articles you and Bells have linked to earlier in this thread. There are very informative. I also think they support many of the points I have been trying to make.

    For reference, here are the links, which I will reference by number below:
    (1) Anthropologists, Cultural Relativism and Universal Rights
    (2) An article (previously linked) from somebody at the University of Nebraska (article requests that it not be specifically cited without the author's consent).
    (3) Bosnia, Rwanda and UN Peacekeeping
    (4) Ignatieff's Tanner lectures on Human Values

    I'd like to select a few quotes from the first 3 articles, on certain topics which have come up in this thread. I have reproduced large chunks of article (2), which is concerned in particular with female genital mutilation (FGM). All emphasis in bold is mine. I have used it to highlight particular points I agree with and think are particularly important.

    Perhaps the most important quote in this post, from (2), deals with our main argument: univeralism vs. cultural relativism in morality. I would like to step through this quote in more detail than any of the ones which will follow, particularly since I do not agree with the author's conclusion here.

    I think you will agree, Lucysnow, that you have been taking a cultural relativist approach in this thread, whilst I have been taking a universalist approach. Whether either of us is "radical" or "strong" in our view is debateable. I prefer to think of myself as a moderate in most things, but perhaps you'll disagree with me on this.

    The author of the quote, however, argues against a binary categorisation, in that she views universalism AND relativism as rooted in a Western philosophical tradition. This differs somewhat from the view you have been putting forward, in that you have been arguing that only universalism is inherently "Western". It seems that if the author were asked to take a side in our debate, she would support neither of us:

    My point of disagreement here is that I think it doesn't matter that the labels "universalism" and "cultural realtivism" have come out of a western philosophical tradition. If they mean anything at all, their meaning is just as valid regardless of how they came to be. I simply do not believe that if you asked an African about his or her stance on this issue, he or she would not be able to take one side or the other. The distinction between the two positions, once defined for somebody, is utterly straightforward, I think.

    In my opinion, the degree to which peculiar features of culture are taken into account in making moral judgments depends only on how far along the continuum you sit between "radical universalism" and "radical relativism".

    I will say little about the remaining quotes, other than to say that if I have quoted something below, I generally agree with it, and/or find it informative - which is why I have included it. I am particularly keen on the bolded sections.

    On support for a universal as opposed to culturally-relativist stance:
    On FGM as a violation of fundamental human rights:
    On taking a global view rather than a local one:
    On the need to balance cultural sensitivity against basic human rights concerns on the issues of FGM:
    On education as a key in fighting human rights abuses:
    On the particular state of education in societies practising FGM:
    On the ability of local women to fight FGM on their own:
    On issues of "Western imperialism":
    I am sure that you, Lucysnow, will say that you agree with many of the above quotes, too. You will say that you've been saying all along that only local women can decide to end FGM. I hope you now appreciate that I agree with this. Where I disagree is that I think the West, and organisations such as the UN, also have an important role to play in ending such practices. They have an educational responsibility, and can provide support and encouragement in may ways. They must do so in a culturally sensitive manner, but they do have a moral duty to act, rather than to sit back and do nothing.
     
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Lucysnow:

    I don't think I need to. If you want to disband the UN, then along with the UN peacekeeping efforts, you will also be throwing away organisations such as the World Health Organisation, UNICEF and UNESCO, to name just a few. These organisations have contributed to the protection of children around the world, to nutrition, to fresh water, to health care, and so on.

    In terms of international law, it seems you are not very well informed. That is a huge subject, and I won't even begin to discuss it here. There's plenty of information on the web, and elsewhere. There are UN conventions on human rights, war crimes, the law of the sea, nationality, international trade and many other areas.

    I know a little about it, but not in enough depth to make judgments.

    Yes, why not? It's just as obvious. Are you saying war is good?

    Their aims are simply. Achieving those aims is often fraught with difficulties, which I appreciate.

    I like to keep both in mind.

    Seeing as approximately 25% of the population was killed off by the Khmer Rouge, is it so surprising that so many people do not want an investigation of the killings and the killers brought to justice? How many of the people left alive had a hand in the atrocities?

    The kllers knew what they were doing was wrong, but they did it anyway.

    Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I would not be so stupid as to claim that <b>every</b> human being agrees with a common set of values. I have been talking about the values of cultures and societies, not individuals. There will always be individuals in any society who will pursue their own goals with utter disregard for any concepts of human rights or the sanctity of the lives of others. But such people will always be in the minority. Natural selection tends to root them out of the gene pool, though some always slip through the net.
     
  13. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    *James*

    Quote:I think you will agree, Lucysnow, that you have been taking a cultural relativist approach in this thread, whilst I have been taking a universalist approach. Whether either of us is "radical" or "strong" in our view is debateable. I prefer to think of myself as a moderate in most things, but perhaps you'll disagree with me on this.......It seems that if the author were asked to take a side in our debate, she would support neither of us:

    No I have not been taking a cultural relativist view on this, I haven't referred to myself as such. What I have been stating over and over again that it is not the job of outsiders to revolutionize another culture and the second article supports my view.
    All aspects of another culture are relative in that the members of the each culture utilize different values. Because this is the case and because there are enough indigenous scholars, educators, and grass roots orgs working within their respective cultures that they should be left to do their job and given assistance when they ask for assistance.

    Quote:My point of disagreement here is that I think it doesn't matter that the labels "universalism" and "cultural realtivism" have come out of a western philosophical tradition. If they mean anything at all, their meaning is just as valid regardless of how they came to be. I simply do not believe that if you asked an African about his or her stance on this issue, he or she would not be able to take one side or the other. The distinction between the two positions, once defined for somebody, is utterly straightforward, I think.

    You misunderstand her. She is not saying that these labels are not valid, they are but within its cultural matrix. These labels relate to methods that have proven un- productive (she has shown how universalism has had little success in method and of little meaning outside of the west) She is pointing out that these labels are born of a specific cultural psychological predisoposition and in fact Africans HAVE taken a stance on this issue and that their view of the labels is filtered by their experience of westernization and colonialism. Her quote: "Considering either a universalist or culturally relativist perspective as a legitimate approach to a traditional practice is in itself imperialist given that: one, as just and moral as `universal'/Western human rights may be, this concept is indeed a result of Western political philosophy and not necessarily a part of any African society's experience; and two, the entire notion of binary oppositions, like human rights, is an outgrowth of Western thinking beginning with Rene Descartes. In short, any plan for the eradication of FGM must be considered from an African cultural perspective." The point you are missing is 'not necessarily a part of any african society's experience'. You think that the essence of these labels is self-evident or understood through explanation. She is saying that they understand the labels but REJECT them as belonging to another culture altogether, not part of their world view. She is right about this too, if you spent any length of time in China you would soon realize that notions of 'individuality' and 'space' are completely different than they are in the west. The words are understood but the essence of their meaning is not understood in the same way. Why? Because it is filtered through their experience and psyco-cultural disposition. I would go further to say that you do not understand her argument concerning the validity of these labels because you do not have an african point of view.

    Quote:"On support for a universal as opposed to culturally-relativist stance:'

    I agree with Dallaire's assessment because the UN had their troops there already and what is the point of having troops there if you are simply going to sit and watch people die, then pretend to uphold certain ideals. Since the UN has never had a culturally relativist point of view I don't see why you chose to stick this point here. It only proves what I was saying which is that they are incompetent. So lets move on then. The quotes you highlight from the first article are by the anthropologist who is intent on eradicating FMG. I posted the link because she best represents your point of view but also what is lacking in your point of view. This woman is advocating informing outside orgs of the information she obtains in the field as a means of eradicating fmg even if it means being denied access to those communities in the future. This in my view is not only irresponsible but also a betrayal of trust. How is she and other anthropologists supposed to make a difference if they are seen as a 'foreign threat' or 'infiltrator'? Anthropologists have a difficult time as it is gaining trust from these communities, especially in the current climate of western foreign policy. Placing herself and others in a position of being seen as an 'infiltrator' simply defeats the purpose. I however have no problem with her giving data to orgs that are working to eradicate fmg. Her job is that of ethnologist.

    Quote

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    n FGM as a violation of fundamental human rights:

    Like I have said, everything looks good on paper and these sentiments sound great in a conference, but how to convince those who remain unconvinced? Here is a quote from the second article:

    "Just as international assistance, whether in the form of treaties, well-meaning NGO's, or lending institutions have not had a profound impact, domestic efforts alone have been of very little help in eradicating FGM. In many African governments, monies are not reallocated in such a way as to benefit the larger population. In other cases, a government may oppose FGM, but laws alone have little or no effect. Countries with laws against FGM include Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Djibouti, Ghana, Guinea, Sudan, (also Great Britain, Sweden, France, and the United States), yet FGM in these African countries is still as high as countries with no laws. Domestic laws also tend to push the practice underground, meaning that if girls have severe complications, parents are less likely to take them to a hospital due to fear of prosecution."

    How can you ignore this reality? It seems to me what you cannot accept is that these issues will not change until the culture itself changes and those revolutions will not happen in the time frame of the West no matter how loud we cry injustice. How and when these changes come about are the responsibility of the members of these countries and there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about that. Just think of how long the time distance between the end of slavery, the end of jim crow laws/civil rights movement.

    Quote

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    n taking a global view rather than a local one:

    The second article does not take on a global view at all but a local one. She states:
    "These separate states need an organizing force which can bridge the gap between state and international differences. Regional organizations are their best option. The Inter-African Committee (IAC) is one regional organization which is capable of bridging this gap" Here she is advocating the regional (local) IAC. Again she is quoted:

    "International human rights organizations could be very helpful if utilized, but in such a way that they foster grassroots support for FGM eradication, not only outside or Western moral `support.'" (2)

    She is advocating support of GRASS ROOTS orgs. This has been my view from the beginning of this debate. Let them do this, it is not for us to do or interfere with their process, a process that they best understand as members and contributors within their own society. (smiles) yankee go home!

    Quote

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    n the need to balance cultural sensitivity against basic human rights concerns on the issues of FGM:

    I agree and have been advocating this from the beginning but do not believe you are very sensitive to the differences between people in their respective nations. Note:
    ""Eradication efforts, then, must consider: the power of tradition; the opposition to Western attitudes, concepts, and monetary assistance; and creating in African states their own more modernized or `new traditional' institutions without equating modern with Western--an equation which causes all people to suffer" and most importantly she states: "Although eradication needs material resources from the West, change in attitude and tradition must be primarily internal" This is not a universalist point of view and she has outlined beautifully the points I have been making all along but you would like to overlook.

    Quote

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    n education as a key in fighting human rights abuses:

    She is not advocating western intervention or education by outsiders she prefaces each point on education with responsibility that the IAC takes:

    "The IAC's eradication plan focuses primarily on education...
    "The IAC, along with statistics from the Demographic and Health Survey, have shown that attitudes among African women are changing as a result of education, and real numbers are changing as well...

    The IAC is NOT a Western organization! You have said in a post:
    "If there are indigenous activists, then I probably won't be able to make a big impact on my own. But on many of these kinds of issues foreigners are sometimes the only ones working for positive change." This is the arrogance I am speaking of, this idea that it is only activists, educators and scholars of the west who are able to make a difference. She has already pointed out that they make very little difference and even in countries where the practise is outlawed it continues anyway, but you ignore that reality in favor of some fancy notion you have of western supremacy when it comes to righting society's wrongs. Its offensive and unwelcome.

    Quote

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    n the particular state of education in societies practising FGM:

    And? What is it that either of us didn't know concerning this? How can education be a priority when poverty and/or war remains an issue? How to prioritize education for the female when the society suffers from patriarchy? A patriarchy blamed on Western colonialism no less. She advocates the West helping by allocating money and resources to AFRICAN ORGS THAT ACTUALLY DO THE WORK.

    Quote

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    n the ability of local women to fight FGM on their own:

    This we also know but that is not going to change because of you or I. That is a revolution that has to happen over time, just like western feminism. What do you suggest get rid of the women and replace them with western ones? I am joking of course but you highlight what is already known and then advocate what has already been rejected (which is western intervention and the universality of morals). Why don't the men of these nations share the same values as you? Is it because they are born into a completely different cultural/economic/social framework? I think yes. Morals are borne of their culture not borne within the person. FMG has been around for 6,000 years, its not going to disappear overnight because James and others are outraged. The women, fear and all, still have to revolutionize their society and it certainly explains why women who live in the west continue to circumcise their daughters why dont you try addressing this last point.

    Quote: On issues of "Western imperialism":

    LOL. You place western imperialism in quotes as if to suggest it doesnt exist.

    "Traditions become not only symbolic of community solidarity, but an opposition to oppression, a representation of independence. Thus, understanding FGM as a tradition also facilitates in understanding why Western/universal human rights and their organizations have had little effect on changing or ending this practice; FGM must be an internal struggle involving and understanding of the meaning of tradition. For a continent that has been battered by colonialism, any eradication programs must take into consideration in what context this traditional practice continues--a context which supports cultural identity and opposes the West. Given the often antagonistic relationship between Africa and the West, eradication of a traditional practice must be the result of a primarily internal process of economic and educational improvement. It must be African women who empower themselves to end this practice; this can not be a decision made and executed by Western feminists who have little idea of the African Muslim woman's experience."

    Here here for the lady. Its the last sentence that I like the best. So what is it that you do not understand or oppose of my position? I have been saying that sometimes western intervention causes more harm than good, that it isnt welcome, that it is resisted, that locals need to address the issues themselves, that one should stand in solidarity with orgs that are working on this issue and should give them their support when they ask for it. What is it that you cannot accept or is unrealistic about my position? We already know what is unrealistic about yours.

    You insist: Where I disagree is that I think the West, and organisations such as the UN, also have an important role to play in ending such practices. They have an educational responsibility, and can provide support and encouragement in may ways. They must do so in a culturally sensitive manner, but they do have a moral duty to act, rather than to sit back and do nothing.

    They can only act when the other is open to them. YOu can only support and encourage the orgs who are doing the work but not try and do the work for them. There is a wise saying I told to Raith that was told to me abroad by an Indian activist:

    "You help people on their terms. You control people on your terms."

    Now lovey I must get some sleep I had a really, long active day. I promise to get to the other post later in the day. One thing I really admire about you on this subject is your passion...I appreciate passion even if its focused in a direction I personally oppose.
     
  14. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    *James*

    Quote: don't think I need to. If you want to disband the UN, then along with the UN peacekeeping efforts, you will also be throwing away organisations such as the World Health Organisation, UNICEF and UNESCO, to name just a few. These organisations have contributed to the protection of children around the world, to nutrition, to fresh water, to health care, and so on.

    Why do you have to get rid of WHO, UNICEF or UNESCO? These orgs could easily exist outside of a larger U.N umbrella.

    Quote:In terms of international law, it seems you are not very well informed

    That is a cop out!! You make a statement like this with no evidence on what I am uninformed about. If you have a case to make then make it but I imagine from our conversation that I probably know more than you think.

    Quote: I know a little about it, but not in enough depth to make judgments.

    To say you know about the UN and defend it as a beacon of light and then say you know nothing of its famous blunders is to admit you know little about the UN other than its fancy advertising.

    Quote:Are you saying war is good?

    Necessary.


    Quote:Seeing as approximately 25% of the population was killed off by the Khmer Rouge, is it so surprising that so many people do not want an investigation of the killings and the killers brought to justice? How many of the people left alive had a hand in the atrocities?

    Because it was a collective affair. The paranoia and degradation fall into brutality befell one and all. It was not a handful of people but a nation turning on itself.

    Quote:The kllers knew what they were doing was wrong, but they did it anyway.

    Do not make statments like this unless you have proof. You pretend to have a window into the soul of man and you clearly do not. Stop pretending to be a confessional priest.

    Quote:There will always be individuals in any society who will pursue their own goals with utter disregard for any concepts of human rights or the sanctity of the lives of others. But such people will always be in the minority. Natural selection tends to root them out of the gene pool, though some always slip through the net.

    That is utter nonsense. I would like to see some historical proof of natural selection rooting out those who disregard concepts of human rights. You are a dreamer my friend. You ignore the evidence past and current history presents.
     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Lucysnow:

    It is impossible for outsiders to revolutionize a culture. An outsider can only either try to get the culture to revolutionize itself, or destroy the culture altogether. I certainly don't advocate the latter course of action, but I think the former can be worthwhile. You disagree with both, and that is where we differ.

    Quote:My point of disagreement here is that I think it doesn't matter that the labels "universalism" and "cultural realtivism" have come out of a western philosophical tradition. If they mean anything at all, their meaning is just as valid regardless of how they came to be. I simply do not believe that if you asked an African about his or her stance on this issue, he or she would not be able to take one side or the other. The distinction between the two positions, once defined for somebody, is utterly straightforward, I think.

    I know she is saying that. I disagree with her, too, on this issue, as I said in my previous post.

    Actually, I have spent some time in Asian, and have had enough contact with Asian people to know what you're talking about with regard to individuality and space. I think that, here, the words are used in a different manner, and I know that the cultural values attached to the concepts are different, too. But that does not mean that all dialogue on these issues is impossible. It simply means that both cultures need to be very careful in bringing their own cultural baggage into discussions of these issues. That is what I was saying about the need for cultural sensitivity.

    I am also somewhat surprised that you regard yourself as having an African point of view, whereas you think I am ignorant. Are you African? If not, what makes you more qualified than me in this respect? How can you, as a member of a different culture, have any understanding? By your own argument, one must be of a culture to have any appreciation of it. In contrast, I think that an outsider can come to appreciate many cultural differences without having to become part of the other culture.

    Sometimes, you can't just sit on the sidelines (which was your own point with regard to failed UN peacekeeping efforts). If you really want to erradicate a practice like FGM, you have to risk getting on people's bad side. If you insist on always sitting on the fence, you'll never achieve anything.

    I'm not ignoring the reality. Believe me, the reality is at the forefront of my thoughts. Changing laws is a first step - and even convincing governments to do that is often an up-hill battle. It is much harder to change underlying attitudes, and that is the ultimate goal. We need to be realistic about how quickly that will happen, and be wary of assuming that simply changing a few laws will be enough work.

    It is never a case of waking up one morning and saying "Oh, look! The culture has changed! Now we can finally act." That's not the way things work. Cultures are made up of individuals. You change the minds of individuals, who then participate in their culture, changing the minds of other individuals. It is a gradual process, and I agree it cannot be imposed from outside. But it can be aided.

    Wrong. There are many things outsiders can do.

    This just reinforces my point.

    Yes, <b>as well as</b> outside support. She is saying that Western action alone will not be enough, and I agree. She is <b>not</b> saying that Westerners should not be involved in any way, which is apparently what you are saying here:

    Then maybe I'm not making myself clear. I apologise, and I'll try harder.

    You say:

    Far from overlooking this, I would say that this is precisely my view. I think eradication <b>needs material (and other) resources from the West</b>, and I agree with the other half of the statement too. It is you who seems to think that all help from the West is a bad idea.

    My last sentence there is a very general one, referring to "many of these kinds of issues", and "sometimes". Probably it is so general as to mean little. I'm happy to withdraw it.

    Universal free education and patriarchy are ultimately incompatible. War is a more complex issue, but even there education can help in prevention.

    I do not think these things have been rejected.

    Values and morals are not the same thing. There are many kinds of values which are not moral values. You can value all kinds of things for reasons other than them being inherently good. And yes, you're right that many values are a product of cultural, economic and social factors.

    I have already made the point that not all morals are culturally dependent. I don't think I need to repeat myself, though clearly you hold the opposite view.

    I hope I already have, either in this post or earlier.

    It's a convenient label, like "political correctness" in many ways. Yes, it exists, but you need go beyond just sticking labels on things and assuming you thereby have the complete picture. The term "Western imperialism" encompasses a whole range of practices and attitudes and opinions, sometimes of the West, sometimes of non-Westerners who want to portray the West in a particular way.

    I oppose your view that because, historically, western intervention has sometimes been harmful, such intervention is never permissible. I oppose your view that it is wrong to be pro-active on issues you feel strongly about - that instead you should always wait until somebody else raises the matter. You might wait forever for that. I oppose your view that no outsider can ever come to any understanding of or appreciation for a culture, and that no outsider can express a valid opinion on the morality of the actions of membrs of a culture. I oppose your view that only local action is permissible - that we must all draw arbitrary boxes around ourselves according to geography, and never step outside. I oppose your view that there are no basic human rights.

    Yes, they could, but they would lack the particular authority they gain by being a part of the UN.

    I am only going by what you have posted regarding the UN and its role in international law. I have studied international law formally, and I judge your comments against what I know. Perhaps you actually have more knowledge than is apparent from your posts up until now. I was only giving you my impression.

    No. As I have jsut said, I have studied the UN specifically with regard to its role in international law. The UN is a huge body, with many activities and agencies. I have not studied its role in peacekeeping in depth, nor many other facets of its operations. I did not, however, say that I knew nothing of its "famous blunders". I simply said I do not consider myself an expert on these matters.

    Why? What for?

    Feel free to preface anything I write with the unwritten words "In my opinion..." Realise that everything I write here is my opinion. How could it be otherwise? I have never attempted to set myself up as some kind of guru.

    Regarding my statement, I think it is quite likely that, without much searching, you will find people who now regret their actions in the Khmer Rouge. You will also find people with no regrets or remorse. It doesn't take an expert in human nature or a window into the soul of man to make a reasonable inference such as I have made.

    If you really want "proof", I may be able to dig some up for you, but I think this is peripheral to this discussion.

    Is it so hard for you to conceive in the abstract of how societies tend to treat people who show no respect for human rights? Imagine a tribal village in which one tribe member rapes another. How would the tribe deal with this? What about indiscrimate killing? How would a tribe deal with a psychopath in their midst, do you think?

    Do I really need to go and find actual examples where a death sentence has been handed out to a person who has shown a blatant disregard for human rights? It stands to reason that, historically, those who have shown no respect for universal basic human rights have had less chance of passing on their genes to the next generation than others who have shown such respect.

    I know it will probably be a battle to convince you of this, seeing as you don't believe in universal rights. I also get the impression you see human nature as an ongoing internal fight against immoral natural urges, whereas I also see the good in our natural heritage.
     
  16. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Quote: But that does not mean that all dialogue on these issues is impossible. It simply means that both cultures need to be very careful in bringing their own cultural baggage into discussions of these issues. That is what I was saying about the need for cultural sensitivity.

    I agree with you.

    Quote:I am also somewhat surprised that you regard yourself as having an African point of view, whereas you think I am ignorant. Are you African? If not, what makes you more qualified than me in this respect? How can you, as a member of a different culture, have any understanding? By your own argument, one must be of a culture to have any appreciation of it. In contrast, I think that an outsider can come to appreciate many cultural differences without having to become part of the other culture.

    No I am not african and did not say I had an african point of view. I understand and sympathise with their resistance towards anything resembling or reminding them of colonialism. I also respect their need to solve their own problems. I never claimed you cannot appreciate another culture simply that you seem to have a paternalistic attitude concerning cultures outside your own.

    Quote:Sometimes, you can't just sit on the sidelines (which was your own point with regard to failed UN peacekeeping efforts). If you really want to erradicate a practice like FGM, you have to risk getting on people's bad side. If you insist on always sitting on the fence, you'll never achieve anything.

    As you have well experienced on this forum and perhaps in life, getting on people's bad side does not convince. Getting on peoples bad side only serves to close windows of opportunity towards meaningful exchange. When it comes to a different country getting on peoples bad side can lead to exclusion and that completely defeats the purpose.

    Quote:It is never a case of waking up one morning and saying "Oh, look! The culture has changed! Now we can finally act." That's not the way things work. Cultures are made up of individuals. You change the minds of individuals, who then participate in their culture, changing the minds of other individuals. It is a gradual process, and I agree it cannot be imposed from outside. But it can be aided.

    This changing the mind of individuals is happening already. I have no problem with aiding as long as this aiding is to those who are working towards revolutionizing their own culture and not simply Western feminists or orgs forcing their ideas on others.

    Quote:Wrong. There are many things outsiders can do.

    I am not wrong. Change is DEPENDENT on the transformation of individuals who CONTRIBUTE to these societies. What are these things that outsiders can do?

    Quote:Yes, as well as outside support. She is saying that Western action alone will not be enough, and I agree. She is not saying that Westerners should not be involved in any way, which is apparently what you are saying here:

    What she is advocating is the same as what i am advocating and that is supporting indigenous groups because outside 'help' isnt perceived or trusted very well. And indeed they are correct especially if there are anthropoligists who pretend to be in their country for one reason but really hide an agenda.

    Quote:It is you who seems to think that all help from the West is a bad idea.

    Thats bullshit James. Just go back and re-read my position from the earlier posts including the posts directed towards Raith.

    Quote:War is a more complex issue, but even there education can help in prevention.

    Now you are really making me laugh. Education hasn't kept the west from engaging in wars. Tell me what do you suggest people teach to avoid war? This is great! Go teach the muslim jihad tormentors in the Sudan because they are badly in need of an 'education' then you can go and teach the Israelis and palestinians, dont forget to stop at the white house along the way. Come on tell me the truth, missionary right?

    Quote:I do not think these things have been rejected.

    Oh really?

    "understanding FGM as a tradition also facilitates in understanding why Western/universal human rights and their organizations have had little effect on changing or ending this practice; FGM must be an internal struggle involving and understanding of the meaning of tradition. For a continent that has been battered by colonialism, any eradication programs must take into consideration in what context this traditional practice continues--a context which supports cultural identity and opposes the West. Given the often antagonistic relationship between Africa and the West, eradication of a traditional practice must be the result of a primarily internal process of economic and educational improvement. It must be African women who empower themselves to end this practice; this can not be a decision made and executed by Western feminists who have little idea of the African Muslim woman's experience."

    Here are other examples of how it is being rejected. You will love this piece by an American-vietnamese who won a prize from the Elie Wiesel foundation it is very moving. What I appreciate most about his experience is his ACKNOWLEDGMENT of the problems faced when 'helping':

    http://www.eliewieselfoundation.org...ToBridgetheDivide_files/ToBridgetheDivide.htm

    Here is another article three years old about Afghanistan and the 'new humanitarianism':

    http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000002D28F.htm

    Here is a link concerning the UN reform by member states of the UN. It may seem indirect but it isnt. The issue is how the west is perceived:


    http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/reform/g77.htm



    My favorite quote here is:

    "the principle of “humanitarian intervention” that has been much discussed in recent months as a solution to the dilemma posed by internal conflicts and massive human rights violations. “That principle is now being defined as the power of the international community to intervene against governments on the basis of criteria defined by the few”, deplored one speaker. He and others called for reaffirming the Charter’s provisions on respect for sovereignty, sovereign equality, non-intervention in internal affairs and self-determination."

    Here is another one by a pakistani ambassador:

    http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/reform/membstat/0011pak.htm
    I am going to finish the rest of your questions in a new post.
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2004
  17. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Okay James we move on.

    Quote:I hope I already have, either in this post or earlier.

    I do not recall you addressing fmg in the west. My point was that fmg is practiced in the west where western education is received and the ritual takes place right under our noses so to speak.

    Quote:The term "Western imperialism" encompasses a whole range of practices and attitudes and opinions, sometimes of the West, sometimes of non-Westerners who want to portray the West in a particular way.

    James it is western imperialism that encompasses a whole range of attitudes and practices and impresses its opinions using both. Read those articles above and then speak to me on how the west displays itself to the rest of the world. Your myopic view of the west is the problem. I bet you would say that nations complain about the west because they are jealous right? None of their complaints have any substance in truth?

    Quote:I oppose your view that because, historically, western intervention has sometimes been harmful, such intervention is never permissible. I oppose your view that it is wrong to be pro-active on issues you feel strongly about - that instead you should always wait until somebody else raises the matter. You might wait forever for that. I oppose your view that no outsider can ever come to any understanding of or appreciation for a culture, and that no outsider can express a valid opinion on the morality of the actions of membrs of a culture. I oppose your view that only local action is permissible - that we must all draw arbitrary boxes around ourselves according to geography, and never step outside. I oppose your view that there are no basic human rights.

    You have a SERIOUS reading comprehension problem. I never said that western intervention is never permissable, I have been saying that the west should intervene when ASKED. I have never said that people should be pro-active in matters they feel strongly about I have been saying the opposite. I have never said that an outsider cannot appreciate another culture. Geez dont you fucking READ!! I never said that an outsider cannot be critical of another culture, being critical and having an opinion is different than forcing an agenda on another. Fuck this is annoying! I never said that ONLY local action is permissable I said that the West should take its cue from locals, aid when asked, give solidarity to those who are attempting to revolutionize their own culture. And as for the last you seem to have missed the boat there also. We may agree with what basic human rights are but in reality people are breaking those every single day and with IMPUNITY! They don't give a fuck about a bunch of rights on a piece of paper. So much for rights.

    Quote:Yes, they could, but they would lack the particular authority they gain by being a part of the UN.

    What utter horse shit! Private organizations could easily do better work than the UN. They are faster and more efficient. The UN has an inflated sense of 'authority'. The UN is under the gun my friend, there are criticisms galore coming from those who support it and those who wish to see it disband.

    Here read this: http://www.globalpolicy.org/reform/analysis.htm

    My favorite quotes are:

    "NGO leaders aim for a more democratic UN, with greater openness and accountability. Technocrats seek more productivity and efficiency from the UN's staff. Delegates favor reforms that conform to national interests and promote national power. Idealists offer plans for a greatly expanded body, that would reduce states' sovereignty. While conservatives push for a downsized UN with sharply reduced powers. Agreement is exceedingly hard to come by"

    And this:

    "Mr. Conable's enthusiasms about the UN as the world's policeman are not widely shared by ordinary citizens, but they probably reflect a shared perspective among high-level global managers... Many reform proposals produced in the United States and Europe suggest "streamlining" the UN, reducing its budget and "reinventing" or "reengineering" it, in a spirit of efficiency and "realism." The language of many such refomers conveyes a message of technocratic and apolitical goals, but they often conceal conservative, neoliberal aims. Some propoals seek to downplay UN economic and social activities and to transfer them to the Bretton Woods Institutions or simply turn them over to the workings of the marketplace."

    Oh and here is another gem:

    "Few reformers are willing to admit that the UN's complex and inefficient machinery results from deep political disagreements among its members and between other contending forces in the global system. In a world divided by chasms between rich and poor, powerful and powerless, differences of interest are certain to shape all reform efforts and keep the UN a contradictory and divided institution."

    This debate has been going on for over a decade now. When the hell is it ever going to tighten the machinary? All there is is talk, talk, talk and its bullshit.

    Quote:Why? What for?

    War is necessary when self-defense is mandatory. I am not speaking of pre-emptive strikes, I am not speaking of war for war's sake. War is a necessary tool and sometimes ones liberty depends on it.

    Quote:It stands to reason that, historically, those who have shown no respect for universal basic human rights have had less chance of passing on their genes to the next generation than others who have shown such respect.

    Tell that to all the holocaust survivors who mourn their dead. You seem to think that it is the genes that creates injustice but I do not.

    Quote:I know it will probably be a battle to convince you of this, seeing as you don't believe in universal rights. I also get the impression you see human nature as an ongoing internal fight against immoral natural urges, whereas I also see the good in our natural heritage.

    Again you pay no attention to what I have already written, I have said that I do not see human beings as 'good' or 'bad' because humans are far too complex for that. Yes obviously there is 'good' in our heritage, but that doesn't outweigh what isn't good. Immorality reigns supreme whenever it has the chance and that chance proves often.

    Quote:Is it so hard for you to conceive in the abstract of how societies tend to treat people who show no respect for human rights? Imagine a tribal village in which one tribe member rapes another. How would the tribe deal with this? What about indiscrimate killing? How would a tribe deal with a psychopath in their midst, do you think?

    And yet more rapist and killers are being born all the time. Funny that!
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2004
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Lucysnow:

    Sorry for the slow reply.

    I have fairly strong views on human rights issues, and I do not distinguish in applying them to my own country as well as other countries. If I have a paternalistic attitude, then I guess it applies as much domestically as internationally. However, I would not describe my views in those terms.

    People with vested interests will always get upset about change. That can't be avoided.

    Education can and does help to prevent war. People need to learn that there are other, often better, alternatives for problem-solving than going to war. Some people are very slow learners, though. That includes people in the West as much as it does people elsewhere.

    This simply shows that culture is not delimited by geographic borders, as I have said previously.

    Of course not. That would be extremely naive, or simply an attempt to sweep the real issues under the carpet. There are many valid complaints which are made against the West and its governments.

    There's an implied "only" in your last sentence, which is what I take issue with.

    I apologise for misinterpreting you, then.

    It appears we agree on this, then.

    Again, it is the "only after being asked" part of this which I disagree with.

    Are laws and principles wrong just because some people do not abide by them? Is it pointless to have laws against theft when people steal all the time? I don't believe so. Nor do I believe it is pointless to promote basic human rights, whilst at the same time recognising that human rights violations are happening all the time.

    That's one school of thought. Not everybody agrees. We could argue this for a long time, without achieving much, so I don't intend to start.

    Yes, and a good thing too. Criticism is one step in improving the organisation.

    That's simply your opinion, and I have no doubt you can find plenty of other people who agree with you. But be aware that there <b>is</b> another side to this.

    I agree with that sometimes war in self-defence is inevitable. On the other hand, if you take a wider view, self-defence would never be necessary if there were no attacks in the first place.

    Perhaps I have not made myself clear. The holocaust was one episode in history, but the period from 1939 to 1945 was a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms. When you're talking about processes of natural selection which affect species, you have to look at much longer time periods to see overall trends. The human species is hundreds of thousands of years old.

    You also have the wrong end of the stick in saying I think genes create injustice. Of course they don't. Cultural factors are at least equally important, if not more important.

    You say "whenever it has the chance". It would be appropriate for you to consider why immorality doesn't often get the chance to reign supreme. Why is it, do you think, that human societies, by and large, have far more periods of law and order than of anarchy?

    In nature, there is always a certain evolutionary advantage to "defecting" (to use a term from game theory). This makes it very unlikely that a particular trait will disappear entirely from a given population, particularly if that trait can result, in some circumstances, in a greater chance of survival or reproductive efficiency for an individual with the trait.

    What tends to happen is that a population will settle into what is called an "evolutionary stable strategy", in which a certain, roughly fixed, proportion of individuals will have the trait, whilst the majority do not.

    Please note that I am in no way suggesting here that a trait as complex as a tendency to commit rape is an entirely genetic phenomenon, governed by a single gene. I'm very confident there is no such thing as a "gene for rape".
     
  19. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    *James* (smiles) I thought you didn't love me anymore! Out of curiosity, have you read Fromm's Man For Himself?

    Quote:I have fairly strong views on human rights issues, and I do not distinguish in applying them to my own country as well as other countries. If I have a paternalistic attitude, then I guess it applies as much domestically as internationally. However, I would not describe my views in those terms.

    Sir I quite understand that you have strong views on human rights...we both do. What I find interesting is the word 'apply' you assume it is your right or duty or that of the West to 'apply' their views on others. This is where we differ. I do not wish to 'apply' my views on anyone, I will only help those who desire my help. It reminds me of a documentary I had seen while in Denmark about the police. There was this man who for whatever reason loved to sleep in the Central Station. Now if you know anything about Denmark its that there are no homeless people. Anyway, every night the cops would try and remove him only to find him there again the next night. He wanted to be there. He may be crazy, a drunkard or simply an eccentric. My ex at the time was horrified by my attitude concerning this guy, which was that they should just leave him there. In my opinion he has the 'right' to rest his little noggin in Central Station because he isn't bothering anyone. My ex's position was that it was the right of the State to 'apply' their notions of 'care'. This old guy had a home but chose not to sleep there. The State's position is an aesthetic issue (no one enjoys having to see someone sleeping in the C.S). When does your strong view become an oppressive, intrusive application? Let's take prostitution for example or abortion. When does anothers sense of 'humanity' just begin to be an excuse to infringe on another's life or subjective experience? Many people believe that both these issues are 'harmful'. I of course disagree.

    Quote

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    eople with vested interests will always get upset about change. That can't be avoided.

    Its a cop out to use this statement as an answer. The question here is not about change. This anthropologist is speaking of actively infiltrating under the guise of ethnography. She has an agenda. Obviously things will change but as has been pointed out many African countries have laws against fmg but their is no social will to not practise the custom and if anything the laws make circumstances worse for children who may need medical attention but then don't receive it because parents are afraid of being prosecuted. YOu say change. Change by whom? change by locals or an imposed change by outsiders? We are discussing who is responsible for initiating change.

    Quote:Education can and does help to prevent war. People need to learn that there are other, often better, alternatives for problem-solving than going to war. Some people are very slow learners, though. That includes people in the West as much as it does people elsewhere.

    Give me an example of education preventing war from anywhere in the world. Show me one example of proof that education prevents aggression.

    Quote:This simply shows that culture is not delimited by geographic borders, as I have said previously.

    But you don't answer the question. If you believe that education prevents fmg then how do you account for the fact that it is practised by people who live, work and are schooled in the West?

    Quote:There are many valid complaints which are made against the West and its governments.

    I am glad you can concede this point, it was something I believed you were avoiding.

    Quote:There's an implied "only" in your last sentence, which is what I take issue with.

    Have you ever asked yourself why it is ONLY the West that determines when and how intervention takes place and on what grounds? Have you ever wondered why the school of Anthropology was applied to others by westerners and not towards the west by foreigners? Have you asked yourself what gives the West to determine the future and history of another? Have you asked yourself why this attitude is resented by people who are being 'managed' by the West? The implied 'only' exists because I have enough respect for those of other cultures to revolutionize themselves, in their own time, in their own way, unhindered. I believe that other cultures also know when to ask for help and what kind of help the require. WE CONTROL OTHERS ON OUR TERMS, WE HELP OTHERS ON THEIR TERMS.

    Quote:Are laws and principles wrong just because some people do not abide by them? Is it pointless to have laws against theft when people steal all the time? I don't believe so. Nor do I believe it is pointless to promote basic human rights, whilst at the same time recognising that human rights violations are happening all the time.

    Yes but we are not speaking about domestic laws are we? The principles you speak of have been decided upon domestically. We are speaking of intervening on Sovereign nations! And cultures where customs like fmg are the rule and not illegal or immoral to the people who are practising them. We are speaking of taking OUR ideas/principles and imposing them on others because we think we have the moral high ground when we do not. We behave as if anyone outside of our cultural matrix are dullards or children, helpless and immune to what is 'right' because it does not mirror us. What you are speaking of is molding everyone around you to an ideal you uphold regardless of whether it is valued by another.

    Quote: Criticism is one step in improving the organisation

    Yes but they ignore these criticisms dont they. Check it out, how is the organization supposed to change when power is extended to a few? The criticism is ignored because the people who want change are not in POWER. They are unable to create change within a power pyramid that was created to control them. This is why the U.S can ignore un and international standards with impunity and without consequence. How many 'lesser' nations can do this? The Bush plan is one of domination and no one can impose it because the States has power over most nations. The majority of nations in the u.n ask for change as supplicants not equals. It is for this reason why I oppose and have little respect for the organization because it is built on hypocrisy and masks this with their pretty words on paper. Just like the US is making a mockery of its own constitution at home.

    Quote: That's simply your opinion, and I have no doubt you can find plenty of other people who agree with you. But be aware that there is another side to this.

    Since I am one person and not two the only opinion I can offer is my own. You are free to assume that everything I write is my opinion because it is. But remember that the MAJORITY if not ALL of U.N nations outside of the west also share my opinion about the internal structure of the U.N. So, what is the other side (actually I should probably ask WHO is on the other side), the other argument? As a reminder I will post the quote in question.

    My quote to which you had responded concerning the UN:

    'This debate has been going on for over a decade now. When the hell is it ever going to tighten the machinary? All there is is talk, talk, talk and its bullshit."

    Quote: On the other hand, if you take a wider view, self-defence would never be necessary if there were no attacks in the first place.

    And how would you achieve this? Since man is a part of nature and aggression a part of nature then I would really like to know how you believe this can be changed. War is as natural to man and civilization as popcorn at the downtown movie theatre.

    Quote

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    erhaps I have not made myself clear. The holocaust was one episode in history, but the period from 1939 to 1945 was a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms. When you're talking about processes of natural selection which affect species, you have to look at much longer time periods to see overall trends. The human species is hundreds of thousands of years old.

    Well then i do not understand your point because how do you believe natural selection 'weeds' out those who have no regard for human rights.

    Quote:You say "whenever it has the chance". It would be appropriate for you to consider why immorality doesn't often get the chance to reign supreme. Why is it, do you think, that human societies, by and large, have far more periods of law and order than of anarchy?

    Whatever this immorality is doesn't 'reign supreme' because of balance. In all things natural balance is always achieved. Law/order and anarchy ebb and flow within a balanced universe. It is not about one overriding the other.

    Quote:I'm very confident there is no such thing as a "gene for rape".

    Why are you confident? There is a link crunchy posted on this somewhere in this thread, I don't know if you have read it but if not I can search it out and post it. Let me know.
     
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Lucysnow:

    No, I haven't.

    When I wrote "apply", I did not mean "impose by force". When I talk about applying my views, I mean I refer to my views when I think about different situations and scenarios, and I do that regardless of arbitrary national borders. In that sense, yes, I do assume it is the right or duty of the West to apply their thinking to the situations of other people. There is a long history in the development of western ethical philosophy. Why try to reinvent the wheel all the time? Instead, we should draw on expert opinions from our past, whilst also being wary of our prejudices.

    It is difficult to know what the best course of action would be in this case. It seems that the view of the Danish society, as represented by its appointed officials, was that to allow this man to sleep in the station was unacceptable. We could argue this one way or the other. Frankly, I don't see how it applies to our conversation.

    This is easy for me. It becomes oppressive and intrusive when it interferes with another person's human rights. I think that if people think these things are harmful, they should say why. Then, when all sides of the issue have been examined, we can see which side of the line we should come down on from a moral point of view. That line is relatively easy to draw in the case of prostitution (provided that is a free choice). It is more difficult in the case of abortion, because it can be argued that there is a clash of the rights of two human beings. Any position on the matter then depends on weighing up these clashing rights and values against one another. As an aside, I have my own opinions on the abortion issue, which we can go into if you want to, but which are not really relevant here, but which I have come to by examining both sides of the argument carefully to see which one holds up better.

    I don't think so. She is advocating that anthropologists drop their "neutral" stance on issues such as FGM. She is not setting up some kind of spy ring.

    I did not say that education was the sole factor in preventing war - simply that it is <b>a</b> factor. The benefits of education are often intangible, which is why it is unfair to ask me to show that education prevented a particular war. Also, we need to be clear what kind of education we are talking about. Clearly, learning your multiplication tables (to take a random example) won't make you any less disposed to war. But being educated in diplomacy almost undoubtedly does.

    The people who do that in the West would, I think you will find, consider themselves primarily as belonging to another culture separate from the predominant culture of their country of residence. While they may be aware of the existence of views against the practice of FGM, they are probably not truly versed in the arguments against it, or, alternatively, they reject those arguments for cultural or religious reasons.

    There are the realities of uneven distribution of power among nations throughout history. For example, colonialism has been very common in all eras. It results from peoples exerting power over other peoples, often blatantly ignoring the rights of those others.

    Because the field of anthropology developed from the western scientific tradition, perhaps?

    I have never claimed the West has such a right.

    Of course.

    Respectfully, I disagree. Sometimes this is true, but not always.

    ...to intervene to fight fundamental human rights abuses.

    Legality flows from morals, as I have said, so let's leave that aside. I stand by my earlier claim that these people only consider the practice acceptable because they are uneducated about it, both in a moral sense and in other ways (e.g. medical implications).

    I think we do, in the case of basic human rights. (Caveat: this does not necessarily translate to other areas.)

    Lack of education has no necessary connection with culture. I would no more call somebody from another culture a dullard than I would call somebody from my own culture a dullard. If I chose to do that, it would be for the same reasons in both cases. Again, you make an arbitrary distinction between peoples based only on arbitrary geographical borders. I make no such distinction. FGM is not wrong because it is practiced in African countries; it is wrong wherever it occurs, for reasons related to fundamental human rights.

    If the majority of nations thought the UN had no value, why would they continue to be members? Would they not leave the UN and (perhaps) start some other organisation?

    Human beings have the power to choose their own destinies, to some extent at least. Unlike many other animals, our actions are not largely determined by our genetic heritage. To argue that "aggression is part of human nature, therefore we won't ever stop war" is to commit what is called the <b>naturalistic fallacy</b>, i.e. to argue that because something is natural it is desirable and/or inevitable. On the contrary, I argue that, even if we have violent impulses as a species, we are not forced to act on those impulses. Indeed, we ought to resist acting immorally, which is what ethics is all about.

    I argue that over the evolutionary history of Homo sapiens, groups of human beings who have been violent and lawless have tended to be vanquished by other groups who are naturally less violent and who accept some kind of law and order, or else the violent groups have self-destructed. People who live according to laws and ethics have more time to raise children in safety, and tend to live longer to reproduce. Thus, over time, human populations have tended to evolve into societies which invariably have certain laws or customs.

    Even if you look at apparently violent conquering groups in the period of recorded human history, at some point those groups either die out or settle down to create (or be absorbed into) a stable community ruled by some kind of law and/or custom. All such communities uphold at least some fundamental human rights.

    If that's your belief, then I don't see that you'd have a hard time accepting the idea of an "evolutionary stable strategy", as described previously. That is, itself, a form of natural balance. We're talking about the same things, only in different terms.

    I'll read the link if you can find it.

    I'm confident because, so far, I am aware of no known single gene for a trait as complex as "tendency to commit rape". I doubt that such a thing exists because I think there are many issues of upbringing, social standards, personal ethics and other cultural factors which are relevant to a person's decision to commit rape, quite separate from any biological factors.
     
  21. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    *James*

    I am so sick of this new software! On occasion the quick reply disappears, wastes my goddamn time and I have to re-write my whole fucking response. Anyway, Eric Fromm's Man For Himself is an inquiry into the psychology of ethics, he believes in the validity of humanistic ethics I am sure you will find it interesting.

    Quote:In that sense, yes, I do assume it is the right or duty of the West to apply their thinking to the situations of other people. There is a long history in the development of western ethical philosophy. Why try to reinvent the wheel all the time? Instead, we should draw on expert opinions from our past, whilst also being wary of our prejudices.

    I am not sure I understand your point would you please elaborate. What do you mean by trying to reinvent the wheel etc? I am not sure if we can always monitor our cultural prejudices. Even among progressives prejudice can be detected and it is usually by those who they are trying to help. Often being brought up in a white/middle-class environment sets us up to either pity or romanticize the poor or people of other countries. As Kundera points out "Pity connotes a certain condenscension towards the sufferer." When this happens the people we try and influence become resentful/affronted and reject 'help'.

    Quote:This is easy for me. It becomes oppressive and intrusive when it interferes with another person's human rights. I think that if people think these things are harmful, they should say why. Then, when all sides of the issue have been examined, we can see which side of the line we should come down on from a moral point of view. That line is relatively easy to draw in the case of prostitution (provided that is a free choice). It is more difficult in the case of abortion, because it can be argued that there is a clash of the rights of two human beings. Any position on the matter then depends on weighing up these clashing rights and values against one another. As an aside, I have my own opinions on the abortion issue, which we can go into if you want to, but which are not really relevant here, but which I have come to by examining both sides of the argument carefully to see which one holds up better.

    Quote: Yes I would be very interested in knowing your opinion on abortion. I do not see this as irrelevant because it outlines how you examines the issue. Who is examining the issue? In an international arena where the privileged 'few' decide the interests of the many what say does the average citizen have on these decisions?
    Do you assume that all participants share your moral point of view? If they do not then who will decide the outcome, is it concensus or referrendum? When the issue concerns a sovereign nation that opposes the point of view or the members of said society ignore the new standard then how can members of the international community who is outside this state impose their point of view without forceful intervention? Remember that with the example of prostitution there are many who oppose it even if it is not a forced choice. And the issue becomes even deeper when we look at circumstances where women choose the profession because of poverty. In Thailand there are many women who choose prostitution because they prefer not to break their backs make very little money in a rice field. The choices of a poor woman is not the same as a middle-class woman choosing the profession out of prediliction or preferrable means to pay through college.

    Quote:I don't think so. She is advocating that anthropologists drop their "neutral" stance on issues such as FGM. She is not setting up some kind of spy ring.

    Well in a way she is. She advocates using her permission to provide early warnings. She writes " Because of our involvement in local societies, anthropologists could provide early warnings of abuses" I have no problem with her giving data to orgs or discussing the issue on an international scene but to whom would she provide early warnings? Also she writes "anthropologists need to condemn such misuse of cultural relativism, even if it means that they may be denied permission to do research in the country in question". My question is how can it help if one risks being denied permission to do work in the country? How does it help if it will only cast doubt and suspicion and distrust on all western cultural anthropologists?

    Quote: But being educated in diplomacy almost undoubtedly does.

    How do you provide the kind of education that predisposes someone against war when most of these nations cannot even provide a basic education? How do you impress this kind of education on nations where leaders haven't this political will because they are more interested in holding power or it goes against their pragmatic beliefs? For example diplomacy did not work for the Tibetans against the chinese. The chinese pretended to negotiate with them and then invaded anyway, used the concessions made by the dalai lama against him to steal more power (after he had signed his name on the dotted line). Natives negotiated diplomatically with the U.S governement and were ignored, their contracts were meaningless and worthless. If I intend to use power then all dialogue is meaningless. If you have no power or strength against someone you are negotiating with then you are a supplicant. If someone sees only the ends and not the means then they will see diplomatic pacifism as a weakness and take from you as you lay your shield and sword to the side. Might is right? Well if it isn't someone needs to clue the Bush administration because that is the crux of their international foreign policy.

    Quote:The people who do that in the West would, I think you will find, consider themselves primarily as belonging to another culture separate from the predominant culture of their country of residence. While they may be aware of the existence of views against the practice of FGM, they are probably not truly versed in the arguments against it, or, alternatively, they reject those arguments for cultural or religious reasons.

    Exactly! And that is the point I have been trying to make. When I mentioned the woman from Gambia she was well aware of the arguments against fmg and also of the risks. But she sees the risks as affecting the lower classes who cannot afford a medical doctor to safely perform the procedure. In the middle and upper classes there are ample doctors from these cultures who are willing to perform the ritual safely (just like male circumcision) and use anesthesia so the experience isnt so traumatic.

    Now because I am afraid of losing all this I will post my reply and finish the rest in another.
     
  22. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    the continuation...

    Quote:There are the realities of uneven distribution of power among nations throughout history. For example, colonialism has been very common in all eras. It results from peoples exerting power over other peoples, often blatantly ignoring the rights of those others.

    I am glad you see this but colonialism is percieved in many different ways. If you research colonialism in the carribean islands, the English for example provided a strong British/western european education to the locals. If you read the scholars or thinkers like Marcus Garvey or nobel laureate Derek Walcott the discussion is about psychological/cultural colonialsim and imperialism (you should read The Gulf where walcott expresses feelings on european cultural orientation). Now what is that? Its the perception of other people that the west through the means of education is attempting to dilute or rid an indigenious way of thinking, perceiving and behaving.
    If you do not understand this argument being made then you will not understand the restrictions of universal human rights and the paranoid resistance that is beginning to snowball against western intervention. Please, please, read this link. Our debate hinges on the perspective being offered:

    http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/tharoor2.htm

    Tharoor states what is the REAL problem: "Without development, human rights could not be truly universal, since universality must be predicated upon the most underprivileged in developing countries achieving empowerment. We can not exclude the poorest of the poor from the universality of the rich." I believe that ANY right is dependent on economic growth, any stable natural change within a culture depends on this and education isn't possible without it. Then she also states something else I agree with: " human rights derive from the mere fact of being human; they are not the gift of a particular government or legal code. But the standards being proclaimed internationally can become reality only when applied by countries within their own legal systems. The challenge is to work towards the “indigenization” of human rights, and their assertion within each country's traditions and history. If different approaches are welcomed within the established framework—if, in other words, eclecticism can be encouraged as part of the consensus and not be seen as a threat to it—this flexibility can guarantee universality, enrich the intellectual and philosophical debate, and so complement, rather than undermine, the concept of worldwide human rights"

    As long as the west exploits developing countries through the world bank, IMF, FTAA, CAFTA and NAFTA, western pharmaceuticals denying rights to generic manufacturing of drugs, western nations getting rich on poverty and warefare, then universal human rights may sound nice and just but will never ever be implemented without hypocrisy. It is the hypocrisy that creates distrust not the 'good will' of others. My problem with Tharoor's position is the same as I have with yours, she doesn't state how any international body can implement these supposed rights. If rights were assigned by birth then we wouldn't need laws to uphold them would we? No. It is the will of local communities and government regulation and political will that can ensure these rights. But this will not happen if the west continues to push against a will (conflict), for example remember Clinton's visit to China and what Zemin had to say on the issue:

    "Chinese president Jiang Zemin thus defended the government's authoritarian policies: "[t]he two countries differ in social system, ideology, historical tradition and cultural background, the two countries have different means and ways in realizing human rights and fundamental freedoms." Official statements [2] have declared that China has its own unique cultural values (such as obedience to authority, collectivism, family, and other dispositions), which are said to be opposed to human rights ideals that cherish individual freedom and tolerance." Quote from secular humanism.org

    We have to be very careful. Globalization is eroding many traditional structures but fails to replace them with anything stable. Bush's tactics override the international community and then we expect other nations to comply with the international community. This is seen as a hypocrisy and looking away from western transgressions while focusing on those of the third world. People will fight if they see the west as forcing standards they are not ready to accept. For this reason I suggest supporting those WITHIN those cultures who are actively working towards change, and allowing an indigenous change to occur even if it isnt happening at the speed we would like. The economic differences and the political will of many nations make implementation very difficult and at times impossible. Colonialism in its many forms has created a deep wound of distrust, the west needs to back off a little so that these nations can regain a sense of pride in their ability to revolutionize their own cultures or there will be nothing but active resistance. Its like trying to force a drug addict to stop using and being surprised that they find a way to use with a vengence they never applied before.
    Backlash is a bitch!

    Quote:Because the field of anthropology developed from the western scientific tradition, perhaps?

    Yes exactly and this is why there was a backlash to this kind of 'investigation', especially since it was a one-way examination.

    Quote:Respectfully, I disagree. Sometimes this is true, but not always.

    So state your case. You say that people who represent orgs from other cultures do not know when and how to ask for help, I know for a fact that this occurs because many of them meet and interact and exchange resources on an international arena. But you disagree so show me why and on what actual evidence you make this assertion.

    Quote:...to intervene to fight fundamental human rights abuses.

    Okay. YOu say you are not advocating force, so I ask again how are you going to intervene on fundamental human rights without force? Do you know why the west does not actively intervene on North Korea? Because the country has closed itself off to the west and because they have the military might to defend themselves against the west. Do you know why the dalai lama's pleas for intervention were turned down by the U.S because they would have to fight the Chinese and on these grounds and that was not an option. Why wasn't it an option? It would have been an unwinable war. Do you know why the U.S is so cocky concerning Taiwan? Because they were in a position to make an allegiance with Taiwan while China was distracted during the Korean war, they placed themselves in a position to defend Taiwan. If they had not done so then it would have been impossible and China would have re-absorbed Taiwan.

    Quote:Legality flows from morals, as I have said, so let's leave that aside. I stand by my earlier claim that these people only consider the practice acceptable because they are uneducated about it, both in a moral sense and in other ways (e.g. medical implications).

    If legality flowed from morals then slavery would never have been legal and the death penalty alive and well and thiving in Texas. We cannot just 'leave it at that'. There are many who think abortion immoral but the law protects my right to an abortion. Again I have told you that there are western educated middle-class women who defend fmg, so how can you now say that it is simply a matter of education, it is not. The woman from Gambia was not uneducated she just didn't agree.

    Quote:I think we do, in the case of basic human rights. (Caveat: this does not necessarily translate to other areas.)

    So then why is there a patriot act that threatens civil rights? Don't you see that it is the arrogance of speaking from a moral high ground that creates resistance in nations that are in a position to resist? Individuals behave in the same way, I for example dismiss religious people immediately if they come with their moral high ground opinions, and point to my lifestyle and again poin to their moral high grounds. This approach creates resistance not open debate, it creates stubboness not flexibility.

    Quote:If the majority of nations thought the UN had no value, why would they continue to be members? Would they not leave the UN and (perhaps) start some other organisation?

    Look at my quote again: "This debate has been going on for over a decade now. When the hell is it ever going to tighten the machinary? All there is is talk, talk, talk and its bullshit."

    It was a statement made after this quote I linked:

    "Few reformers are willing to admit that the UN's complex and inefficient machinery results from deep political disagreements among its members and between other contending forces in the global system. In a world divided by chasms between rich and poor, powerful and powerless, differences of interest are certain to shape all reform efforts and keep the UN a contradictory and divided institution."

    It is this I am saying they agree with not on whether the U.N should exist. It is my opinion that the U.N has proven itself ineffective. Many block nations have created alliance organizations addressing issues outside of the U.N.


    Quote: On the contrary, I argue that, even if we have violent impulses as a species, we are not forced to act on those impulses. Indeed, we ought to resist acting immorally, which is what ethics is all about.

    But we don't act on ethics do we? Many do not especially those in power. This civility you refer to, these ethics, have not done a good job of interferring with baser impulses. You speak of stopping immorally like a pulpit preacher but it doesn't stop the congregation from having extra marital affairs, domestic violence, racism or getting stupid drunk on a saturday night. Ethics are only meaningful when implemented by the individual because the individual has made a CONSCIOUS decision based on what is in the interest of their happiness and long term goal of well being. You should read Fromms book.

    Quote:Even if you look at apparently violent conquering groups in the period of recorded human history, at some point those groups either die out or settle down to create (or be absorbed into) a stable community ruled by some kind of law and/or custom. All such communities uphold at least some fundamental human rights.

    Yes but this doesn't eventually stop the process of destruction of these civilizations and the decent in to anarchy and chaos. I believe such degeneration a natural process for all civilizations including inevitably our own.

    I will look for the rape gene link in this thread and post it.
     
  23. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879

Share This Page