$10 says she was forced to have sex, as in raped.....
makes me incredibly sad and depressed that several parts of the world do horrific things like this, but it also makes me happy to know that everyone i care for and love all live in free countries.
makes me incredibly sad and depressed that several parts of the world do horrific things like this, but it also makes me happy to know that everyone i care for and love all live in free countries.
I type as I speak, with several commas and run on sentences, dont be hatin'.
Originally Posted by AHD
It's hard to imagine, that a country and a culture gets
thrown into medieval stage (I hope you know what I mean) in ~30-40 years.
I do know what you mean. It's a bit further back than medieval times, though: it's more like when Jesus was around. That was a law in Israel that if a Woman commits adultery, she is to be stoned to Death, while a man can f**k whoever the f**k he wants to f**k and not be stoned to death.
(Insert some form of an animation or a slightly wise and/or satyrical statement here)
Originally Posted by Logic
His comment could also be interpreted as a critique of passing judgment on the beliefs and actions of other cultures, when we ourselves still have quite a few draconian correctional procedures (in the US anyway, I don't know much about everywhere else).
Conflicts of interest are normal. Would it not be morally reprehensible to sit there and wait idly while Nazi Germany exterminates all non-Aryan people?
After all, we wouldn't want to pass judgment on the deeply-held beliefs of Nazi party - that would just be so insensitive and terrible...Let alone actually shooting them! :O Oh my oh my...
We have only our judgment to rely on, and I think that whenever we evaluate any action we need to ask ourselves whether it supports our core mutual interests (namely survival and pursuit of happiness). Passiveness is not inherently better as far as our morality is concerned.
Last edited by Odlov; Jul 10, 2010 at 05:45 PM.
Originally Posted by Odlov
Conflicts of interest are normal. Would it not be morally reprehensible to sit there and wait idly while Nazi Germany exterminates all non-Aryan people?
After all, we wouldn't want to pass judgment on the deeply-held beliefs of Nazi party - that would just be so insensitive and terrible...Let alone actually shooting them! :O Oh my oh my...
We have only our judgment to rely on, and I think that whenever we evaluate any action we need to ask ourselves whether it supports our core mutual interests (namely survival and pursuit of happiness). Passiveness is not inherently better as far as our morality is concerned.
I don't disagree, but I think it's important to clarify whose core interests you are standing up for. Are you intervening in another culture because you think they are backwards, uncivilized, primitive, or wrong for ideological reasons (in this case you are just ethnocentrically imposing your own core interests and beliefs, the interests are not mutual, and we can easily look to history for examples of this), or because you are actually motivated by mutual interests, the maintenance of the collective, greater good (history also has examples of this). The latter is appropriate, as you say, but it's important to distinguish it from the former, which enables governments to intervene in other countries for purely self-interested reasons, while under the guise of championing mutual interests. What I'm doing is trying to draw that line separating them.
For example, the US is criticized for invading Iraq, even though one of the guises was to 'liberate' the people from the dictatorship - a claim to mutual interest. Obviously our policy is not based purely on such altruistic motivations, as we should have intervened in the Rwandan genocide if it were (and not repeatedly lied about what the Iraq war was about while making billions rebuilding).
So I'm saying that yes, obviously sitting idly while Nazis murder people is wrong, but why it is wrong is important. Do we see it as wrong because we are truly compassionate? Or because our cultures have inculcated in us feelings of moral superiority? Much of the language in this thread suggests the latter, and that's what I'm pointing out.
Originally Posted by Logic
I don't disagree, but I think it's important to clarify whose core interests you are standing up for. Are you intervening in another culture because you think they are backwards, uncivilized, primitive, or wrong for ideological reasons (in this case you are just ethnocentrically imposing your own core interests and beliefs, the interests are not mutual, and we can easily look to history for examples of this), or because you are actually motivated by mutual interests, the maintenance of the collective, greater good (history also has examples of this).
The first and second group of reasons are practically the same - you just changed the words. When Allies fought Nazi Germany and stopped Hitler from doing whatever it is he was doing, WE WERE doing it because we thought he was wrong for ideological reasons and WE WERE imposing our own core interests and beliefs on him.
There are no 2 ways to go about it, Logic. Cultures often revolve around some ideology, and they are not some untouchable things beyond criticism and evaluation. They can be beneficial to mutual human cause or they can be hazardous. They can succeed or they can fail, like Soviet Communism.
Our upbringing will inevitably have an effect on formation of our psyche and world view. The only thing we can do is use our reason as best as we can to try and protect the interests which we all have in common. That includes extinguishing ideologies and cultures who miserably fail to do so.
