we wouldn't happen to have an organization that has masses of pedophiles and conspires to hide them would we? no, no, never.
It is. I was being facetious. However, these type of things have happened in many societies. I am not saying it is right . . . In fact I will say it. . . IT IS FRICKING WRONG! I abhor it. Can you say it could not happen here? we would like to think not. . but dominoes are in place. 1st. Legalize prostitution - a large number of people was ok with that 2nd. Age of consent - 16ish 3rd. Once prostitution is a 'legitimate' business . . . would people be ok with a 16 yr old getting 'into the business' - easy to say no! But if age of consent is 16 and you considered an 'adult' . . whose to stop them? I won't even comment on the 'underground' things that are very organized, illegal but tolerated in this country. Rocket River
Possibly. I mention the Catholicism because there are some in my church (and I'm sure many in my religion) who do not separate church and state. I know of one woman who only voted for McCain because Obama was pro-abortion. She admitted to not knowing a thing about any of McCain's policies- but she said that she always votes for the anti-abortion candidate. And the main reason is that she says abortion is opposed by the Catholic Church. They try to pretend to keep out of politics, but they are very good about slipping in inferences as to whom they feel the congregation should vote for.
Thank you very much for this thrilling read! It perfectly articulated everything I felt and thought about Harris' article almost perfectly! Let me just add, that in order to define or decide any degree of cultural absolutism globally or nationally, there must at first be some standard of moral absolutism preceding it. A very notable paragraph that I read in the article quoted above was the following: "Can we not even imagine people with fundamentally incompatible views of the good? (I think I can.) And if we can, what is the reason for the cosmic accident that we all happen to agree? And if that happy cosmic accident exists, it’s still merely an empirical fact; by itself, the existence of universal agreement on what is good doesn’t necessarily imply that it is good. We could all be mistaken, after all." Exactly how I feel about this matter. I am a cultural absolutist and a moral absolutist. I believe that as a species, humanity should develop a global moral and cultural standard in order to ensure that humanity can act as a cohesive species-unit. However, even if these global standards are arrived to, there is actually no scientific evidence within the grasp of human comprehension that would determinedly prove that these decisions are truly "right" or "wrong." After all, morality is not a tangible concept, and is not quantifiable. Its intangible quality is what makes it non-empirical and inconceivable in a testable, physical reality. We can, however, say that there are certain reasons why humans think something is good and wrong, and that certainly is empirical. But to justify our decisions based on that ideal would be to ignore that you could justify the Taliban's decisions/"morality" based upon that very logic as well. Simply because the Taliban agrees what they're doing is the right thing, doesn't actually make it right. And just because everyone in the world thinks they're doing something wrong, it doesn't actually make it wrong (as terrible an idea as that sounds). The very concept of morality as a philosophical subject, does not conform to those standards (i.e., agreement does not determine truth or absolutism, only relevant truth and relativism). Rape is bad. Murder is bad. Stealing is bad. We can be absolute on those terms when it comes to humans. But from a universal perspective, those things are only absolute in relation to humans; it doesn't necessarily make us right, per se. Aside from that, we can only be absolute about one thing, and that is their universal relativity. I'll close by saying just because humans cannot comprehend or conceive of an alternative, doesn't mean that that alternative doesn't exist. But for simplicity's sake, and for the sake of humanity, we can for now settle to say that our perception is reality. Therefore, the Taliban is bad.
This article reminds me of my Sociology 101 (or whatever number it was) class in college. The basic, number 1 theme of the entire semester class, reinfoced through lectures and books: no culture is "right" and no culture is "wrong"...they are just different and have different values. I guess, in theory, this is true. If I was brought up with totally different norms, I would see "right" and "wrong" in a totally different way. Some differences are intersting and a little humorous. Example: Western cultures tend to focus on women's breasts as an attractive feature for sexuality. In many African cultures, women's breasts are merely a tool for feeding children, yet the men of those cultures find elbows and the back of women's knees attractive. Not right or wrong, just different. Whatever floats your boat kind of thing. Other examples are hard to grasp. A cultural difference about what you expose a child to, for example. In most cultures, it would be abhorrent to subject small children to sexual acts with an adult. However, we studied a specific culture in which a small child became a man when he gave oral sex to the elders. Something about passing along the manhood. Well, this is certainly used to be a shocking example. If this is what this culture has practiced for hundreds if not thousands of years, who are we to judge it as "wrong". The prof agreed with this sentiment. We have no right to challenge this act. This is where I would have a problem, and perhaps would agree with the original article in the thread. As a progressive culture, that hopefully has come a long way, despite Kardashians and such, and has had great advancement in technology, thinking, civil rights, freedom, liberty, etc. Shouldn't we be able to call such an act wrong? I guess this is just one of the great debates. When do we have an obligation as a culture to impose our way of thinking? Protecting innocent lives from death? Protecting children from sexual exploitation? Where is the line? Do we then say this is government you should have? This is the judicial system? It is a slippery slope to be sure.
Certainly, if that is the case, then I would agree with you more. I do, however, feel there are some key areas and issues where we can come to an agreement. I can't accept, for example, that some Muslim feels the need to covert his/her housemaids to Islam. Whether that's a belief they hold or not, it's unacceptable and I don't have to respect it. Do I have to go punch them? Force them to change? No, I can make my views known, and tell them it's not a respectable view and carry the impact of that decision into future dealings with the person. They have to live with the consequences of their choice, and they must know that respect does not come for free.
Rocket River, Can you respect this: http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/12-year-old_yemani_child_bride_dies_from_marital_rape In traditional conservative bedouin Yemeni culture, what happened here is considered ok. Can you respect this culture?
Like Tracy McGrady in his prime, I like to impose my will onto the game. People will call me names like Martyr, Saint, Prophet, all kinds of things, but it is my mission to spread light into the darkness. I know ignorance is what has turned the American culture into a sedentary one, and I also know ignorance is what keeps little Muslim girls in fear of speaking out against anything their elders say. Like the great Greek philosophers of the past, we must learn to question and analyze what it is we are told to do before we do it. Unfortunately, not many people are born with that resolve. School systems in the West and East are created to institutionalize children and subdue creativity and ingenuity while promoting mass thinking. And after a while, people just don't want to fight. They want to eat from the hand that feeds them, settle down, and live a normal life. So it's important for advanced Westerners to impose our will onto obvious issues such as the one demonstrated above. **** morality, **** all these liberal terms about being empathic towards people we "cannot understand", there is nothing in this world that should supercede thinking for oneself and acting out of free will. Together, we can make a difference.
I think you have the wrong definition of respect. or maybe I do. To me . .. respecting someone's culture/opinion/etc means I don't *have* to like it. I don't *have* to condone it but I simply have to accept that it is them 50 years ago . . .it was generally accepted that homosexuality was not normal, was a sin, and generally seen as immoral Were people right then to take actions on those homosexual folx . . . give the shock treatments or what ever BEHAVIORAL MODIFICATIONS METHODS they used? Would you be ok? If everyone felt as the OP's article said then .. . seeing a CLEAR immoral act . . . . people acted is it ok now. . that you see .well what you thought was immoral, really isn't to simply say . . .U KNOW WHAT, MY BAD! I'm Sorry! Now 50 years after when we are 'More enlightened' we see what we THOUGHT was immoral really isn't. . . what do you say to those people you attempted to change and/or shunned and demonized as immoral? Rape and Genital Mutilation maybe easy calls but what about the TOUGH CALLS . .those things that people split 60/40 on 30/70? But this is my point. ACCORDING TO THE OP ARTICLE If a person sees something in a culture that they feel is immoral then they need to speak on it! Maybe even act on it. That being the case . . . IF YOU KEWL WITH CALLING OUT A CULTURE ETC because you feel that it is immoral How do you fault the Homophobe for doing the same thing? Some of them feel Homosexuality is as big a CRIME AGAINST NATURE as rape/genital mutilation/etc. and the snarky bull**** answer of . . OH THEY JUST IDIOTS . . does not work. Basically . .. you would be saying. . . Be a hypocrite. Rocket River
I agree that we define respect differently. For me, there are levels. I can respect a person without liking them. I think what you mean to say is 'tolerate' rather than respect? I dont know. Key point is what I highlighted/bolded in your post. THEM. I don't like this concept of them anymore. If we know for a fact that something is good and something is bad, we need to support that. If it's good for me, it's good for you, humans are all the same, we deserve the same opportunities and information. Still, people are free to choose what they want - until it starts harming others. At this point we need to draw a line. If we're not sure, or if it's not agreed upon, then fine we step back. I don't think we disagree here. I just think we need to be more aware of what it means to respect another culture. It's important that we don't hide behind this phrase or throw it around. If it's respectable, you respect it. But if it's murder, rape, pedophilia - then F that, respect got flushed down the toilet.
But that is a point. What do we KNOW FOR A FACT? Whose FACTS do we trust? 50 Years ago Homosexuality = Bad was considered A FACT. How do you make sure that it is not BIAS or Bigotry driving your FACTS? What if *you* are Wrong? What is the penalty? It has and does happen. FACTS about women and minorities was why they were/are discriminated against. [They use to say women lacked the manual dexterity to be Drs. Black folx were not smart enough to do anything beyond the manual labor. Look up the Mustard Seed Test, Frenology [sp?] Look at the quotes from the founder of Planned Parenthood] Rocket River
I know, I'm talking more to things like... raping a 13-yr old to death after drugging her in a forced marriage. The black and white stuff. I take your point that assuming a certain degree of certainly steps on the line of bigotry. Obviously, we must watch out for that. I'm just saying that maybe we've watched out for that too much over the years.
Agreed. With the Black and White stuff it is easy but even that starts to gray after a while. Social Change is not something to implement haphazardly Definately when you are infringing into cultures that are not your own What YOU VALUE and what I VALUE may not be the same It is like saying Chocolate would make everyone happy because u like it well . . what if i don't like Chocolate? Rocket River
Is the author, or any other Western school of thought really qualified to give advice on what marriage should be like? Given the divorce rate and dysfunction in families, I think not. Other cultures recognize the family as the basis of society, and will enter marriage agreements based on this, not just "love". In that society, Hirsi Ali's individualism makes her a misfit, benefiting from the sacrifices of those that came before her, but refusing to sacrifice for those after her. As for the genital mutilation, that was underhanded, but totally expected. The formula is always the same: focus on the worst aspect of the culture, and use it as a paintbrush on the whole culture. Question: would anyone be suddenly find Somali culture "worthy of respect" if genital mutilation were to stop? .... I didnt think so.
Great job in answering your own question...now let me answer it: I would find it a lot more respectable, yes.
But would it be worthy of your respect? "More respectable" implies you already respect the culture, which you obviously don't... I translate your "more respectable" to mean "less annoying".
