Rationalism: a paper tiger?

Yeah. They're sanctimonious and insufferable.Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of subgroups that are nominally "progressive" that I have my own problems with; my wife, as an agricultural entomologist, gets riled by the organic food nazis who have all kinds of conspiracies about Monsanto and "Big Pharma" and the rest.Of course, then again, around here the proponents of "natural cures" and "organic foods" seem to be the religious conservatives. It's a funny old world, isn't it? But liberals march in lockstep, communally shunning women who've had abortions? Maybe you want to be a little more careful with your on broad brush. Hey, there's plenty that I don't know. But it's pretty easy to make accusations of ignorance. Much harder is not being selfish with one's knowledge. I suspect this parting shot is simply to conceal the fact that you don't have any evidence to contradict me. I'm no Clinton supporter myself, but you don't see any problem with a media that's more concerned with her hemlines than with her party line? Every politician goes on those shows. Why is it only a problem with Clinton does it? Why does she "invite" being treated unseriously when she's only doing exactly what the male politicians do?

What kind of answer is that? The definition of justice and human rights (which is what we were originally discussing), can be vastly different between cultures. And assuming your music metaphor is correct, if everyone does play the same tune, what's the problem with the music some other people are playing? Agreed, with one caveat. They don't stop being right or wrong FOR YOU, even if their not happening to you. I'm on board with you having moral feelings. And that when you look at someone doing something you feel is wrong, it upsets you, whatever culture they are in. You will say that is wrong. If you are a relativist, you would then caveat that yourself with "to me", understanding that within their concepts this might make sense.The question of whether you "have to do something about it", particularly across borders, is a question of justice itself. You know these tribes didn't ask you to come there and check them out. And if we weren't living off the riches of previous generations who missionized other cultures, raping them, flattening them to amusement pieces, and then taking their wealth... you probably wouldn't know about these new ones, or have any ability to change their ways.But I digress... Nice cognitive dissonance. Accuse the people not willing to change other cultures to fit their own whims as racist, while portraying yourself as knight in shining armour rescuing people from oppression of their own practices?As it is, I didn't say let the ignorant people do as they will. I said they had a different world view. I am accepting the validity of another point of view, not just because they are poor or of a different race? Not sure how that entered into it. I would be arguing the same thing if it was a culture that had equal power and wealth and learning and etc etc etc.The question of justice looms again. Would you want someone to say their theory of what oppression is counts more than yours and change your practices, just because they had some technical and financial ability to go to your community and do it? Okay, I'm serious that is a joke right? Evil? If you are serious, what is the difference between Bush's arguments and your own? He's wrong because his convictions and moral set come from his God, as opposed to the social group you happen to belong to? Actions and results are objective. That fact that you feel something based on both is objective. Evil is not. The conclusion that a culture somewhere in the world must be changed because of the fact that within it women are being held down and having female circumcisions (FCs) against their consent, is NOT objective.Lets use this ritual as our standing example.You look at this culture, poked your nose in where it was not asked, and factually see a young girl being held, lets say screaming and crying, as some adults cut her genitalia and then patch her up. You see this through your wealthy, western, individualist moral lens, and get enraged as the interpretation is some "helpless" person being needlessly tortured and mutilated by some adults.But they are not seeing that through their own lens. The adults are not trying to hurt her, that is not the purpose. They view it as an essential ritual or practice to improve her life, and perhaps that of the community. It would be like having your kid inoculated. Kids have this done all the time, usually screaming and crying too. It can even be scarring and in some cases fatal, but we view it as having a purpose beyond what else it might do.I suppose it is possible that a society could believe the pain is an important part, but that kind of stuff is usually done in right of passage rituals. In that case the pain holds significance since life itself is painful. Getting used to pain as a step toward endurance they will need.As I mentioned I saw one documentary where the specific society viewed as an aesthetic point as well, mirroring an act performed by their Gods during creation of the world.That you believe children have some special rights as separate from the will of the parents, is truly subjective. And the concept of consent is also subjective. Both I would argue are also rather arbitrarily enforced (for example the inoculation example).As you noted, you an MC and are opposed to it. If these girls were that traumatized and begging for your help, its odd to see so many older women who have had it done... Not. Yes some examples can be found, but one can also find examples of people in modern Western society unhappy with the unusual proscriptions/prescriptions here. That would not lend legitimacy to some other nation coming over to fix how you live your life, because they agree with those complainants.There are some arguments that the women who do not protest and inflict such "torture" on their daughters are brainwashed. My first question would be what is the difference between someone liking something because they've been brainwashed, and someone liking something? My second question is why are we dismissing the claims of people as if we can tell them why they like something? We know better?I don't think its legitimate to say your interpretation trumps theirs, and I think it is an act of injustice (indeed much greater than little girls having FCs) to go mess with entire societies simply because we have the financial wherewithal to do it, and the inability to keep our noses out of their business. What happens when they start screaming and crying at the death of their traditions and culture?It is also against the Prime Directive. That is pure arrogance born of wealth and power. It is a moral global Manifest Destiny. Did these people you just criticized invite you to stay with them, to correct any mistakes they might be making? Most couldn't give a shit about you, and some are not even cognizant of the nature of the world, much less the concept of global community. This isn't to drum them down, its a fact. They certainly weren't asking for everyone in the first world to come and join them.I'm hip to the Citizen of Earth thing. That just means the globe is your home. There are many diverse communities on that globe, and to join them my thoughts are the best method is NOT to say... hey you guys are evil, you need to be stopped.Just because you currently enjoy the wealth and power to get to any place in the planet, and the ability to change other cultures by forced programming and sanction, does not make it just.My thoughts are you did not buy the argument you just made when the catholics, and then the protestants swept the globe using the same decree to help their fellow citizens. Exactly like myself, if you define it as within my nation and culture, yes I'd say that is right. Because they are the only ones I know that definitely share the same history and "Lens" as I do, or similar anyway, such that I can legitimately define what requires help.Its like in the past seeing an inuit on a floating ice sheet and "saving" them by pulling them to safety. Only they didn't want your help that's how some in that culture go to die.I will accept the insular title, though my feeling is I'd get accepted into the societies you badmouth quicker than you, and stay longer. As or racist, I still don't understand the charge. We are a mixed race culture, and I'm willing not to stick my nose into other white cultures as well as any other race. This is an interesting point. It is true that within a culture there can be many different sub-cultures. The point I'd make is that unlike your claim to world community earlier, you really are in a local community. Your town, state, country. Within that realm you are working to advance your own life and interest with those that share that locale. It is a total illusion that you're working with anyone outside that locale.So within your own society/culture, which happens to be more diverse than many other nations/societies/cultures, it is not only valid but necessary for there to be interaction and influence between the many sub-cultures.Its when you decide to travel, or others do and report back what they saw, and you suddenly think that tentative connection gives your morality a passport to their world, specifically to change it, that a line is crossed.Your line of argument is almost like me saying, well I vote in my community right and there are all sorts of people with different ideas and from different nations, so why can't I go vote in any other nation I want? And there's the rub, our attempts to change them aren't even coming from taking the time to join their community (as people would have to do here) and get some laws passed. It is by dictate from us. You honestly think these other cultures have the ability to tell anyone in the first world to butt out? Hey I hate to tell you but they already did! And its not a question of who wants it more but who has the raw power to effect the other's will. Gee guess who's going to win.Yeah, I guess the native americans and aztecs just didn't want it enough. Nice try. I am a moral relativist. As I already agreed with you, they can have tastes and the ability to effect change around them based on those tastes. You are part of my culture, and nation, so I have a legitimate issue with what you do, particularly when it becomes an "act" from my culture to influence another. And from my view an injustice.I did not declare anything absolutely wrong, even what you want to do. I don't like and am telling you why I don't like it. It is unjust, given my perspective that cultures have relative validity. I am appealing to you on that idea, hoping that perhaps you share the concept of moral relativism, or failing that would not want to be in the hypocritical role of demolishing another culture in the same fashion as our ancestors did, as well as you would not want done by any rise in fundamentalist cultures (to give an example).Hypocrisy IS an objective quality, though of course it is neither objectively right or wrong. And you were claiming I was the racist thinking they were savages? Uhhhh... I didn't try to make it all about men, remember? It was all about women so far, so I showed the flipside and then REPEATED the female side of the equation (using the short hand vs a short hand for the male side). I was discussing both. I was saying both sexes have expectations for behavior which work against them from either direction... though I still disagree with your assessment of frigid to slut in one step.As for Dworkin, I read her writings. I read the writings of those from her side. I then read writings of other feminists which disagreed with her, not to mention criticisms (by both men and women)from people outside the feminist camp (or not allied with it anyway) of the specific theory she laid out. I didn't interrupt her, and the women who disagreed weren't men, and I agreed with them. So now where does that leave us? Okay, you opened the can of worms... How is it objectively wrong? What absolute law are you appealing to? If they believe it is right, how can it be an absolute law?I'm going to grant you that it is against human rights for sake of argument. While in reality it can be defended within that framework, I see a valid argument that according to YOUR definition of human rights it could be. The question of the universality of human rights is also in question, but I can leave that for elsewhere.That is unless the universal objective wrong is directly connected to the human rights thing... in that case, do go on...

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

First, apologies for the lengthy post before this I accidentally hit submit before I adequately cut it down. I'm letting it go. I really didn't seem to get my message regarding abortion clear. I definitely didn't mean cons would help a woman regarding abortion, and I didn't mean that libs (as a group) would shun women who had them. For libs I meant that ironically, some do shun those that have had them. It like gets all awkward because their supposed to be for it, but... for someone else, not someone I know. It is a more scattered, individual shunning than a community lockstep. That would be an inaccurate brush indeed. Yes it is easy to make accusations of ignorance as a dodge, but this ain't one of 'em. You can clearly see how much time we've both spent posting today (and over the last couple days). This is more time than I had. Aren't I supposed to be silent? Sheesh.I'm telling you straight out, I don't have the time to waste on proving to you the intricacies of this one point in the mass of a whole lot of other arguments, in a debate which really doesn't have much to offer my life... I ain't getting paid to do it! I'd rather just cut to the stuff which can be dealt with quicker and easier.Again, the breaking point for me was your making a statement which indicated you weren't understanding my depiction, AND that you're not familiar with anthro lit. I might be able to go through the former, but the latter would force me into doing a bunch of research I don't have time for if I was going to do it justice. But as a short explanation I hope you'll realize is obvious: it is contradictory to hold a feminist doctrine about the nature of power division as in traditional societies as if it is true, and then appeal to evidence from anthro. Anthropology as a field does not condone the use of political models to evaluate other cultures. That's like asking a biologist to use scriptural models when formulating a theory. Its a preconception, which is totally anathema to understanding another culture. Without that filter, none came back (that I ever saw) describing your proposed mechanisms. Yes I see the problem with that. I also see a problem when they have people promoting her because she'd be the first woman president. I don't like any of these side issues which have taken over the race.I don't think its sexism, but it sure is stupid.As far as her going on shows, I'm not complaining about that. My point is that she actually chooses some "female only" shows and then chooses to discuss her sexuality and its pertinence to the race. If she's going to go on those shows, then at least dismiss such questions as totally irrelevant.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Jesus, what is this, your next novel?Are you sure you're not Holmes? A metaphoric one. The metaphor is for the essential, shared nature of humanity - universal across all cultures - that allows us to come to objective conclusions about human rights, even across language or national barriers. Some of them did (in a metaphoric sense.) Some of these cultures have sent emissaries to the West to seek help and aid. Ayaan Hirsi Ali came all the way over from Mogadishu to inform the West about the plight of women in her culture.When she talks about girls in Somalia undergoing brutal mutilation, isn't that enough? When she describes intimate details of the procedure because it happened to her, can we have your permission to do something about it?Or is it not even enough that the people who are being oppressed are asking for help? Is that still not enough for us to conclude that there's a problem there that needs to be fixed? God, doesn't that make the obligation even greater, that we owe them so much? I haven't rescued anybody and I don't think of myself as a knight. Nonetheless, I can't simply turn my back on oppression simply because it's happening to people who aren't like me.That's racist, plain and simple. There's nothing wring with his arguments, that's why they were so successful. There was something very wrong with his facts and motivations, but his arguments were sound, though they were misapplied. We do have a responsibility to rectify what injustice we can, because the whole world is our human community. Nonsense. I was asked, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and other women from these cultures who were able to escape. These women who have come to the West to bring the injustice to our attention.Sure, the men who benefit from this practice don't want me poking my nose in, because the scrutiny of the West in regards to this practice is a threat to their privilege. But who cares what they think? The oppressor has no right to oppress. Legitimacy according to whom? From what accrediting body?Why do you claim to be a moral relativist when you keep talking in such absolute terms? Like we need permission from some higher power to go out and "violate the Prime Directive."There is no Prime Directive, because there is nobody to enforce it. So what does it matter if we go against it? What do we gain by following it? What do we gain that is worth the lives of so many? It's a recognition that we're all human beings, and that nobody is going to shape our community except ourselves. But that's nonsense. It's racist. Only helping the people who are just like me? I can't imagine the mindset where that's an appropriate way to live. Oh-ho? Specifically how much travel? Like, in feet. How far do I have to go before I cross that magical line where I'm violating the "Prime Directive" (lol!) not to help people of a different race and culture of myself?I'm not actually from Lincoln, you know. Does that mean I shouldn't have given directions to the guy who was asking for them, this morning? Because he has such a radically different "Lens", apparently, being a Husker fan and all.I mean I guess I should have just given him a funny stare? I mean, maybe in his culture he likes not knowing where the hell the library is? But that's exactly what you've done. You even called it the "Prime Directive." That's pretty absolute language. In the context of Star Trek, after all, it's the one rule that is absolute and can't be violated, ever. (That and the Omega Directive, I guess.)That's some pretty absolute language for a moral relativist. Who, in your view, supposedly enforces this Prime Directive? But that's exactly what you did. You changed the subject from how women face an impossible double standard in society, to a paean about how you can't ever get laid no matter how much cash you blow on women.You made it all about men - all about yourself. Which is what men invariably do when they attack feminism, which you've been doing throughout. Look, we can all go back and read the post. It's still there. Objective and absolute are not the same thing. I wouldn't say that they're universal; they simply apply to all human beings.

Bumpity bump.As a reader, I appreciate NemJug's clarification of terms and find this response by PaulK fair and interesting. A reply to it would be welcome.PaulK is taking moral relativism to be the issue, NJ. Is that what you wanted to examine? If so, how do you respond to his statement?

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I mentioned in my follow up post that I accidentally hit post, before I edited it down. But I decided to let it ride since I saw you already had another post to respond to. I really apologize for the length... and the spelling errors and fragment words. That's a convenient metaphor. Besides, even if all humans slide into one mono culture that would NOT allow for objective conclusions of human rights. It would just be the COMMON and accepted conclusion. Hirsi Ali appears to be a self-promoter, like CurveBall for anyone that wants to trash all of Islam. And by the way not all cultures that use FGM (I'll switch to your acronym), or arranged marriages, or etc etce are Islamic or use the techniques or reasons that her culture did. To use one culture's practices to explain another's, despite their physical similarity, is inaccurate.That said, you can point to more honest individuals who have left such societies as well as some still within them that complain. I'm not claiming you can't find people that don't like it. My answer to that point is that other cultures can say the same with regard to us, that would not legitimate their stepping in to change us.To ignore all the people who say BUTT OUT, because of other specific people we choose to pick as representatives (as they fit our understanding)is to be acting conveniently and hypocritically. Oh. That is very sad to hear. Do you even know what her story is? Do you know what she is asking for? Do you know how little she actually cares about anything but fame? All I can say is you're an all day sucker if you buy her act.You will win nothing by appealing to her, just refer to the other women... please. As I said though, that's just convenient pleading on your part. I understand why they left. But there are those that stay and don't want it changed... including women.You know though you don't like MGM (hahahahahahaha, that sucks for the movie company) the movement to end it isn't that huge, and many guys just don't care and even like it. No matter how much I did not like it I would not appreciate another culture coming in to tell us what to do and use various sanctions to get their way. By the way the prime directive comment was a joke. You are right that there is nothing to stop you in your quest for moral domination, especially an objective moral proscription not to. And given the power the west has we can bully the world at will.Guess that's just fine. Personally I find it repulsive and destructive. I actually find beauty in cultural diversity, different ways of life. I think the interplay adds value to the entirety of the human race... kind of like thinking species diversity is useful to all life. I don't think a monoculture is helpful.At any rate, we all die. Everyone. Thus the question of people dying within a culture because of its practices is sort of moot. Suffering also occurs because people don't enjoy the prescriptions/proscriptions of the society they live in. Sometimes its mental anguish, sometimes its physical. So that seems sort of moot to me.I'd rather set up structures to allow people to move between cultures as they choose as much as possible, and leave the cultures themselves to change on their own.Oh yeah, and its hypocrisy to argue other people can enforce their ideas of morality on you, but than argue you get to do it to someone else. But that label never stopped anyone. Uhhhh... you just said YOU wanted to shape THEIR community. And if you are saying that you get to draft them into your moral community on the basis that you are all human, anyone can play that game. Call me racist, or my position racist, one more time without an explanation and I am done. That's simply name calling and it indicates time to stop talking to you. Race has nothing to do with this.I have set out the parameters, I believe in effecting the actual community I live within, rather than some imaginary global community I created and no one else asked to be a part of. There really are different cultures. And if they are the same race as me I still wouldn't touch what they did. If there are members of other races within my actual community then I will interact and attempt to influence them. Did you simply ignore what I said? Or do you not understand what the difference is between a culture and subculture? State? Nation? You are simply acting ignorant, I assume to annoy me rather than make a real point. Again, this just seems to be a deteriorating attention span on your part. The subject was double standards alright and I showed one. I then placed them side by side to make the conclusion standards exist for both. As you mention, it's still there. Maybe you should try reading it this time. If you feel better dismissing it, just stop talking about it. NOW THIS is actually interesting, what's the difference between objective and absolute (since you say there is one), particularly in the context you used it? Applying to all human beings is the same as universal. What else could you possibly have taken that to mean?

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Ceeeeriminy, I did it again! Sorry folks for another long post, hit the submit instead of updating the preview. Next time I'll punish myself by deleting the whole thing.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Please don't do that. As a conservative, previous to your posts of the last several days, I held that ALL liberals were irrational. This at least had been my personal experience.I see now that I was in error, and that we are not in quite as much trouble as I thought.

Look, if what you are saying is that it's logically possible that a society could be a patriarchy, but the men really hate the system and love and respect women as equals or even betters, and REALLYREALLYREALLYREALLY wish that they could equally share all power and prestige and responsibility with the women, but The Great And Powerful Gorg, Dark Overlord of the Galaxy threatens the society with The Final Annihilation if women are given power or prestige or resposibility that are reserved for men only, then you're right.You're right, but who the fuck cares?You are doing what you always do, Holmes, which is argue for a fantasy scenario that exists nowhere but in your imagination.

quote:

---

Hirsi Ali appears to be a self-promoter

---

Of course she would appear that way to you, based upon your anti-feminist sentiments.

I'm glad you approve. Oh, I see. So if a culture isn't asking for help, we can't go over and help; and even if they are asking for help, the people who are asking aren't technically part of that culture any more (because they're asking the West for help) and so it doesn't count?How convenient. Why, you'd never have to get off your butt to help a human being ever! What a savings! I don't recall saying that they are; in fact, FGM is a practice that seems to transcend strictly religious borders. It's not notionally a part of Islam in the first place, but apparently an indigenous practice that got all wrapped up in it. Where Christian religions dominate, FGM is sometimes practiced there, too. What makes you think the "Butt out" camp isn't motivated by self-interest? That they're not also "self-promoters"? That they reject Western interference because they know that it would result in the diminishment of their privilege?Since when do the oppressors have a right to oppress? Oh, but say, when it comes to the possibility that feminism has resulted in your inability to get laid, no matter how much cash you blow, suddenly that's a big deal? Human suffering and barbarity - meh. Silent H not getting laid? Stop the fucking presses!Astounding. Oh. So, in your view, it's ok that we go over and enforce cultural mobility, even if restricted travel of individuals is a part of that culture.What hypocrisy! The things you want to change? Not against your Prime Directive. The things I think are barbaric practices? Suddenly that's a gross violation of the Multi-Culty Bible.Unbelievable. Their community is my community, because it's all one community. The human community. I don't consider another human being beneath my notice or beyond my help simply because I don't share a language or a skin color, because that shit is racist. Flat-out racist. Race, ethnicity, culture - it has everything to do with this. You think that anything that makes someone different than myself obviates me of any responsibility for their welfare.Hey, look!Here's people of a radically different culture than mine - Cajun - and, gosh, it kind of looks like they could use a hand.Oops, better not. I mean they're all so different and all, maybe they like being crammed into a sports arena with no running water, food, or operable toilets. How could I possibly know? I mean I could ask, but I'm sure the people I would talk to are all "self-promoters" anyway, and who knows? Maybe "Get us the fuck out of this hellhole" is their culture's way of saying "Nope, we're doing just fine here, thanks."I mean, how would I know, what with the different lenses and all? Guess we better just leave them there. Do you? If every culture is simply a subculture of human culture, wouldn't that obviate your argument?Where do you draw the line? How far do I have to go before my help isn't wanted? Except that it wasn't a double standard. It was a whining screed about your diminishing male privilege. The hilarious thing is that you can't seem to tell the difference. Objective simply means that all reasonable observers know it when they see it. Absolute means that it is true in every case. For instance an objective situation of theft means that pretty much everybody would recognize it as a theft. An absolute prohibition against theft would mean that stealing is always wrong, even to buy food for a child, etc.I told you what relativism meant, a couple of posts ago. Surely you could have surmised what "absolute" meant by contrast. Oh, it is, is it? In your view, human beings occupy all corners of the universe?

I still can't believe this is Holmes, unless this is Bizzarro Holmes who supports evo-psych and is a sexual prude. Like, what?

I believe it.The content of his arguments may have changed but the tactics haven't.

quote:

---

As a conservative, previous to your posts of the last several days, I held that ALL liberals were irrational. This at least had been my personal experience.

​

I see now that I was in error, and that we are not in quite as much trouble as I thought.

---

Speaking of irrationality, why don't you join me over at the thread I'm going to start on mind reading and the people, like you, who think they can do it?

No that is not what I am saying at all.The idea that love or respect for anyone requires egalitarian access to role placement, power positions or other, is a specific moral world view and is NOT necessary.I'm not sure how this is so obscure to understand. For example, no one outside of royal lineage in MANY Western nations, can have access to the powers of that position. It does not mean the royalty in those nations hate or disrespect everyone else, neither does it mean everyone that is not royalty is some actively oppressed group that are allowing themselves to be hated and disrespected.As it is, and this is an interesting phenomena, given egalitarian freedom at the outset, humans tend to reinvent nonegalitarian divisions of power based on various characteristics. And this includes the creation of leadership "groups" seen as reasonable to be in charge, for no OTHER reason than that they are familiar, and sometimes associated with such roles.And no this is not simply race, age, sex, etc... There is no single political doctrine that can predict any of the outcomes. Though I will admit WEALTH can certainly influence the view of who is appropriate for large scale leadership roles.Finally, I should note that you did not address that typical patriarchal societies can and have been documented to let women lead when situations arise that it makes sense given their needs. Powerful women have risen to the occasion. Interestingly it was clinging to another class division to power, familial, which helped break western patriarchal domination with some very powerful (and bloodthirsty) female leaders when male leads were no longer available within that family.Your premise of how patriarchies MUST work in ALL states is refuted by practical historical and anthropological fact.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard