Human rights, cultural diversity, and moral relativity

I rebutted this misrepresentation in post 153, which you chose not to respond to. Instead you've chosen to repeat the misrepresentation, which is precisely the sort of dishonesty I was talking about.Can you really not see what you're doing, and why I find it so objectionable? Yet, you've chosen to respond to nearly every single other post of mine, the ones you're complaining are full of "personal attacks", even though that's not really true.It's not really clear what I'm supposed to conclude from that, except that it's merely another example of your relentless dishonesty and contrarianism.If you're interested in civility, then by all means, begin acting civil. If you're interested in serious discussion with me, there are posts of mine you can reply to. The only civility that is holding up this debate is coming from you. Like I said before, you have exactly what you asked for in the other thread - every opportunity to put dishonesty in the past and begin addressing rebuttals in an honest way.You asked for it - but, as I explained, you already had it. You still do. Why don't you take advantage of it, and begin to post honestly?

When the question was can we agree to be civil, that answer is an unqualified no.I will discuss anything trivial as I feel like it. But nothing serious. That's how it will go. Do you have any more questions?

---

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

But that's clearly nonsense. "No" is not what I said at all. You asked if the conversation between us can be civil. I told you that it would be, just as soon as you desisted in the behavior I've described.One of those behaviors is the one you're doing here, right now, where you completely misrepresent the meaning of a message posted to you. So, by extension, when you cease misrepresenting your opponents, the discussion will have taken one step closer to being completely civil.If you want civil posts of mine, that don't refer to your behavior, messages 4 and 16 await substantial reply from you. So you have every opportunity to engage me in a civil way.So why don't you? Just a few - why do you refuse to cease the misrepresentations and dishonesty? Why do you continue to misrepresent my objections to that behavior as "personal attacks"?

Rather than continuing to ruin two threads, how about we move this to the thread that's about me? You'll find a statement by me there in a few minutes or so...

---

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

Sigh. Another dodge.As you wish. So long as you actually intend on responding to points, or better yet ceasing the objectionable behavior that we're discussing, that's fine. More likely you'll simply use this as a smokescreen to misrepresent me yet again.

Okay, the bar's been cleared. The chairs reset, the broken glass swept from the floor.The issue (explained in greater detail in #1, and further focused in #225) is whether the concept of "human rights" is being used to promote a form of ethnocentric imperialism, or if they represent a set of moral principles that transcend cultural or national beliefs?The question to my mind starts with whether these rights are merely temporal agreements made by institutions and organizations? If so then claims that these rights are inherent to all humans is an overstatement of their nature, and they cannot be used to justify condemning particular cultural practices of different nations as intrinsically "wrong" or "unjust".If they are not merely temporal agreements, and are transcendental, then isn't that arguing for an absolute morality? How do international agreements argue for this transcendence? Wouldn't this require arguments for Gods?And regardless of their nature, are their limits to the type of methods used to gain compliance with these legal statutes? Is there a problem for less powerful nations, or more "primitive" cultures, when more powerful nations have greater leveraging tools?

---

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

you seem convinced of both the social contract theory of government and culture (that all citizens contribute to society and the way it is built) and the idea that a tyrant can impose culture (a la Hitler, Mao, Stalin). these are completely incompatible ideas. but. if a tyrant can impose a cultural standard, how can you claim that any damaging social construct is chosen by the people and it is thus wrong for international persons or institutions to remove or work against it? if any higher social institution or person can install culture, how can you demonstrate that the people have actually chosen it and are not just victims of social coercion. if this is the case, how is social coercion to a less-damaging set of norms wrong?and yes, i'm assuming a lot in that idea of "less-damaging," but lets go with "less-damaging" refers to "better for the general and individual good," such as less death, less physical damage, less starvation, more happy, warm families.

Cool, see we just had a misunderstanding.I subscribe to a sort of practical social contract theory. And you are right that a tyrant can't impose a culture. It takes the willingness of others to go along.You misunderstood my examples. Although I did mention Mao, I never said Hitler, and I gave a specific recent example of a democratic gov't instituting a cultural policy from a grassroots movement.My position is that groups ATTEMPT to impose a culture. That is not the same thing as actually achieving such a thing... other than getting a visual (outward) simulation of such.In this quest they often (I might argue always) and up using coercion to get people to submit to this goal. Hence it is not an "honest" change in opinion, but rather a manufactured obedience. I'm not sure if I got this correct. But I'm assuming you are asking how can I claim it is wrong for int'l efforts to change a particular nation's culture... when a tyrant imposes one... if I'm not for such a thing in general?Actually, I am against int'l efforts to end a culture imposed by a tyrant, or a society, on a nation. Or more specifically I am against specific methods for such int'l efforts.This is because the argument that we should be able to, creates the possibility for a much larger tyrant, whether an individual or a group. By limiting legitimate int'l efforts against internal practices of nations, limits the damage of any "harmful" practices to that nation. Well I think in some cases it can be demonstrated that people are coerced, rather than having chosen to accept the imposed culture. But for sake of argument let's say we never can.To my mind, the greater the level (size or method) of coercion allowed the worse it stands for individuals everywhere. The question of "less-damaging" is itself subjective.Even using your own criteria, to some allowing homosexuality to exist, or women to have a say in public life, is a "more damaging" norm, than to proscribe such activities. I personally would not hold that, but that does not make my position more valid. They are each statements of taste (and assumption of outcome). What I don't want is to empower the idea that that other person can make the same argument you just made to justify crushing my community/nation/beliefs.I don't think "wrong" is the best term to describe my position. I think impractical, or self-defeating might be better terms.

---

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

i don't think so. impractical would kind of insinuate that it can't be done or that it wouldn't have the intended outcome, which i don't think has anything to do with what you're saying. self-defeating is the same as the second option there. not being successful has no bearing on the discussion whatsoever.
and i think you mentioned hitler in a different thread (or rather the nazi party). yes, but who is to say the previously existing culture wasn't there by imposition and coercion as well? this is what i was getting at with the question of whether it's wrong to seek to encourage cultural change. if the existing culture is only there through coercion (some would argue that all social cohesion exists through coercion) then what's wrong with displacing it? i really don't like moral relativism. you don't have to be religious to belief there really are things that are inherently right and wrong.

Actually that has a LOT to do with what I am saying. As a person who has taken individual rights for myself, and have them defended within a framework of nation-state power, I am suggesting that for my nation to accept int'l efforts to effect national practices IS self-defeating and would not have the intended outcome.Instead of the natural spread of our current concept of individual rights, we will have empowered/justified those rights being changed by those outside of this nation. Int'l power is a two-edged sword.Just as within this nation, it is by protecting the rights of those I don't like, that I protect my own, on the international level by protecting another nations ability to practice what it wants, protects my own to practice what it wants. Well it appeared to make a difference to molbi, which is why I wanted to clarify my position with you. And yes I mentioned the "Nazi party", but not Hitler. I did that for the express purpose of downplaying the concept that a single person actually can control a nation on their own. And THAT is a FANTASTIC QUESTION. That is a very real dilemma within this subject. I'm not going to pretend I have THE answer. I will however set out my position, thus far...I don't think, outside of some very specific cases, that anyone can say for certain whether current cultural practices were imposed by coercion. In fact that determination may be a manufactured construct in and of itself. Such as we can view something through a lens such that it was coercive, to that standard, but not to another. I hope that my meaning is clear.Whether we believe something to have originated in coercion or not, isn't it better to assume that it wasn't? If a nation is functioning and its practices date back for long periods of time (such that its institution is not clear), and the people resist change such that more overt methods are required to change them, isn't it better to treat them as grown ups who we cannot judge? Isn't that what we would prefer from other nations looking at us?Isn't it true that China... and many other nations... could easily point to the US capitalist system as having been imposed on everyone within it? That indeed the very political entity of the US was imposed on Native Americans, as well as Africans, Mexicans, and Chinese? Does that give them the justification to try and change the system as it exists NOW? I would have seriously problems with that, despite some agreement on how it got started.I'm more interested in stopping coercion from happening on my watch, within my community, than trying to end POSSIBLE coercively derived practices in other communities. To do otherwise, and argue for its legitimacy, is safe when one is in power, but dangerous when one falls. I wonder if that will summon NJ. In any case, how does one judge what is inherently right, and where do these inherent things come from? Personally I cannot get an ought out of an is. That is to say, facts cannot create judgments. It takes purpose or taste to do that, which requires some subjective criteria.

---

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

brennakimi responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Then why did you say that the State has an interest in what I do with my body with regard to contributing to the economy

---

​

do you really think the state has no interest in and exercises no interest in economic success?

---

That isn't what I said. I asked why you think the State has an interest in what I, specifically, do with my body with regard to contributing to the economy. Of course the State has an interest in economic success.

quote:

---

having and exercising economic interest doesn't require slavery.

---

I know. That's my point. For the State to have an interest in the economy doesn't require them to institute slavery by forcing me to have a job. Remember your claim: The reason why we don't allow people to amputate perfectly functional limbs is because, and I quote: "it is in the state's interests to ensure that people are capable of contributing to the economy."Huh? Since when? Since when is it the State's concern if I get a job?

quote:

---

so why is it that we're emphasising math and reading and not government theory classes?

---

When I was in school, we had to take civics. But the reason why we make students take math and English is because they're easier to teach when your goal is to take a standardized test. After all, in order to answer a question about government theory, you'll need to be able to read the question.

quote:

---

how did you graduate from high school if you don't know that the government has a vested interest in economic and monetary success?

---

Because I know the difference between "a vested interest in economic and monetary success" and "a vested interest in whether I, personally, am capable of getting a job." The government's interest is in regulating the economy on a large scale such as defining monetary policy, interest rates, regulating business practices, etc. Take a look at the Constitution and you see that Congress is given the power to establish patents and copyright specifically to allow people to take advantage of their work.What it doesn't have the right to do is declare how I shall go about providing for myself. While the government does have an interest in making sure its population doesn't starve ("promote the general welfare"), it doesn't have the right to tell me that my actions will not result in personal economic success.

quote:

---

what does that have to do with reproducive organs?

---

Have you not been paying attention? We've been talking about genital mutilation. Since we don't allow people to hack off perfectly functional limbs, why the special pleading for the genitals?

quote:

---

and who defines danger? you?

---

Yes. And you, too. It's called "society." Again, morality is a societal construction. It exists because we exist. We are the ones who decide what we want.

quote:

---

the problem is not me.

---

You're the one saying that a dead male isn't the same as a dead female. You're the one calling it a "tiny little bit of flesh."

quote:

---

show me where it's illegal to cut of your own arms.

---

It's called "assault." And "medical malpractice."

quote:

---

oh sure, you can be baker acted, but do show me the laws against self-mutilation.

---

You're missing the point: How is jail going to help a person who is harming himself? The reason we put someone who is a danger to others in jail is to separate him from the people he might harm. How do you separate a person from himself?

quote:

---

clearly there isn't since you happen to be mistaken in this "it's illegal to mutilate yourself" crap.

---

Um, where did I say "illegal"? Time to quote me exactly. I have been very careful not to say so. What I have been saying is that we don't let people amputate perfectly functional limbs.Does the word "strawman" mean anything you?

quote:

---

you have no understanding whatsoever of law or government

---

Strange...since I've been the one quoting the law.Edited by Rrhain, : No reason given.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

molbiogirl responds to me:

quote:

---

It's rare, but surgeons have agreed to amputate limbs for BIID folks

---

Yes, I know...and how long do you think it took for the doctor to become convinced that the patient had BIID? It, like sex reassignment surgery, is at the culmination of a long examination into the psyche of the person in order to find out why.So why the special pleading for genitals?I should point out: The incidences of surgeons actually going through it are so exceedingly rare that you cannot find a doctor in the West willing to do it. If you had continued reading your own source: What usually happens is that the person damages his limb so much that the only solution is to amputate it.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I'm not certain what you mean.If by "special pleading for genitals" you mean, "Why can't someone schedule a surgery and get his/her tender bits hacked off?", I never said s/he shouldn't. Yes. I said: That may change, however.

molbiogirl responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

So why the special pleading for genitals?

---

​

I'm not certain what you mean.

---

Haven't you been paying attention? I would say that one's genitalia are just as significant as ones limbs. We don't allow people to simply hack off their limbs and we certainly don't allow parents to do it to their children simply because they feel their god wants them to or because they think it's "hygienic" or "to make him look like daddy" or due to some issue of control.So why the special pleading for genitals? Why would anybody anywhere ever think this was a good idea?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Consent, Rrhain.Body mod folks hack their tender bits to pieces regularly.They are perfectly welcome to do so.Hacking a child/infant's genitals to bits is morally reprehensible.I've made that clear on more than one occasion.