Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Human rights, cultural diversity, and moral relativity
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 4 of 270 (434309)
11-15-2007 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
11-15-2007 1:11 AM


Let me bring over what I said in the other thread, along with some additional thoughts.
quote:
Let me say that I grasp the merit of your point; it's just that, like most things, you take an obvious principle and extend it to ridiculous extremes.
Obviously, it would be folly in the extreme to think that the solutions of my culture, my neighborhood, my community could be transplanted verbatim halfway across the world and have positive results. I think we've seen the results of that kind of thinking writ large across the Middle East lo the past several years.
It's a serious mistake to disregard completely local customs, local outlooks, local solutions to problems. It would be a disaster. And to come in as an outsider to a culture and attempt to solve problems in a way that people are going to respect and help with is a difficult problem indeed.
But to say that it is difficult is not to say that it is impossible, or to say that there's no reason to think of problems as problems, or to simply abandon all hope of rendering aid to people not like ourselves, as you would seemingly have us do. It's simply hard.
Think of it like a neighborhood, Holmes. When neighbors can't get over their differences, when they're afraid to engage with each other for fear of misunderstanding or out of distrust, neighborhoods suffer for it. We see communities like these in our own country, in the roughest conditions. And, of course, declining conditions drive residents into even more insular and disconnected attitudes.
But when neighbors act like neighbors, explore each other's viewpoints, share what works for them, and yes - enforce community standards when it becomes necessary - the neighborhood is vibrant. People feel safe and problems come to have solutions. And, hey, what works at one house doesn't work at another, without taking into account how the people of one home differ from another. Obviously. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't share. And, yes, when a neighbor threatens the community by violating its standards, our differences can't mean that we don't take action.
It's ultimately selfish to withhold from others the benefits we enjoy. It's ultimately racist to assert that those who are not like us can gain nothing from what we have to offer them, or they from us. I'm sorry you object to that, but it's true. Language, culture, and race are not excuses for us to close our hearts to one another, regardless of what precious multi-culturalism might tell you.
Now, you're going to object (I imagine) to me acting like my idea of community standards are right; but like Greg House, I simply can't operate from the assumption that I'm wrong about everything. Who can?
And I don't envision this human community as one that does exactly what I say; I see it as a community where individuals bring what they individually think is right to the table, and then a consensus emerges through compromise and conversation.
I don't see it as a deterministic process, subject to rigid interpretations and dogmatic assertions of what is right and wrong overriding all other belief. I see it as a holistic process where the community as a whole develops its own standards even as individual members take opposing viewpoints.
For example there is no "wolf community" such that one wolf, or pack, suddenly gets entry to all others by virtue of being the same species.
You've just identified that wolf community - the wolf species, Canis lupis.
Similarly, species Homo sapiens forms a community entire. In a biological sense its a reproductive community - by definition - but it's also a social community. The vast record of human history is not one of isolation, but one of congress, one of sharing, one of communication, however attenuated by distance.
Somehow I don't see this as a coming together to share a human community at all, otherwise they'd have a say, and a vote, in how you live.
They do. Why wouldn't they?
It is my belief the concept of human rights is currently being used as a pretext to destroy cultural diversity.
That's an astounding accusation of bad faith on your part. What possible evidence could you have that your opponents are motivated not by concern for other human beings, but out of a desire to "destroy cultural diversity"? Why would anybody want to do that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 11-15-2007 1:11 AM Silent H has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 5 of 270 (434310)
11-15-2007 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by macaroniandcheese
11-15-2007 11:23 AM


it's not an imposition if these women are crying out for protection.
Well, it's an imposition on the men, which is why he objects.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-15-2007 11:23 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-15-2007 12:01 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 16 of 270 (434929)
11-18-2007 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Silent H
11-18-2007 3:25 AM


Re: FGM & MGM
Scratch all that. I think I can put this all to bed a lot sooner if I concentrate a lot less on your disingenuous sophistry, cites that don't actually support your points, and strawman rebuttals, and just cut right to the chase.
Aside from violating the prime directive and "enforcing cultural ideals on other people", or whatever - in your view, Holmes, is there even a cultural practice you would find indefensible? Could there be such a practice, in your view?
If so what would be an example?
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Silent H, posted 11-18-2007 3:25 AM Silent H has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 34 of 270 (435062)
11-18-2007 7:55 PM


Holmes, is there any possibility you could respond to the questions I raised in Post 16?

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 35 of 270 (435063)
11-18-2007 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Silent H
11-18-2007 6:50 PM


There is no sense that a child is left free reign and without coercion toward someone's expectations, and that can include physical damage to suit norms.
So, what about a physical change to being dead? When a parent chooses to murder their children because they think being dead is in the child's best interest, is that a cultural practice you get behind, because parents universally know best?
Or is there no practice you could see a legitimate state interest in interdicting? And if you do concede a state interest in second-guessing the decisions of parents, exactly how does your position differ from your opponents', except in detail?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Silent H, posted 11-18-2007 6:50 PM Silent H has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 49 of 270 (435190)
11-19-2007 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Jon
11-18-2007 9:14 PM


Re: Evidence!
Bring in the evidence, or back out the argument. Pullin' your same ol' feminazi shit again (Phat's word), nator.
More than enough evidence has already been provided to convince anybody not obsessed with defending male privilege.
Again I'm forced to wonder when your contribution to debate will be anything but name-calling. It's not "Phat's word", it's the word you chose to use.
Why is that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Jon, posted 11-18-2007 9:14 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Jon, posted 11-19-2007 9:50 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 53 of 270 (435226)
11-19-2007 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Jon
11-19-2007 9:50 PM


Re: Evidence!
Hi.
Please see my previous post. Is substantial contribution to debate something you're going to do, or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Jon, posted 11-19-2007 9:50 PM Jon has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 55 of 270 (435230)
11-19-2007 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Silent H
11-19-2007 11:00 PM


Re: Evidence!
I would add that you have apparently ignored evidence supplied to you on this topic, and I even chose a feminist source.
I would be reticent to bandy about charges of ignoring things, were I you, when there are a multitude of direct, probative questions you have apparently decided not to even attempt to answer. (Without even getting into the fact that your sources don't support your contentions.)
While I can readily agree with you that FGM, in many cases, is part of an attempt to control the sexuality of women, evidence tends to show that method actually doesn't work.
And the Iraq war, while a war for oil, has not lowered American gas prices. Relevance? That someone's methods don't achieve their goal is not evidence that they never had that goal in the first place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Silent H, posted 11-19-2007 11:00 PM Silent H has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 113 of 270 (435525)
11-21-2007 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Silent H
11-21-2007 2:14 PM


Holmes, is it possible that you could actually defend your position against the rebuttals that have been presented, rather than continuing to use a false equivalence between female genital mutilation and male circumcision as a smokescreen to derail the debate?
I was under the impression you had made a promise to comport yourself in a manner that improved upon your prior dishonest conduct. Is it not apparent to you that you're simply acting the same way now as you've always done, before?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Silent H, posted 11-21-2007 2:14 PM Silent H has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 119 of 270 (435547)
11-21-2007 3:33 PM


Ok, we get it, guys. You think it's bad that a part of your dick was cut off.
I think the exact same thing about mine. On the other hand, unlike the rest of you, I don't think that attention paid to the issue of FGM in other countries somehow represents attention taken away from my penis. But, then again, I'm not a relentless antifeminist, am I?
Is it even possible to talk about issues that face women without whiney, entitled men showing up to complain about their penises not being the central issue under discussion? It isn't always about your dicks, you two.

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 147 of 270 (435986)
11-24-2007 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Silent H
11-24-2007 12:51 AM


Holmes-ese
Anyway, to armchair does not mean inherently to do something from ignorance, it means from a purely theoretical standpoint.
Right, but you ignore that the implication is that the standpoint is theoretical precisely because a person completely lacks practical experience in what he's talking about.
I.e. an "armchair quarterback" has never played any football and is in no shape to do so; an "armchair general" has never served in the military and probably can't even fire a gun.
To pretend otherwise, Holmes, indicates one of two things - you don't possess the requisite skills in English to properly use idioms; or you have absolutely no problem insulting your interlocutors and then hiding behind disingenuous "explanations" of how your insults weren't really meant to be insulting.
Sure, sure. It's just another one of your "jokes" gone horribly awry. How stupid do you think we are?
Ugh, last time I do that.
Oh, if only.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2007 12:51 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2007 1:45 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 150 of 270 (435997)
11-24-2007 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Silent H
11-24-2007 1:45 AM


Re: Holmes-ese
I think I'll break my silence to deal with this as its a discussion of insults.
Well, then it's right up your alley, isn't it?
Nonetheless I'm somewhat puzzled by your "silence." You didn't feel any particular need to be silent in the philosophy thread, and you even started this thread with the hope of moving a discussion we were having into a more appropriate forum. It was you who asked me over here, right?
Then, you couldn't even bring yourself to address a single one of my refutations, instead preferring to send your own thread into a spiral of anti-feminist male entitlement at the mere mention of the practice of FGM. Instead of breaking your "silence", why can't you seem to break your habit of continuous dishonesty?
Like say, outside the ballpark where one is not playing second by second under the roar of the crowd (like the actual QB is), or facing the guns (and other conditions) of battle.
And, as I said, the clear implication is always that the person is in the armchair because they're not qualified to be on the field.
The implication is always one of someone who has exceeded their expertise, due to a lack of practical experience resulting from an inability to meet even the minimum requirements for participation.
That's clearly how Brenna took it, and she's absolutely right to have done so. If you'd like to pretend like you're the sole arbiter of word meaning, that's fine, but you don't really have a basis to complain when the rest of us interpret your comments in English, instead of in Holmes-ese.
But hey, given what Molbio just said, I guess you are right... that is what SHE meant.
Hey, congratulations, but I don't recall her ever claiming otherwise. That was your claim, remember? I know it's hard since you shift them so often, but do try to have some memory of what you're backpedalling from, ok?
It was after her insult that I said we all are armchairing it at EvC... that implicates myself as well.
But many of us are not. Many of us, in fact, are practicing professionals in the fields on which we're commenting.
I know you find it hard to believe, Holmes, since you oh-so-conveniently find that your background equips you to be an expert on every subject on which you comment (uh-huh); but there actually are people here who know more than you. If you paid attention to them, rather than writing off their comments as "feminist doctrinal analysis" in a fit of chauvinist pique, you might actually learn something.
Anyway, now that you've broken your vow of silence, maybe you could respond to any one of the numerous points you asked me to raise in this thread?
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2007 1:45 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2007 2:22 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 153 of 270 (436005)
11-24-2007 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Silent H
11-24-2007 2:22 AM


Re: Holmes-ese
My example was of people that could be qualified to be on the field, just that they aren't so they have no right to criticize those who are.
Wow. Congratulations on explaining something that was both completely obvious and completely irrelevant. You must really think we're morons.
I've explained, twice now, why your examples aren't really examples of the phraseology being discussed. Your response, I see, continues to be none at all.
Just that I wasn't taking her comment that way, and neither did I mean it that way.
Like I said - either this means you're an extremely poor speaker of English, or you're simply extremely disingenuous. While you may be content to write your posts in Holmes-ese, the rest of us are continuing to read and write in English. Perhaps you'd care to do the same?
In any case, you just came on to criticize me for insulting someone and trying to get away with it.
No. I came on to criticize you for insulting someone without having the courage to admit what you were doing. Insult all you like; I hardly expect you to stop simply because any of us ask you to. If there's one thing you've proven in the past week it's that you're absolutely incorrigible.
Just, don't name-call and then pretend like it's all "jokes", and that we're all just a bunch of soreheads with no sense of humor who simply can't appreciate your comedic stylings. Piss on our legs if you want; just don't tell us its raining.
It's the disingenuity and dishonesty we continue to object to.
I started this thread before I became embroiled in your insults in another thread. In that thread I asked you if we could engage in civil debate. Your answer was an unqualified no.
Ah, so you've slipped right back into your old habits of offering bald falsehoods about me.
No, I didn't say "no." I said "just as soon as you start acting civilly, Holmes." As we can all see, you've chosen not to do so, but that was your decision, not mine. I was perfectly willing to engage you civilly - as I did - provided you behaved in kind. Indeed it seems I've continued to do so, even after being subject to your relentless dishonesty.
That you interpreted my answer as "no" is simply your admission that it was a foregone conclusion that you would behave as disingenuously now as you have in the past. Gosh, and for a minute there I honestly believed you were here to change. How disappointing you continue to be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2007 2:22 AM Silent H has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 203 of 270 (436302)
11-25-2007 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Silent H
11-24-2007 11:55 PM


Re: Yeah, Nator, I'm starting to realize that
Says the person who keeps quote-mining, misreading documents, telling me what my position is, what the definition of words I am using are, making claims that are clearly falsified, and never admitting when I answer a question?
Part of your relentless dishonesty is that you assert she's the one doing those things.
Boy it didn't take long at all to get the same ol' Holmes, did it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2007 11:55 PM Silent H has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 237 of 270 (436802)
11-27-2007 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Silent H
11-27-2007 4:35 PM


It sounds like convenient assertion.
You mean, like how you so conveniently materialize some kind of unique expertise in every topic you participate in?
You must be 180 years old to have actually had all the degrees and careers you've claimed in threads past. That, or you're simply a liar. Judging by the degree that you regularly misrepresent others simply as a matter of course, I suspect you can guess which I find more likely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Silent H, posted 11-27-2007 4:35 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Silent H, posted 11-27-2007 5:02 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024