That being said, is this turn of the thread supposed to to invigorate "white saviour complex / white guilt" or something? The Indonesian mass killings in 1965-66 weren't exactly pretty, as was the Rwandese genocide. The role of the UN in the latter can be debated, as can the role of the Dutch in Screbrenica ..."damned if you do, damned if you don't".
I would not want to make the latter imply as if I'm making an excuse for the Indonesian atrocities, but it does shine a nice light on "moral relativism". And yes, questions can (and should be!) posed towards the previous interference of western nations in non-western continents which might have laid the groundwork for these atrocities to happen but then? — Gooseone
I've already explained what's wrong with this sophistry. It is possible to acknowledge the misogyny and gender equality in one's own country (the U.S. in my case) while decrying the far worse plight of women in some Muslim-majority countries (such as Saudi Arabia, which we've been discussing here**). This is nothing like a case of "cognitive dissonance," as you've claimed: cognitive dissonance in this case would amount to dismissing, ignoring, or even favoring gender discrimination in one's own culture, while also decrying it in others' (including in Muslim-majority nations). That's not the case here. — Arkady
Your plaints about "white savior complex" are little different than cries of "Islamophobia" in such discussions: it serves only to deflect and discourage criticism by implying some sort of racism or white paternalistic/colonial mindset without at all engaging in honest discussion. It is good propaganda; it is, however, a poor way to do philosophy. — Arkady
Male circumcision was Jewish and wasn't embraced by Gentiles until early to mid 20th Century unless I'm mistaken. If the transmission of the custom happened as you describe... is there evidence of this? — Mongrel
There's that (very much so!) and, like people organizing in groups, there are probably a bunch of other innate tendencies which make it easy / pragmatic for people to take on a specific stance — Gooseone
Wallace agreed with Darwin on the biological principle of natural selection, but he didn't believe it accounted for human intellectaual and moral factulties. — Wayfarer
In real politics, what guarantees that the winner will be your ally if you back them? Once they have power in their hands, they could just as well turn on you if that's more profitable for them. — Agustino
Every single person who died before Darwin published Origin of Species in 1859 was ignorant of humanity's origins, because they knew nothing of evolution. But everyone alive now, barring isolated groups, can know the truth about our kinship with other animals. — Wayfarer
This is an outright smear. Nothing in her history shows her to be supportive of "right wing extremists" (I suspect you've set the bar rather low for this) or racism. Quite the opposite in fact. — Thorongil
Reason: Should we acknowledge that organized religion has sometimes sparked precisely the kinds of emancipation movements that could lift Islam into modern times? Slavery in the United States ended in part because of opposition by prominent church members and the communities they galvanized. The Polish Catholic Church helped defeat the Jaruzelski puppet regime. Do you think Islam could bring about similar social and political changes?
Hirsi Ali: Only if Islam is defeated. Because right now, the political side of Islam, the power-hungry expansionist side of Islam, has become superior to the Sufis and the Ismailis and the peace-seeking Muslims.
Reason: Don’t you mean defeating radical Islam?
Hirsi Ali: No. Islam, period. Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now. They’re not interested in peace.
Reason: We have to crush the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims under our boot? In concrete terms, what does that mean, “defeat Islam”?
Hirsi Ali: I think that we are at war with Islam. And there’s no middle ground in wars. Islam can be defeated in many ways. For starters, you stop the spread of the ideology itself; at present, there are native Westerners converting to Islam, and they’re the most fanatical sometimes. There is infiltration of Islam in the schools and universities of the West. You stop that. You stop the symbol burning and the effigy burning, and you look them in the eye and flex your muscles and you say, “This is a warning. We won’t accept this anymore.” There comes a moment when you crush your enemy.
Hirsi Ali: In all forms, and if you don’t do that, then you have to live with the consequence of being crushed.
Reason: Are we really heading toward anything so ominous?
Hirsi Ali: I think that’s where we’re heading. We’re heading there because the West has been in denial for a long time. It did not respond to the signals that were smaller and easier to take care of. Now we have some choices to make. This is a dilemma: Western civilization is a celebration of life—everybody’s life, even your enemy’s life. So how can you be true to that morality and at the same time defend yourself against a very powerful enemy that seeks to destroy you? — reason.com
Divide and conquer is probably oldest strategy around. And it is working on us so well that you will see another civil war in the Ununited States, before you see a parade celebrating both sides. And that potential civil war would be just fine with the status quo. — 0 thru 9
I can see why you would say that, but I am just talking about practicality here. I am not saying what is natural is best but what is most practical is best. It just so happens that what is our fundamental biological nature (reproduction) IS most practical and therefor to say it is the opposite is false. — intrapersona
By definition, a female baby is always born as a female. A woman is a mature female and therefor de beauvoir is right in that you grow in to one. BUT to be a woman necessitates you be a female in the first place, by definition that is. To say you are a woman when you are a man is frankly absurd, I might as well say I am a peanut and not a human. — intrapersona
It hasn't worked? Like it hasn't worked in making 7 billion people over the last 50,000 years? — intrapersona
You agree that society takes on the role of deciding what individuals are required to believe is ethical and that social conventions currently force people to accept gays, transgender etc. and that such a thing is oppression. — intrapersona
You disagree with me in that transgender is a disorder. You seem to view it as "an adaption towards novel conditions". But what is novel about pretending to be a peanut? Or saying that you are God? It is all deranged thinking and is in no way any more practical, reasonable are novel in any way shape or form. — intrapersona
The US has no interest in allowing Russia anything. If Assad wins the war with Russian help it is much more advantageous for the US to finally invade on humanitarian grounds and control the port themselves. Germany needed a port during WWII and preventing its acquisition would have prevented all hell from breaking out. Russia is the Bear waiting to escape its cage with the real question being what will the US be willing to trade with them instead. Putin's provocative international politics give him something he can leverage at the bargaining table with the remaining question being how much is it worth, but the idea the US or even China will allow a dictator in charge of that kind of industrial power and resources to run wild is laughable. — wuliheron
NATO is a US organization just like the UN. We pay half the bills and provide all the real resources and if nobody else likes it they can go to hell. We are the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room that already brought that bear to its knees and nobody trusts that bear as far as they can throw it, while the US has been called an enemy you can trust, if for no other reason, because all we care about is the money and weapons which we already control. — wuliheron
Now is the opportune time as you have an American administration which is willing to collaborate with you (read - compromise) in order fulfil American interests. The stronghold you hold over Syria - as that is where ISIS is located - is of geo-strategic interest to the Americans in their war against terrorism - that's your leverage. In exchange for helping the US eliminate ISIS and terrorism, what will you ask for back? Is it Ukraine? Is it Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Moldova, Hungary? Is it the dissolution of NATO? — Agustino
Now look I am not an a close-minded arsehole, people can do whatever the hell they please as long as it doesn't cause dis-ease or impact on to someone else's life. But I just can't for the life of me see any reason in why there is acceptance over such a thing in society. — intrapersona
It is completely against our survival in evolutionary terms and looks like an aberrant disorder of the mind that serves no purpose and is completely backward to procreation as a species. For if everyone was a transgender and/or gay that would mean no one would have babies (assuming IVF does not exist). Even if such a world did exist with IVF included and boys looked like girls and girls looked like boys... it would be incredibly weird and look more like something out of a freakish absurd comedy-horror film. — intrapersona
That aside, can you imagine pretending to be a women your whole life? Does not that image seem related to a slightly psychotic child who never stopped wearing mummies dresses/lipstick and still sucks on his finger? — intrapersona
It seems to me that in order to quench the rowdy disorder that comes from different people's opinions on what our social codes should be (moral relativism) people end up saying they accept all sorts of outrageous things in life (like transgender people) but secretly on the inside they keep their opinions to themselves because they know it would cause unrest due to the social order we formed to quench the rowdy disorder that comes from people offering or rather shouting differing opinions (moral relativism). — intrapersona
“More perplexing to Ms. Hirsi Ali is the hostility leveled at her by some on the left for her efforts to challenge Islamic law and teachings.” — Emptyheady
My first impression is that it seems bizarre because those two ideologies are at odds with each other. Islamic cultures are notorious for their contra-leftist (or progressive) behaviour and beliefs, especially regarding women’s rights, LGBT rights and oppressive violence. — Emptyheady
The mind boggling part is that I often hear leftist excuse such behaviour or they become unreasonably sceptical, which is ironic given that the same group are known to proclaim ‘rape culture’ [in areas with the lowest rates of rape]. Ben Affleck called it “gross” and “racist” for pointing this out. — Emptyheady:d635
Mr. Bernard Shaw's remark "Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may be different" is no doubt a smart saying. But it seems to overlook the fact that "doing as you would be done by" includes taking into account your neighbor's tastes as you would that he should take yours into account. Thus the "golden rule" might still express the essence of a universal morality even if no two men in the world had any needs or tastes in common. — Walter Terence Stace
If your conscious experience is caused by your brain, this means that the body (including your head, which you believe contains a physical brain which is causing your experience) and the world around that you perceive - perceptions being conscious experience - must therefore be caused by your brain. — dukkha
So you're left in the horrible epistemic position of the brain state that gives rise to/is equal to your conscious experience not being within your head that you feel, see, touch, etc. Rather, all those sense experiences, and the perceived world around you, and the people you interact with, must all already be caused by/equal to the particular state of a brain. — dukkha
Basically, if a brain is giving rise to your conscious experience, it can't be located within your head. Your perceived head would already be being caused by a brain, and so the brain causing this perception can't be located within this perception. You can't locate the brain that is causing your conscious experience, within your conscious experience of a head. It has to be the other way round, with perceptions being located within a brain, perceptions of your head included. But if this is so, then from your epistemic position you can have no knowledge of this brain which is causing your experience, including whether it even exists or not. — dukkha
Regarding your previous comment on being and immigrant way back - this made me want to check into my past, and my ancestors were all from this (or sometimes the neighbouring) country. The question on immigration is quite different to US and European citizens. — Linda
Financially: the current influx of refugees / migrant is putting a huge strain on our state budget. Almost all of them aren't working at this moment - yes, we have to keep in mind that the process of becoming a citizen takes one or more years. Still, they are currently fully dependant on government spending when it comes to housing, food, education, health care and 'living money' (to spend as they like).
Because of EU regulation we're only allowed to have a 3% deficit - meaning we have to cut back on social securities for the elderly and students. I've looked into rapports about refugees in Europe and quite a few articles and tbh, they don't lie.. It's putting an enormous strain on our budget. This used to be different with previous influxes, in where the migrants did many low-paid jobs. — Linda
Culturally: yes! Immigrants do bring a lot of culture with them and we've enjoyed this a lot here with the Italians, Spanish, Germans etc. However, this is because they bring a similar culture, one that just differentiates on 'details' and general less important aspects such as speech, expression and religious (Christian) branches. They usually take 2 or 3 generations to merge into the main culture. Now we're faced with much bigger cultural differences.. Some freedoms which we've accepted for decades are intolerable in the foreign culture. Instead of the foreign culture 'enriching' the host culture, it's making the host culture adapt itself to the guest culture. — Linda
Socially: what I see is not so much an abandoning of their own culture. As just mentioned, the cultures don't easily merge - not surprising when looking at their markup. Also, we're witnessing a polarisation in society. Some have faith in the idea that this will work out over time and some have had bad experiences: cut back on social security, houses being redistributed or being unsafe in public (as I can confirm myself). — Linda
Sure, I believe that some tolerance might have helped us in the past. But how about today? We're experiencing an influx of many different cultures that are still dealing with issues which we have already dealt with.. What do you think we have to win from this? Because I see very few cultural, societal or financial gains at the moment. — Linda
“You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord. — Leviticus 19:17-18
I think, basically, western culture has cut it own spiritual roots; I see scientific materialism as a major cause of that. I'm not advocating a return to some imagined golden past, because I don't think there was one, but I think a reconnection with the spiritual values fundamental to the Judeo-Christian tradition is badly needed — Wayfarer
What does it mean? When can one consider him- or herself as tolerant? And
should we (Western Europe, US) be 'tolerant' regarding the current
developments with immigration and multiculturalism? — Linda
I think one cannot name himself tolerant, because it's not black and white.
For instance, I would consider myself not very tolerant - meaning that my
"borders" or "line in the sand" will be crossed earlier than the one of my
friend. But until that border is crossed I am tolerant and after crossing
I'll be intolerant. Some people may have their border at gay marriage and
some will have it at transgender rights. — Linda
Coming back to the question of whether 'we' should be tolerant.. Are we really
aware of the consequences that mainstream tolerance brings? I think the
current focus is too much on "we're tolerant" instead of "where is our line
in the sand". Shouldn't we think about this more before we make fundamental
changes to our society that may not be undone? — Linda
Where are certain groups of people fighting for today? We’ve got LGBT rights
(most of it), we’ve got quite a lot of religious tolerance.. and what I’m
seeing in the most frontrunning progressive media outlets now (which are
basically a glimpse of the future if we continue our social and cultural
developments like this) is for example pedophilia. Now it’s mostly discussed
as an idea and the “pedophiles” are seen as a group whose ‘rights’ are
currently not recognised. When the idea of pedophilia is turned into action,
one can see the most horrible, evil things happening we now know. I think that
over 90% of people would agree with me on this. However.. the same thing was
said about homophilia a couple of decades ago. — Linda
First, when discussing ideas which are currently being discussed as to whether
they’re tolerable or not, we must consider what happens when they become
actions. What actually happens to the peoples involved and society as a whole? — Linda
Second, where does this end? It seems to me that many have become blinded by
the idea that we must be tolerant. And that we all eventually will be. Where
is our line in the sand? Are we going to draw one that actually holds and can
thus also be applied in the future? — Linda
How do you think we can make ourselves more aware of who we are? How can we
get people to realise that the acceptance of certain acts or rights can/will
eventually be our downfall? Again, this may sound somewhat pessimistic, but
when you think about it.. A culture can only exist and survive when it’s well
aware of its history and traits. — Linda
- that is exactly one of the biggest problems in our society these days.
No privacy, public shaming, bullying (calling someone racist etc.) - this all
causes people to censor themselves and that is not only harmful for a
discussion, it's also very dangerous. — Linda
Uh, so to offering what I can. Psychologically, the growing controversy over climate change will I think escalate throughout the next decade, this should in turn increase the amount of voters considering voting Greens. From what I understand, the threshold to get into the debates is 15%? Climate change is not exactly a casual topic and with that I do not feel as though reaching 15% would be overly difficult for a party that literally advocates environmentalism by way of it's name. — Lexovix
Elections are absolutely rigged, have been for some time, the obviousness is reaching new heights as the desperateness of the regime to cling to it's shroud of legitimacy increases. Literally going to be like watching someone you 100% know is lying, try continue to sell the lie onto self destruction. — Lexovix
That said! There is over 4000 words in this thread and only two references to Jill Stein.
Don't vote for the idiot or the corrupt one, vote greens.
Having problems with that? Rewatch the Idiocracy scene when the discussion on watering plants with something other than Brawndo takes place. - Voting for Jill is literally as plainly obvious as watering plants with water. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3boy_tLWeqA) — Lexovix
Is it illegal to send covert US foreign policy details via an insecure server to someone's gmail account, who doesn't even have security clearance? — tom
Just out of curiosity... where did this business of "dog whistle" start. — Bitter Crank
So, are elections rigged, or not? I agree with Trump on this issue: Elections are most definitely rigged. — Bitter Crank