Swiss Mercenary on 1/12/2007 at 16:25
Quote Posted by Fingernail
ahayhay but they won't agree what is and isn't wrongful!
You asked. I provided.
Their different take on the matter of what is wrongful is what makes them different and barbaric.
Tocky on 1/12/2007 at 16:33
Quote Posted by Papy
Meanwhile, I just read an article about a "Texas science director who was forced to resign because she had given the appearance of criticizing the teaching of intelligent design". I don't think the US is that far from stone age either.
Very true. I would also point out that the flag is just a piece of cloth like a Teddy bear and yet idiots go batshit over desecration. Also that it is the first thing Muslims go for to express thier displeasure. I would say that overall we are much more tolerant despite our stoneagers than they and that is what we should be struggling for both within and without our societies.
We all have a vague idea what we are pushing toward. Some of us are pushing toward dictatorship by men or gods and some of us for that thing in which intelligence takes root and grows. Do I really have to give the image of Mel Gibson being stretched on a rack? Oh lordy, hated Bushypoo had a point.
But, even if my god demands it, don't let me put on my baby asshat. Speak out. Shun me. Make me as ashamed as I should be despite my righteous anger and shield of "YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND MY CULTURE".
Fingernail on 1/12/2007 at 16:47
Quote Posted by Swiss Mercenary
You asked. I provided.
Their different take on the matter of what is wrongful is what makes them different and barbaric.
imho
heretic on 1/12/2007 at 19:27
"When a crowd of young men spotted a group of foreign reporters they began slashing their fingers across their throats. Police intervened as they advanced down the road.
Sheikh Abdul-Jalil al-Karuri, the imam of Abu-Shahid mosque and an adviser to President el-Bashir on cultural and religious matters, said that he had told his faithful that 15 days was an insufficient punishment for such a grave offence. “This happened on September 15 at the start of Ramadan, making it even more offensive,” he said.
The Sudanese Government has been happy to encourage antiWestern sentiment in part to resist efforts from the West to lecture Sudan about Darfur and deploy peacekeeping troops in the war-torn region."
-taken from Times UK article
Also:
"Thousands of Sudanese protesters, many armed with clubs and swords and beating drums, burned pictures of a British teacher Friday and demanded her execution for insulting Islam by letting her students name a teddy bear Muhammad."
thousands....
If she does get pardoned then they better have some tight security on her. The trip home is sure to be a nightmare.
Stitch on 2/12/2007 at 01:26
What's left to say now that Pyrian has said it all? :cool:
Yakoob on 2/12/2007 at 03:11
Quote Posted by Swiss Mercenary
If there is no such thing as a universal morality, my idea of morality is as correct as yours.
My idea of morality may also include denying you the right to criticise me. Or far worse.
Now, if you respect my different morality, what are you going to do about it?
Club you to death. No reality, if that is my idea of morality, nothing's stopping me. Survival of the fittest.
And that is exactly why I brought in the idea of a "country" into the discussion. I agree my wording wasn't accurate; a better fitting term would be "society."
You see, in a society-less world, everyone would be able to do whatever they want since everyone defines their own laws and morality. But that's not the world we live in. We form societies with the purpose of enforcing laws upon each other, primarly to ensure our cooperation over destruction. It is these "numbers" that give laws their power. If one man stood up and said "ok, we can now do this" everyone would laugh at him. But if everyone stands up and says "ok, we can now do that," everyone would obey it.
And that is the case here; we are not dealing with individuals but societies. UK vs Sudan, not John McClintock vs Muhhamed Ahsan. The woman decided to become the part of Sudan's society and, as such, should obey their rules, regardless of how arbitrary they may be.
And while the purpose of most laws is survival of the society as a whole, let us not forget about they "happiness." Sure, to us, killing someone over desacrating a prophet is ridiculous; but these people believe in it. They actually
feel bad when someone does this stuff. Hence, to keep up society's happiness levels, such, suppoedly illogical laws, are created. They may not promote the survival of the group, but they promote their integrity, their ideals and beliefs.
But it's also because they are a big, independant country with many supporters that this can work. If the whole TTLG had a rule telling me to shut the fuck up and take it like a little bitch, then I would have to abide by it or log out for good. But that is not the case.
Quote Posted by Papy
"Human rights" makes no sense outside the structure of a specific society.
Quote Posted by Pyrian
It [Morality] is best understood as a evolutionary trait of a society. Moral (and ethical - the division is hardly precise in practice) codes allow societies to function - without some sort of structure, co-operation collapses, society collapses, and you merely have competing individuals. There are very few species that do not cooperate with themselves and other species to some degree.
Ding-ding-ding. Exactly my point, which I described above.
However, morality goes beyond survival. As I said above, it's not always what makes a group survive, but also waht the group
wants, no matter how retarded it may be. Hence the relativism.
Quote:
Morality is very nearly universal. Lying, cheating, stealing, murder, even respect - the cultural distinctions are almost entirely on the fringes, the details, the beliefs about what is real, not the basic underpinnings.
Waht about a society that never lies, cheats, steals or murders compared to one that does. The second one, because of that manages to backstab and destroy the first, taking over their resources and, thus, propagating their own survival. According to your first paragraph, that makes it moral. Hence, realtivism.
Quote:
Even taken at face value, though, you have to question the extreme reaction to the teddy bear example - nobody's
worshipping the fucking teddy bear. This is a clear case of extremism - i.e., taking a concept and running with it far beyond where it was ever intended to go.
True, but if the society that imposes these laws is
happy about this extremism...
Quote Posted by Swiss Mercenary
RE: I can't think of a single universal moral value.Murder. The
wrongful killing of another.
...
Their different take on the matter of what is wrongful is what makes them different and barbaric.
And what makes them different and barbaric? A quick glance at ancient history will tell us how hollow the word "barbaric" is, entirely
relative depending on who uses it.
SubJeff on 2/12/2007 at 03:28
No now you're doing that thing where you've flipped into a the loop. It's like when people describe operant conditioning in terms of classical conditioning when the whole point is that they are two different things.
Convict on 2/12/2007 at 04:32
Quote Posted by SD
What does that have to do with anything? Shouldn't human rights be universal?
Human 'rights' are arbitary. Should habeus corpus be a human 'right', for example?
Swiss Mercenary on 2/12/2007 at 04:33
Quote Posted by Yakoob
Club you to death. No reality, if that is my idea of morality, nothing's stopping me. Survival of the fittest.
No, you dumbfuck, that's not my idea of morality. It is some people's idea of morality, and because of that, moral relativism doesn't work.
Quote:
And that is exactly why I brought in the idea of a "country" into the discussion. I agree my wording wasn't accurate; a better fitting term would be "society."
Society? Great. I'll go gather my fellow believers, and we'll stone you to death, then.
Quote:
let us not forget about they "happiness." Sure, to us, killing someone over desacrating a prophet is ridiculous; but these people believe in it.
You don't even understand the consequences of your own ideology. If you give a damn about happyness, relativism should be completely out of the picture.
Quote:
They actually
feel bad when someone does this stuff.
They'd be a hell of a lot happier if they didn't need to vent their hatered, by not living in a opressive military dictatorship in the first place.
Quote:
Hence, to keep up society's happiness levels, such, suppoedly illogical laws, are created.
Not as much illogical laws as bread and circuses, smoke and mirrors, and witchburnings.
Quote:
But it's also because they are a big, independant country with many supporters that this can work.
Of course it works. It's happening. Doesn't make them justified in doing it. Doesn't excuse them from condemnation. Doesn't make their brand of morality anything but a bucket of piss.
Quote:
If the whole TTLG had a rule telling me to shut the fuck up and take it like a little bitch, then I would have to abide by it or log out for good. But that is not the case.
So, you only respect the beliefs of others when many of them share those beliefs?
I'll get busy with calling up my friends then. We'll stone you, and then sleep with clear consciences.
Quote:
Waht about a society that never lies, cheats, steals or murders compared to one that does. The second one, because of that manages to backstab and destroy the first, taking over their resources and, thus, propagating their own survival.
Not if the first has no qualms against
non-murder killings.
Justified killings. "They will otherwise kill us" is pretty good justification.
And thanks for missing the point. I don't advocate the morality, or the lack thereof in the second society. Instead, I demonstrate why your first society is a failure. Sheep can be as moral as they want. They'll still end up on the dinner plate.
Quote:
True, but if the society that imposes these laws is
happy about this extremism...
Yeah, and Germans were happy under Nazi rule. Right.
Quote:
And what makes them different and barbaric?
We could try starting with the part where they want to behead that woman for naming a bear "Mohammed."
Convict on 2/12/2007 at 04:53
Quote Posted by Swiss Mercenary
Shouldn't a state or province be able to choose it's own morality, and how to apply it?
If a state is able to, why not a city?
Hell, why not a district? Or a block? If me and my buddies can reach a consensus that The Right Moral Way is _____, who are you to say we are wrong?
In Australia, the Aborigines have some autonomous authority with regards to laws and the punishments they can inflict. I note briefly from (
http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v2n1/humphry21.html) this paper the question is raised "As the Commission points out, there is the problem of conflicting cultural responses to particular situations - what is "cruel and inhuman" to one culture may differ from another culture[30]". Indeed, who determined that "cruel and inhumane" punishments should not be allowed? Could this be considered cultural imperialism? Spearing was a traditional form of punishment. If a majority of Australian Aborigines decided (that is, even if you accept that democracy is mandatory for someone else's culture) that they wanted to continue to use (
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s283804.htm) spearing as a form of punishment, who are we - the so-called invaders - to tell them that they must accept our way and not allow their legal system?
