I have to agree that unless you show us the actual thread and we can see these things in context, then all this talk about “defenders of cultural relativism” is just talk. For example, if you called certain people “sub-human”, you might get jumped on for that alone, regardless of what that person may or may not have done.
I’m not going to link to that 6 year old thread. I had my ass handed to me; a mod admonished me and locked the thread; so I see no point.
I didn’t realize the word sub-human was some sort of thoughtcrime. It exists in our language for a reason - sometimes it applies to people. FWIW I called the specific perpetrators of the corpse desecration sub-humans. I never labeled a specific culture. But in anger I called for bombing of the area in retribution. This was immediately taken as a call to genocide.
No one defended the act of corpse desecration. Rather, they did more of a “The USA is just as barbaric because…” dance. Things got taken out of context and it got ugly. Some thin-skinned fool decided that the use of the word sub-human was an automatic racist remark. Then a mod stepped in.
People say things in anger. Things that of course they wouldn’t want to happen in real life, given a moment’s clear thought. Maybe I’m more generous in giving people latitude in venting. I see a world of difference between being openly angry about a despicable act and demanding one in return, and a simple disembodied call for violence against a group.
One is made in the heat of anger and frustration - not truly meant to be carried out; the other is made for pure racist reasons. I think it’s easy to tell the difference; YMMV.
I only brought up my old thread because the OP had ventured into territory that nearly cost me my membership, and I don’t him/her to get into a bad situation.
For someone such as yourself who does not believe in natural rights, the answer would be “no, slaves had no rights.”
Ok, that works for me.
The terminology seems to trip us up. “human rights”.
How about “Human Laws”: we formally embrace just one additional level of human organization/agreement/consensus/society/culture capable of coming to agreement about rules: the species level. Not everyone in a given country agrees with all the laws, but enough do so that becomes law of the country. Well, I think that most of us should agree on very simple and straightforward law at the level of species itself. Instead of calling it “Human Rights”, call it “Human Laws”. Instead of the body that agreed to it being a city or country, it’s the whole planet of people.
Simply stated: all members of the species *homo sapiens * should be able to expect not to be killed, maimed, raped, tortured, or enslaved against their will, by anyone or any organized body, from family to school to church to city-state-country.
So if a given member of the species, anywhere on the planet, is innocent of killing, maiming, torturing, raping, or enslaving anyone else, yet they are being killed/maimed/tortured/raped/enslaved by others, the rest of the species should agree that actions taken to rescue such innocent persons from their fate are reasonable and supported, as well as agreeing to actions taken to pressure who or whatever needs pressuring to prevent any such abuses from taking place to begin with.
I think this is a very reasonable and do-able level of agreement to seek from humanity as a whole, and if we achieve agreement with 75% of the world about it, then the other 25% need to know they are taking their chances with the rest of us when they kill/maim/rape/torture/enslave anyone of any age, gender or origin who is innocent of killing/maiming/raping/torturing or enslaving anyone else. They are committing crimes against the species, instead of crimes against the state. And members of the species, formed into states, will kick your ass.
So if some country wants to torture and hack to pieces a person who raped little girls and shot their daddies… ok. Even though WE might not torture or allow torture inside our borders, I think we can agree that some cultures feel differently in the specific context of people who have violated the “species norms”, in the same way that the death penalty is “ok for you, not me” when dealing with murderers.
But the death penalty for women who piss off their husbands? No. Defining crimes in your society as worth of death or torture, etc. should be limited by what we all agree are crimes: killing, maiming,raping,torturing, enslaving. You don’t get to stone people to death for having consensual sex, fuck you, and if you do, expect a righteous smackdown that will fuck you up and make you think twice about it next time, ok?
And once we’ve got this established and running smoothly, we extend it to the planet itself. Some very basic kinds of rules… like, you don’t get to destroy a huge swath of the ocean and land surrounding it by punching a hole in the ocean floor so millions of gallons of crude rush out and expect to pay a fine and get back to business. No. Your fucking corporation is seized.
But that’s a whole 'nother kettle of dead, rotting, oil soaked fish.
I’m a liberal, and I’ll admit to being bothered by cultural relativism.
I’ve seen many articles from feminists defending the burqa and abaya. The viewpoint: such clothing is actually liberating, because it frees one from the anxiety of being seen as an object of sexual desire in public.
A few articles I dug up:
You’re telling my you don’t really know if it’s okay if human beings are enslaved, raped or mutilated? That’s you’re position? Are you that fucking stupid?
You refuse to answer the question because you damn well know the difference between yes and no is either your endorsement and admittance of natural rights, or revealing your position to be the vile slime it is.
The most you can do is stutter some moral cowardice about “oh don’t judge people who legally rape 15 year old girls! Those girls can be raped if the government says it’s okay” As if might makes right.
Well I for one am going to assert that it’s self evident to everyone that isn’t a socipathic scab on on a whore’s cunt that everyone, including women, has a right not to be raped, for the same reason the golden rule is self evident. If you wouldn’t be okay with yourself being raped then it isn’t okay for anyone else.
It is from this simple framework that I ask you this. Congress passes a Constitutional amendment that your mother, sister, wife, whoever the closest female in your life is, is to be shipped off to be raped and mutilated. Would your reaction be that of remembering your subjective moral framework, or that of someone who knows dead certain that this is wrong?
Sounds like the feminists in question come from the Dworkin/Mackinnon/French school of “feminism”, also known as man-hating hysteria.
It also smacks of Stockholm syndrome, in that the reality of the burqa and a host of other customs directed towards “protecting” women are actually systems of oppression and infantilization of women employed to control them for mens’ sake, as possessions of men. The truth of that and the lie to the other is crystal clear in how the same societies that employ such things respond when the protections fail and the women are violated: they punish the women, and shun them. The possession is tainted, no one wants it anymore.
It is sickening to me that men have managed tp perpetuate this bullshit. They can’t control themselves, so they control women instead!
Golda Meir nailed it:
Preach it, sister!
And that cabinet member’s thought process and reaction are the rule, not the exception, throughout history. Think about it: “My stuff is being stolen and damaged, I’ll put my stuff under lock and key!” ARGH!
And that’s what makes Western Society better than the rest of them!
He didn’t say it was okay to rape and mutilate people, he said it was not a natural human right. In fact he said that his moral viewpoint was that those responsible should be punished. I don’t see how it’s ‘vile slime’ to point out that our idea of rights is an extension of our human-created society.
I mean, does a mouse have a right not to be killed by a cat? Does a gazelle have a right to not have it’s offspring eaten by lions? Does a duck have a right not to be held down and inseminated by another duck?
There is nothing intrinsically special about humans that gives us a natural right not to suffer. The best we can do is to create a society with rules and constraints to attempt to prevent that suffering and to punish those who do not follow the rules of that society - and the problem with that is that we then have to agree on what reasonable rights are.
All this is not to say that I think these things are okay or that we should all turn a blind eye to human suffering, wherever it may be. It’s just to say that this is a matter of sociology and not biology, and that unfortunately makes it a lot more complex.
Of course I would know it was wrong. But I also know that I wasn’t born knowing that it was wrong. I’d know it was wrong because I was taught by my family and society that it was wrong.
No, I don’t like that. Laws are the product of governments, which are fleeting. It is possible to live without government. Natural rights are the product of our very existence, eternal and inalienable.
All of human history is a parade of wives, sisters mothers and daughters sending their menfolk off to work, steal, kill and die for them. Men after all are expendable.
Women (at least in the West) are richer, better educated, in better health and live longer than men. Women are therefore oppressed. :dubious:
I feel this deserves another FUCK YEAH
You funny.
Also, there’s not a problem in the world that can’t be solved with a proper candle light vigil.
First if you think raping someone is reasonable suffering then you are vile slime. I don’t care you dress it up.
Second animals are amoral, and quit frankly if you want to model our standards after a bunch known for eating their own shit, then that reflects heavily on how lax your standards are. I hold my own species to a higher standard then gang raping male ducks.
You’re telling me if you heard the cries to stop followed by seeing the crying face of a rape victim sitting in a pool of her own blood you wouldn’t know something very bad had happened, even if you had no concept of rape?
You’re telling me that your concept of morality would be the same had you been raised by an Afghan mullah?