Straw man agrument, goat fucker.
As Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor is busy proving - there is no anger like the anger of an idiot child.
Odd… I thought it was a group of suicidial religious zealots who caused 911. I have a serious suspicion that they were less concerned about America’s “moral duty” (note to self: remember to attend the next Moral Duty chapter meeting) than the perception that *our * sick culture needs reforming. If not, why aren’t the British also being targeted for their role in partitioning the Middle East?
If decent people everywhere - - not just in America - - won’t stand up and protect defenseless children from castration and gential mutilation, for whatever pseudo-culturally relevant reasons, then human rights abuses are only going to continue, and probably only get worse. This should be a human imperative, not an American imperative.
And on preview, make sure that electric socket isn’t GFI protected. :wally
No, 9-11 was caused by some suicidal zealots who hated us. Maybe they had some good reasons for hating us, maybe not, but they are still murderers and only they are responsible for their own actions.
On preview: Ivorybill seems to have wiretapped my brain and posted just about the same thing as I was going to. Stay out of my brain dude, geez.
Roger.
But notice that the hamsters obviously thought my post was so eloquent that they felt it should be posted twice.
Either spelling is considered acceptable. “Taleban” is the BBC’s spelling, for instance. You really should apologize to Istara.
As poachers killing endangered animals so they can sell animal body parts for “traditional” medicine have been arrested and even killed by officers enforcing national and international laws against trafficking in such things so should national and international laws against maiming and murdering children be enforced. Both Zimbabwe and Mozambique are signatories of the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child and are required to enforce said rights, in particular Article 6:
1. States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life.
2. States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.
Article 19:
1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.
and for orphans Article 20:
1. A child temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family environment, or in whose own best interests cannot be allowed to remain in that environment, shall be entitled to special protection and assistance provided by the State.
These nations have already committed themselves, in 1990 and 1994 respectively, to protect children from this sort of treatment. It is not American bullying or stomping on indigenous beliefs to ask them to honor their committments.
Dropzone, you rock!
With respect to the African nations involved, i agree with you completely.
I would just point out, however, that any attempt by the United States to make countries honour their commitments to UN treaties is probably going to be scoffed at–with some justification–by much of the rest of the world, given America’s willingness to ignore its own obligations to UN commitments whenever it sees fit.
You are all proving the points Achilles and I are trying to make. You are trying to impose the standards of the white Christian populous on a country you know nothing about. You are ethnocentric assholes who think that your standards are the right ones. “Poor little savage, praise Jesus and discontinue your evil ways”. There aren’t enough :rolleyes: to describe how hard my eyes rolled when I read this thread.
As for being like the “eurotrash” that visits the board and criticizes America- well, I’m not European, and I’m not criticizing America. I’m criticizing a group of people who think that they’re more developed than a nation in Africa due to a cultural difference. The will of the Americans-or any other Western nation-should not be imposed upon other sovereign nations. It is the Westerners need for imperialism, not “right” or “wrong”.
I also agree with Achilles, this is the reason for 9-11. This is the reason those “religious zealots” attacked us. We are the big bully, and people don’t dig it.
Pay attention.
Sam
Achilles, you’re the pot calling the kettle black…
First, I really don’t appreciate you judging American culture like that. It’s been an American cultural habit to look down on other cultures for centuries. Who are YOU to judge my culture?
In addition, I see you coming down pretty hard on these extremist Muslim warriors. Actually, blowing up things and knocking down buildings is a perfectly legitimate expression of outrage in their culture. I’ll thank you not to judge them, or call them inflammatory names like “terrorist”.
In case you couldn’t tell, the above was TONGUE-IN-CHEEK, if pointed.
Moral relativism is a good thing up to a point.
Castrating little boys for profit is WAY past that point.
Do you think it was wrong of the US to liberate concentration camps, GaWd? I mean, who are we, a bunch of ethnocentric white American Christian assholes, to say it’s wrong for the Germans to commit acts of genocide?
I appreciate what you are trying to say here, and I agree with it. I despise Imperialism. But your arguments continue to ignore the points about Universal Human Rights that are being made by other posters. That’s the thing, you see. They’re Universal. Rational people (presumably of more than one race) got together and determined that human beings, no matter where they live or what their culture is, have a right not to be enslaved, and not to be chopped up against their will.
The assumption that the US should step in and play World Police is offensive. But it can’t be denied that relativism just doesn’t apply when people are suffering violations of rights that have already been determined to be universal.
Sorry, GaWd, but I gotta disagree with you here. I mean, I’m a non-white, non-Christian, multicultural liberal-minded kinda guy, but mutilating genitals off anyone is too much.
If nothing else, we’re talking about nonconsentual permanent damage here, which means that there’s no way to hit the Undo key and fix everything up. Or, to quote the magicians Penn & Teller, “No permanent damage – as long as you’ve got that bottom line covered, you are empowered to do things others wouldn’t dare to do, because the worst that will happen is that you look like an idiot.”
This violates the NPD rule. Big-time.
And it must be stopped.
That’s right, because the Germans have been committing these atrocities for centuries, and hundreds of children, not 6 fucking million people were exterminated, and we weren’t involved in a war with another imperialistic army that was trampling the whole of Europe at the time, right? Someone heard a story on portugese radio about this and became all inflamed and decided to take action, right?
Blow it out yer arse, strawman.
Look it sucks, and it’s sick, and it’s cruel, but the idea that we’re(I use “we” very loosely here), a higher form of society and somehow better sickens me. The idea that we can impose our will on them and tell them what to do and how to act is exactly the problem with America and western culture as a whole. That some people think they can impose their standards upon them and that it’s right is wholly incorrect.
I wish we had a “pukey smiley” for the above quote. It sickens me almost as much the thought of children getting their nuts lopped off. And that really is the deal here-act like the imperialistic fucks the world thinks we are while trying to fix humanitarian problems in Africa all the while continuing to sour our reputation, or allow atrocities to continue in a sovereign nation.
I don’t see you fucks getting all uppity about the war atrocities committed by the warlords in Africa which involved women, children and even men…
Sam
To GaWd and Achilles:
I think that, in terms of some of your general principles, you guys certainly have your hearts in the right place. I agree with you that the ethnocentrism of European cultures (in which i include the UK, US, Australia, etc.) has been a blight on the world in many respects. Hell, the whole colonial and imperial project was, for centuries, predicated on the notion that Europeans would spread their values to the rest of the world, and the “savages” would either adapt, die out, or be killed off.
An awareness that cultures differ, and that cultures that differ from ours are not necessarily in need of education, is a good thing. It allows for greater global tolerance and acceptance of different beliefs and practices, and makes for a more interesting world.
It seems to me, however, that to adopt a position of absolute relativism, as you two seem to be doing, is a rather unproductive stance. If you firmly believe that cultures are not amenable to any sort of judgment, then in effect you seem to be throwing up your hands and conceding that any behaviour is acceptable, and that no behaviour is better or worse than any other.
The first problem this poses for you is a simple, logical one, and has been pointed out by a couple of people in this thread. For example, if ethnocentrism and the tendency to judge others by absolute standards is an American cultural trait, as you seem to suggest in a couple of places, then surely that cultural trait is no more or less open to your judgment than iare the practices of the African cultures decribed in the OP. You leave yourself in a rather invidious logical position when you say “You cannot judge them, but i can judge you for judging them.”
Also, where do you draw your cultural boundaries. At the borders of nation-states? Within them? Or even at the most fundamental, local level–the individual? For example, i believe it’s wrong for a man to beat his wife. So, in general terms, does the culture in which i live. But if my next door neighbour beats his wife, should i then put it down to a possible cultural difference, and ignore it? And should my decision about whether or not intervene be based on the cultural background of the man in question? (Note: i’m asking for a moral and cultural judgment here; i’m putting aside for a moment my obvious legal responsibilities.)
Or, to take a broader example, what if the government of one of the nations in question opposes these cultural practices, but the practices themselves are part of one particular culture within the nation? Do you concede to national governments the right to determine the cultural practices that exist within their own borders, even if this imposes on the practices of a culture or sub-culture therein? And what about if other African nations condemn the practices, in the way that Americans are condemning them on this message board? Remember, it’s pretty silly to talk about a single “African” culture as if all the people on that continent feel the same way about something. Should one African culture be allowed to impose its beliefs and practices on another? Because they have been doing that for centuries, and were doing it before Europeans added their own cultural practices to the mix.
I’m not trying to make flippant points here. I’m just trying to point out how difficult all this is, and to say that i’m not rerally sure myself if there are any ways to overcome the inherent contradictions, unless you are going to adopt a position of absolute reltivism, on one hand, or absolute ethnocentrism, on the other.
As i said in an earlier post, i like to consider myself a good cultural relativist, but there are also areas that i believe are inviolable, and practices that are unacceptable, no matter what the culture. I also accept that where i draw this line is a largely subjective position, and that it would be hard to defend my position on simple logical grounds, because it has internal inconsistencies. I tend to base my own position on whether or not the participant in the cultural practices has the maturity, the ability, and the option to either consent or decline to participate in the practices in question. But, even then, i probably take some positions that might seem hypocritical.
I’m not ridiculing your position; i just wanted to point out that it poses some difficulties which you don’t yet seem to have addressed.
True, and a reason why America’s citizens must force their government to follow through on the committments we, through our democratically elected government, have made. However, I assume you do not insist we desist from calling attention to the failings of others before we get our own house in order. It is a long path and many boys may be murdered before we reach moral perfection. Instead we must think globally and accept that there is a baseline of human behavior, below which is the behavior we, as humans, find unaccepable. The UN is the forum though which most nations have agreed to define that baseline and the Convention on the Rights of the Child is one of the ways it, and we, have chosen to define it.
Well, to be honest with you I don’t think anyone ever intended to actually enforce the treaty. It was just flash and glitter. Perhaps sad, but true. Then again, I found the treaty a wee bit overzealous in its wording.
I wish I could work up the enthusiasm to Pit both you moral cretins.
But somebody who thinks that ObL attacked us because we object when people cut the testicles off orphans is too far beneath contempt to bother.
I can’t tell if you don’t mean it, in which case you are something I am not allowed to say, or you do mean it, in which case you are apologists for torture for profit.
Which puts you into the class of someone who deserves to be treated in the way that you defend.
extends middle finger
Pay attention to this.
So if Mozambique declares war on us, invades a neighoring country, and increases the number of boys who get denutted for fun & profit, would it be OK to invade them and save the testicles?
Depends on who you mean by “we.”
If you mean American citizens in general, either separately or in groups and organizations, then of course not. I don’t expect Americans to stop agitating for what they believe is right, just because their government refuses to honour its international commitments.
If, however, you mean the American people as represented by their government, then i would suggest getting your own house in order first. After all, for the US government to honour its commitments to the UN (in areas of funding and of policy) is a relatively easy thing, one that should be taken for granted as a necessary condition for any moralising based on UN treaties and principles.
A nation that snubs UN principles and commitments when it’s convenient has little moral authority to invoke UN principles and commitments when it sees something it doesn’t like.
By the way, the US is far from being the only hypocritical country in this regard–wouldn’t want people to think that i thought so.