Aldebaran
Well this is all thread highjack; I think you really should open another thread if you want to discuss this subject.
Which other culture had you in mind? I consider my culture to be superior to other cultures which have ideals and create societies which I find worse than those shared by my culture.
E.g. Hard as it is to believe (but if you do not believe it matters not, since this is theoretical), there are subcultures in this world with members that think raping babies to rid themselves of AIDS is an acceptable thing to do. I believe all humans, and especially humans unable to give consent, have certain (inalienable if you want) rights – a great number of which are being violated by such acts. Are you telling me that you your world view do not let you condemn, or think inferior, cultures that practice such acts?
Well that’s the whole point. I think certain elements, of morality for instance, transcends culture and nations.
I’m sorry, but I think you have a bit of an oversimplified view on the extend the West interferes with other cultures.
In this light… To make it a bit actual: Does the name “Iraq” rings a bell?
And do you have some idea about how the House of Saud came in posession of the land they claim to the legitimate rulers of? And how it can be that they stay on that heavy golden blood sucked throne… Despite the fact that their Wahhabi lunaticism is an insult to every form of decency, let be to a beginning of thinking about a form of democracy. Let be to Islam?
By the way: what do you understand by “educational materials” because that is something new to me.
Salaam. A
Yes, maybe it is a hijack… didn’t think about that.
I’ll ask the moderator how to resolve the problem without losing they posts made.
I don’t speak about subcultures and I do know about men thinking that sex with a virgin and even with a baby can protect them or even cure them from Aids.
But you overlook simply that those are not countries. Those are, like you said: people having a certain idea. Where ever that may origin, it doesn’t constitue a country.
I think this makes also your other statement, about “cultural relativism” invalid since not to the point.
Sorry, I’m a bit unclear in my last sentence: you remark about morality transcending nations and cultures is of course a valid point an sich.
But in my view it wasn’t valid when it came to explain your reasons as to why you consider your country/culture “certainly” better then others.
Other cultures have an other definition of morality then you have. And that is their right.
I think the invasion of Iraq was unjustified and verging on criminal.
I get the feeling that you don’t like the House of Saud much but did the US put them in power? Educate me with some of the Straight Dope, I’m willing to learn. Does rule of Saudi Arabia by them threaten Arab culture? Maybe it does, so I’m willing that Saudi terrorists should attack them.
Has terroistic sabotage ever accomplished its objective without any non-terroristic follow up? If so, it could be justified in the abstract. If not then it is just using naive youngsters, in many cases, to kill wantonly and without end.
Education? Oh I believe Voice of America is now continually propagandise about the advantages of our system. What’s wrong with that?
This discussion was not about countries, but about cultural superiority; countries have no culture, people do. Perhaps you only want to consider cultures that are very dominant in a country? Can’t imagine why though, what’s so special about dominant cultures to make them the only ones worth considering? But if you insist - then yes, I find many cultures, my own included, superior to for instance the culture that created Nazi Germany or Taliban Afghanistan or Wahhabi Saudi Arabia.
You’re working under the assumption that a culture is a homogeneous mass, that all people we, for arguments sake, choose to heap together under one culture share the same views – which is an invalid assumption; in reality there is no culture at all – only a number of individuals having certain opinions. Also you only consider things taking place within the culture, but a great deal of how a culture is valued has to do with how it interacts with the world outside.
I’m going to stop this interesting discussion because I asked the moderator how to act, since as is pointed out to me it is definitely now a complete hijack of this thread.
I’ve asked the moderator how I can save these posts when opening an other topic on the issue, on which we can then go further with this debate.
Thank you for contributing so far and waiting a bit for answers on your last posts.
My initial reaction is “no”. On furthur contemplation, I wondered about fictional material portraying arson or some other crime being committed. Could such material also be construed as instructs on commiting an act of violence? How do you ban one without the banning the other. Free speech is not about protecting idiots like the ELF. It is to make sure that in restricting the speech of those who deserve to have it restricted we don’t take it away from those who don’t.
Sorry but destroying someones culture does not justify terrorism if that destruction is caused by non-violent means. Cultures can be changed (IOW destroyed) by the introduction of new ideas and customs. No one is justified is destroying and killing just because they don’t like change.
Yes. Because equality is superior to keeping women uneducated and forcing them to dress in potato sacks. Because a government that is representitive of the people is superior to dictatorships. Because democracy is superior to theocracy. Because free speech is superior to religeous edict. Because rule of law is superior to rule of fear and anarchy. And so on…
To bring the hijack full circle back to the original conversation: The Brandenberg ruling says, “As long as it’s not preaching imminent lawless behavior, it’s allowable.”
So, Deb, you have your answer there.
Might not like it any more than I like the ELF, mind you. They keep lighting stuff on fire.
The KKK, which has been associated with church burnings, has in addition been associated with lynchings and other physical harm upon blacks.
As far as I know, I don’t believe the ELF has actually intentionally killed any human beings to further their goals… so it wouldn’t strike the same level of fear into their victims.
I have mixed feelings. I consider ELF to be an evil terrorist group. They are no better than groups who burn black churches or mosques or synogogues.
Legally, they may have the right to post what they like. There’s a fine line between free speech and conspiracy to commit arson. Apparently, ELF is on the legal side of that line.
As a practical matter, it might be difficult to censor even the most atrocious material on the internet. I don’t have much understanding of the technical underpinnings of the internet and the world wide web.
Suppose some other group were using the internet to conspire to commit crimes. How could they be stopped or controlled? Who has the power and authority to take action?
SoBig is being hunted. They track it to the local jurisdiction, and then, depending on where it is, take appropriate action, from arrest to assisting local authorities in arresting said person.
Hard to block information. But you can take people out just fine.
In other words, if they spray-paint “SUVs are evil”, that is one thing, but if they spray-paint “Death to fags”, that is also OK?
Same question to Diogenes the Cynic - spray-painting swastikas on synagogues is non-violent. Is that OK? Picketing the funerals of those who died of AIDS is non-violent - is that OK?
Nice try, but no one said it was “OK” merely that it wasn’t terrorism. Don’t you feel like Al Franken when you do that? Do you think Phelps(I assume that’s the AIDS funeral type guy you are thinking of) is a terrorist?
Shodan parody: If I say “You’re a wierdo” no prob but if I say “I’m going to kill you”, still OK?
Picketing is generally not terrorism. Unless maybe you picketed while waving a loaded gun or something.
If someone spraypaints “I’m going to kill you” well, it might be terrorism depending upon their objectives. Not the morality of their objectives, but whether they were trying to influence behavior.
OTOH if someone spraypaints “This car is evil” they are not threatening per se.
Because of the historical implications of the swastika, it’s much more threatening than “SUV’s Suck” or whatever. Surely, you’re aware of that.
But I don’t know why you’re even going there when arson has already been committed.
In reading the ELF web site, I see they do not target human beings in the first instance to effect their agenda, even though there is a possibility of “collateral damage.”
This cannot be said for other groups, like one mentioned in this thread, that deliberately seek out human beings to effect their agenda.
Both groups in question I label as terrorists. However, since the definition of terrorism is in they eyes of the beholder, YMMV.
Aldebaran, you would do better if you did not regularly hijack threads for your own political agenda but created your own and have then stand on their own.
Care to read the last post I made on this topic?
Thank you.
And for your further information:
I don’t have any “agenda” when posting on a message board, let be that I would have a “political agenda”.
If one day I really start liking to be involved in politics then it is obvious that I shall do that outside cyberspace and in service of my countries.
There we go again – The “e” word. Israel with its arsenal of nuclear weapons is “non-evil”, but if Iran wants access to nuclear weapons for legitimate defense against invasion, she is part of the “axis of evil”. The ELF is an evil terrorist group, but the National Right to Life organization is a non-evil terrorist group, even though some of its followers blow up abortion clinics.
december, no sane person really wants to resort to terrorism of any kind. But sometimes when peaceful and legal means of legitimate protest are totally ignored, then some of the protesters feel that their back is against the wall. They see a need for a “Wake up Call”, and some of the extremists among them resort to actions taken up by freedom fighters.
I condemn the actions of the 9/11 perpetrators. But there are people who think that the eventhelped their cause and acted as a wake up call. I suppose 9/11 can be seen as an illustration of an “evil terrorism” versus Aldebaran’s non-evil approach to clumsily proselytizing Islam through his so-called participation in this forum’s debates.
In the US, there has been a recent sales growth of SUV’s and HUMVs. The interested buyers are exercising their right and their freedom of expression. Do you suggest we put a warning sign on each of these gas-guzzlers that says: “Driving this thing is dangerous to the economic and environmental health of the country”?
To create a similar consciousness about the nicotine harm through the anti-smoking movement, maybe the ELF actions can be construed as a non-evil initial “Wake up Call” to raise consciousness about the SUV/Hummer issue.
Interesting that even the dogmatic and categorical right-wing conservative december is having a “mixed feeling” about the issue.