View Full Version : Multiculturalism is dead
Rhyfelwyr
10-16-2010, 21:44
Or at least, so thinks Merkel and the CDU/CSU (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11559451).
Some interesting quotes:
"A recent survey showed that more than 30% of Germans believed Germany was "overrun by foreigners."
"Mrs Merkel stressed that immigrants living in Germany needed to do more to integrate, including learning to speak German. "Anyone who does not immediately speak German", she said, "is not welcome"."
And so I don't have to go ahead and make the Godwin:
"Our correspondent adds that there also seems to be a new strident tone in the country, perhaps leading to less reticence about no-go-areas of the past."
Perhaps most significantly of all...
"Such recent strong anti-immigrant feelings from mainstream politicians come amid an anger in Germany about high unemployment..."
At least one good thing of all this could be that the ridiculous PC-ness that makes immigrants above criticism amongst any centre-right/left-wing politician may be coming to an end.
IMO one of the reasons for the lack of dialogue on this issue is that the lefties/liberals are far too sensitive and afraid to speak up on real problems, and so the only people that do are the far-right loonies, and then things get polarised and stupid and there is never any sensible discussion on the matter. Hopefully people can now start to get over their knee-jerk reactions.
Thoughts?
"Mrs Merkel stressed that immigrants living in Germany needed to do more to integrate, including learning to speak German.
I'm one of the three or four people on the planet who never had a problem with this kind of thinking. I wouldn't bar someone from entry into a country if they couldn't speak the native language, but it strikes me as astonishingly rude to not even try to learn it if you plan on living there.
Ser Clegane
10-16-2010, 23:02
Thoughts?
Looking at the statements from Merkel and Seehofer you should keep the current polls (http://www.infratest-dimap.de/en/umfragen-analysen/bundesweit/sonntagsfrage/) in mind.
Our current administration (Conservatives + Liberals - hope that combination does not confuse our US patrons ~;)) is not looking very good in the polls, Socialists and Greens (especially the latter) are gaining ground again - so CDU and FDP are desperate for a topic that ight help them to recover.
Immigration is a welcome and classic topic for the CDU/CSU to turn to when the :daisy: hits the fan. Not surprising at all that they try to utilize the current rochus after Sarrazin published his book to gain a couple of percentage points.
anger in Germany about high unemployment
That statement strikes me as very odd (and somewhat uninformed) considering the current unemployment statistics and the trend.
NB: I would agree that learning the language is the minimum prerequisite when immigrating to another country - if you are not willing to take that step it tells a lot about the willingness to integrate. Nevertheless, the current discussion in Germany is too much about trying to get some easy points in the polls that about actually doing something constructive and tangible - hopefully this will change again.
I don't understand the whole "let's not learn the local language" thing. If I were relocated to Tunisia, I would consider learning Maghreb Arabic a top priority. If I hadn't learned it in a year or two, I would be very disappointed.
What is the logic (or even illogic) or not learning the most common local tongue? Can anyone explain this to me?
My thought is to look back through history. It shows that human cultures, once every 10 years have a minor panic about cultural and ethnic change, and once every 40 years have a major panic about it.
Go and take look. Any culture, any period, and it will be there. It's all rather tedious and unnecessary.
What is the logic (or even illogic) or not learning the most common local tongue? Can anyone explain this to me?
It can be any number of factors. From a lack of money or time to pay for lessons or a lack of decent available lessons, right the way through to being lazy and never needing to because you can pay for others to do the translation stuff for you.
If people want to try and live in a foreign country without learning the language, then who really cares - that's their daft decision.
If people want to try and live in a foreign country without learning the language, then who really cares - that's their daft decision.
Well, it's not just daft; it's rude, as another poster stated. If I'm living and working in Germany, the least I can do is get passable in Deutsch. I don't need to be writing sonnets or sestinas, but I should be able to navigate the basics of life in the local lingo. That's so basic I don't even know how to argue the opposite side.
Tellos Athenaios
10-17-2010, 00:17
I don't understand the whole "let's not learn the local language" thing.
It's slightly more complex than that. On the whole pretty much anyone will pick up the basics out of sheer necessity: chances are your life is too complex to define in point & grunt semantics, so you need the local lingo to help you out. But there are people who consider it not necessary or not sufficiently necessary to bother with actually learning the language. I guess because they tend to migrate to a place where they will be among other people of similar backgrounds who understand their native tongue well enough.
Anyway, Lemur, learning a language beyond the basics takes rather more than two years. Ten is nearer to the mark.
gaelic cowboy
10-17-2010, 00:43
I have me doubts that there are really that many people as a percentage of any immigrant population who cannot speak whatever local language is required.
What is far more likely is that the ones who cannot speak the lingo for a variety of reasons are the one who we remember the most.
However I would agree that if they spend a long time there and don't learn the lingo then it is like given the locals the two fingers
Rhyfelwyr
10-17-2010, 00:52
I have me doubts that there are really that many people as a percentage of any immigrant population who cannot speak whatever local language is required.
Well for some purely anecdotal evidence, even since I started my new job I've served a good few customers who could barely speak English. Doesn't bother me at all but it would surely help their own prospects a lot if they learned it.
gaelic cowboy
10-17-2010, 01:06
Minimum wage dead end jobs have a lot to do with it too the owners like hiring foreigners even when the people who frequent the service find it annoying having to explain what a plate of spuds is.
The service jobs in pubs clubs shops etc employ these people and we deal with them every day reinforcing the idea none of them can speak the lingo.
gaelic cowboy
10-17-2010, 01:20
Well for some purely anecdotal evidence, even since I started my new job I've served a good few customers who could barely speak English. Doesn't bother me at all but it would surely help their own prospects a lot if they learned it.
There is a new factor at play here too the world has got far too small nowadays technology and modern communications allow us to live our own life separate from the vast majority of the people we live beside.
Hence even in smallish size towns in Ireland now there can be what everyone calls Polish Shops in reality there selling more than Polish stuff. You can come from Warsaw work as a housekeeper in a hotel eat your own food read Polish newspapers speak to a lot of people from home in the local Polish bar and with the sat dish on the roof you can watch the news from home even.
I don't really mind it so much i mean everyone gets homesick but I do feel these people are missing out on an entire experience of living in a different country and that is kind of sad.
Anyway, Lemur, learning a language beyond the basics takes rather more than two years. Ten is nearer to the mark.
But don't you also agree that it kinda depends on the relationship between your native language and the language spoken in the country you're living in? I mean, German would be a lot easier for the English to learn than say Russian, Arabic or Farsi. Same with Japanese and French, for example (the horror..).
I'm with Idaho, although I do believe that learning the language of the country you've moved to is something the government should enforce. Either fining or subsidizing people that respectively don't and do try to actively learning the language is very important. It'll help to close the gap between immigrants and the native population.
On the other hand, especially with the immigrant laborours, who do not wish to stay very long, speaking your own language is a natural thing; the farther people get removed from their roots, the stronger their resolve will be to get back to those roots. Language, religion(!), food and such things are all parts of their culture they've taken with them and wish to cling to as well.
gaelic cowboy
10-17-2010, 01:40
I think the real death knell of multiculturalism is the backlash building over relativism between cultures and ideas even when one of the two is obviously moonbat crazy people try to draw an equivalence thats wrong.
It can be any number of factors. From a lack of money or time to pay for lessons or a lack of decent available lessons, right the way through to being lazy and never needing to because you can pay for others to do the translation stuff for you.
I think the courses should be free and probably are already, they're also not too lazy to go to the government to try and ask for money, which then takes ten times as long because the civil servants will have to try and extract all the necessary info out of them without a common language. And the same happens in shops as well, it's kinda annoying when five customers have to wait just because it takes me five minutes to solve a minor misunderstanding with someone who doesn't get my simplest explanations.
It doesn't happen often though, but I've had some truck driver lately who had to do some toll collect stuff or whatever, well, I think he did, he kept saying "vignette", I shook my head, told him we don't sell vignettes but he kept wanting one, spoke no german, no english, had no idea what to do with the toll collect machine (they offer several languages including polish, english, german etc.). In the end he seemed to have given up after I left him standing there serving other customers while I was wondering what kind of company sends a truck driver to Germany who cannot communicate with Germans at all???
Maybe he wasn't an immigrant but the problem is the same, no communication, no cooperation. :shrug:
Kinda odd as she tried to destroy Sarazin in a policor-craze a few weeks back. What caused this U-turn? His book being a huge hit of course. Pure politics she knows that the populist-right have enourmous electoral potential just like here so she takes a more popular stand. Very hypocrite.
InsaneApache
10-17-2010, 11:27
I think the real death knell of multiculturalism is the backlash building over relativism between cultures and ideas even when one of the two is obviously moonbat crazy people try to draw an equivalence thats wrong.
This.
Multiculturalism is dead? Meh, I'm sure it's the same all over the world. There's always a handful of people in every country who manage to shamefully publicise their zero-tolerance-integrate-100%-or-GTFO stance toward immigrants.
I'd always thought that the idea of multiculturalism is that it has multiple cultures. :shrug:
I'd always thought that the idea of multiculturalism is that it has multiple cultures. :shrug:
No it's an genuine ideoligy, the idea is to destroy nationalism with diversity, ultimately to prevent armed conflict. It's a real political theory.
Reality, importing votes
tibilicus
10-17-2010, 14:54
Well Merkel raised some basic points really. It isn't "multiculturalism" if your an immigrant living in a country, making no effort to speak the native language or to mix with the native population. In that case your basically a squatter, by choice.
Tellos Athenaios
10-17-2010, 15:18
But don't you also agree that it kinda depends on the relationship between your native language and the language spoken in the country you're living in? I mean, German would be a lot easier for the English to learn than say Russian, Arabic or Farsi. Same with Japanese and French, for example (the horror..).
That's mainly the initial learning curve being less steep as you pick up the basics.
gaelic cowboy
10-17-2010, 15:54
Well Merkel raised some basic points really. It isn't "multiculturalism" if your an immigrant living in a country, making no effort to speak the native language or to mix with the native population. In that case your basically a squatter, by choice.
Thats actual an excellent point the immigrant bringing their own culture to wherever the locals imbibe bits of it but the immigrant also should reciprocate from whatever is the native culture.
To often I feel the whole debate on Multiculturalism is driven by people who wish to somehow legislate and control actual culture. How we could actually control culture is a bit beyond me I don't think you can but the quango types end up increasing the budgets they get by trying to implement it which is probably half the point anyway for them.
To often I feel the whole debate on Multiculturalism is driven by people who wish to somehow legislate and control actual culture. How we could actually control culture is a bit beyond me I don't think you can but the quango types end up increasing the budgets they get by trying to implement it which is probably half the point anyway for them.
Oh really do they.
gaelic cowboy
10-17-2010, 16:15
Oh really do they.
Eh??
Eh??
You seemed to agree that the multicultist want to control
gaelic cowboy
10-17-2010, 16:29
Then I think you meant to say
"Oh they do really" what you said put the inflection of your statement on me more than them.
I do believe the Multicultists think that way but I also think that the whole the foreigners are here not integrating is slightly overblown by the media.
The OP is not against a country having multiple cultures in it but the idea that is foisted on people that we must somehow create special spaces for culture in society.
This idea is really dangerous and I think it actually reinforces the differences and barriers between people.
Meneldil
10-17-2010, 17:57
It can be any number of factors. From a lack of money or time to pay for lessons or a lack of decent available lessons, right the way through to being lazy and never needing to because you can pay for others to do the translation stuff for you.
If people want to try and live in a foreign country without learning the language, then who really cares - that's their daft decision.
Seems that the locals actually care.
On topic, multiculturalism is indeed dead except in the head of a few hardcore leftist carebears. The bad news is that the other side of the coin (ie. "Integrate 100% or leave") doesn't work either in a democracy.
rory_20_uk
10-17-2010, 18:07
100% is arguably meaningless as of course there is no one way in any country.
But getting rid of leaflets in several languages / free translation services would be a good place to start.
~:smoking:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-17-2010, 18:37
It's slightly more complex than that. On the whole pretty much anyone will pick up the basics out of sheer necessity: chances are your life is too complex to define in point & grunt semantics, so you need the local lingo to help you out. But there are people who consider it not necessary or not sufficiently necessary to bother with actually learning the language. I guess because they tend to migrate to a place where they will be among other people of similar backgrounds who understand their native tongue well enough.
Anyway, Lemur, learning a language beyond the basics takes rather more than two years. Ten is nearer to the mark.
I don't think this is true, if you have a basic grounding in a language (very basic) and are then immersed in the culture and forced to speak it every day you will reach fluency somewhere between 6 months and a year. If this was not so we wouldn't be able to send in English students to France or Germany and dump them into the Universities there, which we do.
Tellos Athenaios
10-17-2010, 20:17
I don't think this is true, if you have a basic grounding in a language (very basic) and are then immersed in the culture and forced to speak it every day you will reach fluency somewhere between 6 months and a year. If this was not so we wouldn't be able to send in English students to France or Germany and dump them into the Universities there, which we do.
For the immigrants who do not learn the language: they are not immersed in the culture, nor forced to speak the language every day. Otherwise they would learn it.
For the rest there is more to a language than being able to do shopping, day to day communication etc. You become fluent in a subset of it, but not necessarily competent with the whole framework of syntax, grammar, idiom etc.
Louis VI the Fat
10-18-2010, 02:25
Immigration is a welcome and classic topic for the CDU/CSU to turn to when the :daisy: hits the fan. Not surprising at all that they try to utilize the current rochus after Sarrazin published his book to gain a couple of percentage points.
Nevertheless, the current discussion in Germany is too much about trying to get some easy points in the polls that about actually doing something constructive and tangible - hopefully this will change again.The shift to hardright ideas transcends current German political events. The shift is structural and pan-European, therefore anything temporary or specifically German falls short as an explanation.
The Sarrazin debate served as a catalyst. The dam was going to break sooner or later. Like elsewhere in Europe, the hardright has managed to become mainstream. Things are now said openly for which one would've been ostrasiced fifteen years ago. For reasons of historical legacy, 'decent' German society kept the lid on for longer than all of its neighbours. Not anymore. Germany has followed Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands.
As for Merkel, maybe like the overwhelming majority of Ossies she's just not so into anything brown. There is still an iron curtain in Europe, running midway through Germany. To the west, societies are open, mixed, there are foreigners on the streets, gays too. To the east, societies are closed, violent, and bare chested skinheads patrol the streets. Yikes....
A third of Germans say they want foreigners repatriated, and 10 percent of Germans would prefer to have a “führer”
The Muslim community was particularly singled out by respondents. Over 55 percent of respondents said Arabs were not pleasant people, compared with 44 percent in the foundation’s 2003 report. As to whether Muslims should face restrictions in practicing their religion, 58 percent agreed. It was 75 percent in the Eastern Germany.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/14/world/europe/14iht-germany.html?_r=2
gaelic cowboy
10-18-2010, 02:48
10 percent of Germans would prefer to have a “führer”
Thats gotta be what 7 maybe 8 million people you sure about that stat
Megas Methuselah
10-18-2010, 05:16
Thats gotta be what 7 maybe 8 million people you sure about that stat
We're talking about Germans here. Not Cree. Not Saulteaux. Not Blackfoot. Hell, not even Metis.
GERMANS. Roll with it, bro.
Yeah, I wish we had a Führer like Kemal Atatürk or so.
Forgetting a neighbour huh Luigi, the populist party's of the countries you mention are nothing compared to your own Front National, they are scum. It's good that the -moderate- right is on the rise, bye makeble hellow pragmatic
a completely inoffensive name
10-18-2010, 09:47
I always found it funny how countries with an actual rich history to protect were until recently so accepting of having their immigrants not merge with the mainstream while the country born from groups of different cultures living together has been so culturally hostile to foreigners since it's beginning.
Europe should protect their cultures imo or at least not concede so much to radicals who want to change the culture to their liking.
Louis VI the Fat
10-18-2010, 11:12
We're talking about Germans here. Not Cree. Not Saulteaux. Not Blackfoot. Hell, not even Metis.
GERMANS. Roll with it, bro.'Unlike all X, I never generalise' :smash:
The Germans are the most anti-fascist people in Europe. The people are more attached to democracy, and the state has done more to ensure democracy in Europe, than any other.
On the internets, all political-sociological-historical knowledge is reduced to war history, this war history is limited to the last war, in a simplified form, and from this pityful substrate everything one needs to know about the world is then extrapolated.
However, German history is slightly more complex than 'they are racist orcs'.
Louis VI the Fat
10-18-2010, 11:13
Forgetting a neighbour huh Luigi, the populist party's of the countries you mention are nothing compared to your own Front NationalAh, but two things:
Austria, Denmark and the Netherlands have hard/extreme rightwing parties as part of their government, or allied with the government. That's why I named them. Things that were a grave social taboo fifteen years ago are now government policy.
What happened in Germany is more comparable to France, Switzerland, Belgium: the mainstream rightwing adopting elements of the policies and language of the hardright. Sarkozy, not the FN is the proper comparison.
I notice this shift in myself too. I am a peculiar brew of anti-fascist instincts combined with bizarre rightwing ideas. Part of me is firmly to the right of PJ and Hitler.
Am I being consumed by the Dark Side? I do not know. It unsettles me and is cause for some soul searching.
That 10% was probably never gone, there is an enomous gap between the ultra-nationalists and the centre and it's getting filled. I don't think Germany got more rightwing, all stable in the leftist front.
Strike For The South
10-18-2010, 14:47
Wait, you're telling me during times of economic hardship easily recognizable minorty groups are being singled out and deomnized?
This is amazing and unprecedented.
Has someone told the Germans Irish Jews Italians Poles Asians Mexicans?
Nobody is being demonised where did you read that, and probably more interestingly, how. It just isn't there. Merkel just admits that mistakes have been made.
al Roumi
10-18-2010, 15:05
Wait, you're telling me during times of economic hardship easily recognizable minorty groups are being singled out and deomnized?
This is amazing and unprecedented.
Has someone told the Germans Irish Jews Italians Poles Asians Mexicans?
:applause:
al Roumi
10-18-2010, 15:23
For my part, as a self-confessed multiculturalist, I think the main failing of the policy is precisely that it doesn't actually stimulate or rather neccessitate broad cross cultural interaction. What I like about the policy is that it allows such exchange and (at its best) values diversity, I am saddened to see ghettoisation or complete non-integration -for whatever reason.
As has been alluded to by others already, the reason some immigrants do not learn the native language is ultimately because they don't have to. There are often large enough communities from the same background (due to the natural tendency for people to huddle around what is familiar in an unfamiliar world/country) that it is possible for a given individual to deal almost entirely with people speaking their mother-tongue, never mind go about the same daily business/lifestyle as in their homeland.
I admit this seems a bit strange to people of the "host" country, and as I said above, I think it's a shame. However, the reason people emmigrate is perhaps different to what some immagine, in that it is surely based on (usually short term, even if 10-20 years) economic incentive rather than accession to a different culture -it should therefore be (depressingly) unsurprising that some have no interest in integration to the host country and its culture.
Personaly, I think it would be fair for those seeking residency to pass a basic level of English (Edit: perhaps with subsidised classes), although this should not be expected for those seeking asylum -which is a whole other kettle of fish.
I also enjoy life in my multicultural town and the multicuisine and of course I like black women, not the point, multiculturalism is a dangerous form of social-enginering. There is an idea behind it, it's an ambitious pacifist ideoligy to combat nationalism, by transforming the cultural landscape.
al Roumi
10-18-2010, 16:00
I also enjoy life in my multicultural town and the multicuisine and of course I like black women, not the point, multiculturalism is a dangerous form of social-enginering. There is an idea behind it, it's an ambitious pacifist ideoligy to combat nationalism, by transforming the cultural landscape.
There was me thinking it was one way (of a few) to accomodate the modern world's economic migrants into their host nations.
There was me thinking it was one way (of a few) to accomodate the modern world's economic migrants into their host nations.
In it's philosophical roots they aren't supposed to integrate, if people have no affinity with their own culture they are less likely to pick up arms to defend it. It's a political theory, a dangerous one.
Strike For The South
10-18-2010, 16:17
I also enjoy life in my multicultural town and the multicuisine and of course I like black women, not the point, multiculturalism is a dangerous form of social-enginering. There is an idea behind it, it's an ambitious pacifist ideoligy to combat nationalism, by transforming the cultural landscape.
So your family has been occupying the same swap drained land for eons and eons?
"Multicultralism" is an unfortunate by product of the 24 hrs news cycle and modern post industrial socitey. Humans have been transversing the continents for years intermingling and yes even settling in new places. Such movement is intertwined with the human condition and can not be stopped. Soon after the modern state was created the torch of hating diffetent people was passed for the church to the government.
Both institutions had a vested interest in keeping a scapegoat. Immagration and the movement of peoples is unstoppable and to assume that somehow the Germans can put up a sign that says no vacancy is even more impossible. Times are tough for allot of reasons. The least of which being because the Turk down the street can't say Guten Tag and wont take the meat off the kebab.
Now this is not a wholesale endorsement of unlimited immagration OR the culture that some bring. Of course my veiw on immigration is closely related to economics and as such is outside the purview of this thread.
Things such as honor killings and repression of women have no place in a civllized socitey (no matter what the ethnic group) As more immigrants and there children rise to the middle class such stigmas will fade.
It always has been about money and power, the rest is just white noise meant to distract and demonize.
Times aren't tough, crisis is non-existant for the average German, no scapegoat needed. It's something else, people are tired of politicians blaming the weatherman for the existance of rain. Good. Bad part of it is that problems that used to be downplayed are now exegarated, it will pass. Europe is just recovering from the latest insanity.
Louis VI the Fat
10-18-2010, 16:48
Times aren't tough, crisis is non-existant for the average German, no scapegoat needed.Win.
People are getting worked up over nothing. Even if the people who move there don't want to learn the local lingo, their kids will. Unless you want to chuck a North Korea, multicultural societies and integration are both unavoidable.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-18-2010, 17:39
"valuing diversity" :furious3:
Some immigrant groups have nothing but admirable qualities. They should be admired for their admirable qualities. We should say "they are objectively good people". But when you 'value diversity" you aren't doing that. And the flipside is that when they aren't admirable, you are still "valuing diversity". It's wrong both ways. It's a phrase that's terribly weak in praise, and lacks the capacity for criticism.
If I was a composer, I'd want people to value my music because they liked the music itself, not because they valued diversity. That's a kind of parent/child "aw you did real good sweety" dynamic.
al Roumi
10-18-2010, 17:48
"valuing diversity" :furious3:
Some immigrant groups have nothing but admirable qualities. They should be admired for their admirable qualities. We should say "they are objectively good people". But when you 'value diversity" you aren't doing that. And the flipside is that when they aren't admirable, you are still "valuing diversity". It's wrong both ways. It's a phrase that's terribly weak in praise, and lacks the capacity for criticism.
If I was a composer, I'd want people to value my music because they liked the music itself, not because they valued diversity. That's a kind of parent/child "aw you did real good sweety" dynamic.
Do you do anything other than complain about semantics?
Vladimir
10-18-2010, 20:11
Do you do anything other than complain about semantics?
I've never seen him make an anti-Jewish comment here.
Rhyfelwyr
10-18-2010, 22:02
"valuing diversity" :furious3:
Diversity can be a virtue in and of itself. For example, if you go on a holiday, you don't just visit your favourite place everyday, most poeple would rather do a mix of things. When compared with their favourite place/activity, they would never choose these other places/activities over it given a one-off choice to do one of them. But for the sake of some diversity/variety, they do the different activities which are on their own merits not as good as their favourite one.
Gah! Why do you have to make things so complicated? It is always you Sasaki! :stare:
It's pretty simple, because it's not.
A lot of the political discussion so far was either one of the two extremes, you're either pro or con, like the US two-party system, it's flawed and both options are bad.
There should be more options than "throw them all out" and "leave them all alone you naughty person", that is what we are seeing now I guess, there are bad people among immigrants, shock, horror and we don't want to import bad guys or people who only come to leech money, how surprising.
The other really, totally surprising thing is that this small shift is an atrocity for the one lunatic fringe and a big victory for the other lunatic fringe, who represent the extremes we had all the time and would like to keep/get their extreme. Now whether the government does anything and why is not as important as long as they finally do what a center lunatic like me thinks is right. ~D
Louis VI the Fat
10-18-2010, 23:36
https://img106.imageshack.us/img106/4795/sephoracanardvibreurp52iu1.jpg
:stare: :beadyeyes2: :stare:
35% of Germans wish to expell all black ducks but they won't allow us oh no sirree they wont allow us we're stuck with those black anatidae in our midst forever
gaelic cowboy
10-19-2010, 00:27
I must protest to the Mods many of the people on the org may suffer from Anatidaephobia
https://img138.imageshack.us/img138/9016/anatidaephobiaduckfeard.jpg
Do you do anything other than complain about semantics?
Yeah language means nothing, some of my best friends are :daisy:. Saki is right imho it's patronising, preaching diversity is being the loving caretaker of one's private zoo.
PanzerJaeger
10-19-2010, 05:37
I have always hoped that Germany would return to a more normal stance regarding culture and integration before serious damage was done. The country has one of the richest - and most productive - cultures in the world; a culture that has produced many - dare I say, most - of the advancements in science, industry, art, and technology that occurred during the 19th and 20th centuries. 12 years of Nazism shouldn't erase that. It is perfectly acceptable for Germans to expect immigrants to learn the language and the cultural standards. Whether Merkel brought it up for political reasons or not, it is good for Germany that she broached the subject.
People are getting worked up over nothing. Even if the people who move there don't want to learn the local lingo, their kids will. Unless you want to chuck a North Korea, multicultural societies and integration are both unavoidable.
I agree. At my work I deal with Hispanic immigrants all the time. Sometimes the adults don't speak any English, but their kids almost always do. The kids not only translate for their parents but they chat with their siblings in English. I think that assimilation happens naturally, it just takes some time. In my opinion, the best way a government could help facilitate the assimilation of an immigration populace would be through bi-lingual education. Teach the immigrant children in their own language, so they don't fall behind, but also teach them in the native language so they can learn to speak it.
al Roumi
10-19-2010, 10:37
"valuing diversity" :furious3:
Perhaps I owe you a more substantive response, but I do think you are missing the point in railing against "diversity".
"Some immigrant groups have nothing but admirable qualities. They should be admired for their admirable qualities. We should say "they are objectively good people". But when you 'value diversity" you aren't doing that. And the flipside is that when they aren't admirable, you are still "valuing diversity". It's wrong both ways. It's a phrase that's terribly weak in praise, and lacks the capacity for criticism.
"Diversity", and valuing it is precisely not about productivity or worth and is certainly not a scoring chart for integration. It's just about not being a homogenous blob of society and taking pleasure in that.
Furunculus
10-19-2010, 12:05
it is not the governments job to enforce diversity on its citizens, which is what has happened in towns and cities up and down the land.
Perhaps I owe you a more substantive response, but I do think you are missing the point in railing against "diversity".
"Diversity", and valuing it is precisely not about productivity or worth and is certainly not a scoring chart for integration. It's just about not being a homogenous blob of society and taking pleasure in that.
When done right, but 'wanting' diversity is a form of racism, the 'how good of you!' kind. Equality should be a given, a policy of diversity rules that out. People feel best when treated with respect.
al Roumi
10-19-2010, 12:59
it is not the governments job to enforce diversity on its citizens, which is what has happened in towns and cities up and down the land.
Indeed not, how is it that the (presumably past) government has enforced diversity?
Indeed not, how is it that the (presumably past) government has enforced diversity?
They even admitted that it was active policy 'rubbing diversity in the noses of the right', exact words, googlydo
Furunculus
10-19-2010, 14:00
Indeed not, how is it that the (presumably past) government has enforced diversity?
by uncontrolled immigration leading to the ghettoisation of our immigrant populations, and the crowding out of marginal groups among the native population.
if you want to create a more cohesive and happy society, which ought to be the goal of any government, then uncontrolled immigration is exactly the wrong way to go about it.
i realise you are happy eating your cous-cous salad in the local somalian restaurant, well guess what, so am i, but there are a lot of working class people who feel marginalised in their own society and squeezed out of their own community.
that does not make a cohesive and happy society, it is that simple. end of!
al Roumi
10-19-2010, 14:52
by uncontrolled immigration leading to the ghettoisation of our immigrant populations, and the crowding out of marginal groups among the native population.
if you want to create a more cohesive and happy society, which ought to be the goal of any government, then unconctrolled immigration is exactly the wrong way to go about it.
While I might quibble on what the assumed alternative is to uncontrolled immigration (but not here), I agree that it was wishfull thinking, verging on negligence, to assume that everyone would just get along fine.
i realise you are happy eating your cous-cous salad in the local somalian restaurant, well guess what, so am i
:grin:
rory_20_uk
10-19-2010, 15:04
I have always thought that the purpose of immigration should be to try to improve the populace of the country - to gain those with the most to give in terms of skills etc, not to take in all and sundry who view it as a better option than where they currently come from by means legal or otherwise.
Coupled with the utter fear of implicit or explicit integration one ends up where we currently are.
~:smoking:
Furunculus
10-19-2010, 15:17
While I might quibble on what the assumed alternative is to uncontrolled immigration (but not here), I agree that it was wishfull thinking, verging on negligence, to assume that everyone would just get along fine.
:grin:
just so long as you don't lose sight of the most important part of what i said, the bit you forgot to quote:
but there are a lot of working class people who feel marginalised in their own society and squeezed out of their own community.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-19-2010, 15:52
"Diversity", and valuing it is precisely not about productivity or worth and is certainly not a scoring chart for integration. It's just about not being a homogenous blob of society and taking pleasure in that.
I still don't quite get it though.
The sport I like is football. Other people in the world watch cricket and nascar and baseball etc. But I don't take pleasure in the fact that football isn't the only sport that everyone watches. I watch the olympics and the world cup, and I'm glad they exist because they are fun to watch. But there's never a moment when my happiness comes from being glad that there's diversity. Same with food, music, art...so I don't understand where that pleasure comes from for you. I like what I like, other people like what they like. There's also lots of cultural practices that I think we'd be better off if they died out. Generally people are always striving to change their own culture for the better. I don't think it's different for other cultures. If drinking too much soda is a negative aspect of american culture, then it's a negative aspect of mexican culture too.
I don't think any culture is a homogeneous blob either. There's many different kinds of people in the world.
Thirdly (I think), it seems to me that culture is something that comes into existence in response to a certain situation (like how companies will work to create a certain company culture). So non-western cultures becoming westernized seems perfectly natural.
And I think it goes without saying that it would be nice if society was a homogeneous blog regarding things like the equality of women.
Not just those, it's kinda ironic but my anti-immigration blond Mozart would be nothing without immigrants. He gets a considerable amount of votes from non-ethnic Dutch
edit @ furuncules, and yay to SK
Strike For The South
10-19-2010, 16:35
I have always hoped that Germany would return to a more normal stance regarding culture and integration before serious damage was done. The country has one of the richest - and most productive - cultures in the world; a culture that has produced many - dare I say, most - of the advancements in science, industry, art, and technology that occurred during the 19th and 20th centuries. 12 years of Nazism shouldn't erase that. It is perfectly acceptable for Germans to expect immigrants to learn the language and the cultural standards. Whether Merkel brought it up for political reasons or not, it is good for Germany that she broached the subject.
While Germany was at the forefront of many achivements during this time, I think you would be remiss if you didn't point out that Germany did try to exterminate many of these people who actually achieved these things.
al Roumi
10-19-2010, 16:49
just so long as you don't lose sight of the most important part of what i said, the bit you forgot to quote:
...but there are a lot of working class people who feel marginalised in their own society and squeezed out of their own community.
Their marginalisation is a massive issue, but not one I would blame on or tie to immigration. I concede that the public eye has perhaps strayed from their plight to that of more recent arrivals to the UK, but again -that does not mean that immigrants or immigration are the cause or root of the UK's poor and their condition.
I still don't quite get it though.
Are you not interested in the world and understanding the people and things around you? I know how trite that sounds but if I'm totally honest, that's about the most basic level of "valuing diversity".
Have you ever travelled outside of the US? We can stop this conversation right here if you never have and have no interest in doing so, but that would (IMO) be a pretty sad indictement on your view of the world.
It's perfectly understandle that one might prefer familliar things, but familliar things are only so by dint of er, familliarity -built up over time. Don't you get bored of them either? On the most basic level, are you never tempted to try a different beer, just to mix things up a bit (maybe the one in the odd bottle with the strange writing)?
You don't have to take "valuing diversity" to the level of anthropology (or turning the world into a cultural zoo) but, for my part I find it fascinating to understand how and why people live in differnt ways -precisely because they are and have been affected by such a range of circumstances.
Neither do I think valuing diversity is turning one's back on one's "mother culture", to drop another cliche, you appreciate things more when you come back to them. Having a strong grounding in one's own culture also helps to contextualise another -it also gives you more to share (i.e. not just the dope or LSD I'm clearly taking to get this - far out, man).
al Roumi
10-19-2010, 17:17
While Germany was at the forefront of many achivements during this time, I think you would be remiss if you didn't point out that Germany did try to exterminate many of these people who actually achieved these things.
That's not what Himmler said! How dare you say otherwise!
Sasaki Kojiro
10-19-2010, 17:43
Are you not interested in the world and understanding the people and things around you? I know how trite that sounds but if I'm totally honest, that's about the most basic level of "valuing diversity".
Have you ever travelled outside of the US? We can stop this conversation right here if you never have and have no interest in doing so, but that would (IMO) be a pretty sad indictement on your view of the world.
It's perfectly understandle that one might prefer familliar things, but familliar things are only so by dint of er, familliarity -built up over time. Don't you get bored of them either? On the most basic level, are you never tempted to try a different beer, just to mix things up a bit (maybe the one in the odd bottle with the strange writing)?
You don't have to take "valuing diversity" to the level of anthropology (or turning the world into a cultural zoo) but, for my part I find it fascinating to understand how and why people live in differnt ways -precisely because they are and have been affected by such a range of circumstances.
Neither do I think valuing diversity is turning one's back on one's "mother culture", to drop another cliche, you appreciate things more when you come back to them. Having a strong grounding in one's own culture also helps to contextualise another -it also gives you more to share (i.e. not just the dope or LSD I'm clearly taking to get this - far out, man).
Well we are back to semantics again, but I think that's the key (it's no the trivial kind of semantics). It seems to me that the multiculturalist movement starts from what you are saying here and then by using poor language to argue for it gets itself all mixed up.
I enjoy a wide variety of things, and the anthropology type stuff is interesting (history falls into this category too I think, one of the most fascinating things about it is getting a glimpse of a different time), but none of that is valuing diversity. It's always the thing itself that's valuable. I think you take this as a trivial criticism but how is it trivial? It seems important to me to be clear on what it is we are valuing. In America we have a kind of amusing thing where in a cafeteria we might have an italian food stand, a hot dog stand, a taco stand, and then to add some "diversity" we add vietnamese food. Because pizza, hot dogs, and taco's are all american food now due to being so popular. They were valued because of their qualities as food. The appeal of diversity just seems to be that people feel good about not being western-centric or whatever it is they think is so terrible. It's akin to how they market certain products as environmentalist and people buy them for that. I feel strongly that if I am reading a book of philosophy from another culture, it should be because I want and expect to learn something that will change my life--it shouldn't be because it's different. Because if I value it just because its different then I don't care if it's true or false. But the author cared if it was true or false, he cared very much!
Well, that is why I think the semantic difference is important. One way of talking about it verbally lends itself to relativism and a purely anthropological view of other cultures. It's not my belief that all the people who call themselves multiculturalists go that route, but the language leads them that way. How we talk reflects how we think. I think the other way of talking treats other cultures on the same level that we treat our own.
al Roumi
10-19-2010, 17:53
I enjoy a wide variety of things, and the anthropology type stuff is interesting (history falls into this category too I think, one of the most fascinating things about it is getting a glimpse of a different time), but none of that is valuing diversity. It's always the thing itself that's valuable. I think you take this as a trivial criticism but how is it trivial? It seems important to me to be clear on what it is we are valuing. In America we have a kind of amusing thing where in a cafeteria we might have an italian food stand, a hot dog stand, a taco stand, and then to add some "diversity" we add vietnamese food. Because pizza, hot dogs, and taco's are all american food now due to being so popular. They were valued because of their qualities as food. The appeal of diversity just seems to be that people feel good about not being western-centric or whatever it is they think is so terrible. It's akin to how they market certain products as environmentalist and people buy them for that. I feel strongly that if I am reading a book of philosophy from another culture, it should be because I want and expect to learn something that will change my life--it shouldn't be because it's different. Because if I value it just because its different then I don't care if it's true or false. But the author cared if it was true or false, he cared very much!
Maybe the difference is that you want to know what is "true", where I'm more interested in understanding how someone else thinks something can be "true" -whether I agree with them or not. You seem to be keen to ascribe a sort of absolute value to diverse things, whereas I think that there is no absolute, especially when you consider the multiplicity of perceptions and how our own perceptions change according to experiences and exposure.
Fascinating. What tribe did you say you were from? :wink:
Sasaki Kojiro
10-19-2010, 18:07
Maybe the difference is that you want to know what is "true", where I'm more interested in understanding how someone else thinks something can be "true" -whether I agree with them or not. You seem to be keen to ascribe a sort of absolute value to diverse things, whereas I think that there is no absolute, especially when you consider the multiplicity of perceptions and how our own perceptions change according to experiences and exposure.
Fascinating. What tribe did you say you were from? :wink:
But, some things are true and some things are false. Surely our perception of something can't change what's true? It can only change things that have to do with our perceptions. It may be our perception that the sun goes around the earth, and there may be a multiplicity of perceptions about it, but there is still an absolute truth about astronomy. If you were reading Aristotle, and he argued that a certain way of life lead to happiness and not living that way led to less happiness, wouldn't you be interested in whether what he was saying was true?
al Roumi
10-19-2010, 18:41
But, some things are true and some things are false. Surely our perception of something can't change what's true? It can only change things that have to do with our perceptions. It may be our perception that the sun goes around the earth, and there may be a multiplicity of perceptions about it, but there is still an absolute truth about astronomy. If you were reading Aristotle, and he argued that a certain way of life lead to happiness and not living that way led to less happiness, wouldn't you be interested in whether what he was saying was true?
Well, for one I think there are times when many things can be true -even at the same time. Secondly, I think that -using your example of astronomy, things can be and are disproven, then replaced by another "truth".
Sasaki Kojiro
10-19-2010, 18:50
Well, for one I think there are times when many things can be true -even at the same time.
Yeeeess, 1+1=2 is true at the same time as 2+2=4 is true and so one to infinity. I don't think that's what you are talking about. But you agree that 1+1=2 is true and it is not true that 1+1=3?
Secondly, I think that -using your example of astronomy, things can be and are disproven, then replaced by another "truth".
You mean, sometimes we think something is true and it turns out it isn't? Ok. Is that a reason to doubt that the earth goes around the sun?
al Roumi
10-19-2010, 19:54
Yeeeess, 1+1=2 is true at the same time as 2+2=4 is true and so one to infinity. I don't think that's what you are talking about. But you agree that 1+1=2 is true and it is not true that 1+1=3?
The fact you are using maths to define your logic is illustrative of your absolute way of seeing things, while I'd perhaps not dare be so absolute. While obviously I'd be hard pushed to argue that 1+1.5 also equaled 2, that is kind of what I'm saying -it just depends what 1, 1.5 and 2 actually are to you. Maths is not the tool to explain this, just as its also not the best tool to use in approaching the massively complex issues of real life.
Basically, what I'm saying is that to so someone who has grown up believing in god and the bible verbatim, creation and god's existence will be "true" to them, as sure as 1+1=2. Equally, to someone who has grown up without religion -but with science, the absence of god and theory of evolution wil be "true" -also as 1+1=2 to them.
You mean, sometimes we think something is true and it turns out it isn't? Ok. Is that a reason to doubt that the earth goes around the sun?
Well, we believe something is true untill it is proved otherwise. Our opinions change -as may our beliefs, according to external circumstances, basicaly according to new information. Science is only as robust as the evidence it uses. Even then, the brain can make one individual disbelieve things in the face of what to another might be apparently overbearing evidence to the contrary.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-19-2010, 21:48
The fact you are using maths to define your logic is illustrative of your absolute way of seeing things, while I'd perhaps not dare be so absolute. While obviously I'd be hard pushed to argue that 1+1.5 also equaled 2, that is kind of what I'm saying -it just depends what 1, 1.5 and 2 actually are to you. Maths is not the tool to explain this, just as its also not the best tool to use in approaching the massively complex issues of real life.
Basically, what I'm saying is that to so someone who has grown up believing in god and the bible verbatim, creation and god's existence will be "true" to them, as sure as 1+1=2. Equally, to someone who has grown up without religion -but with science, the absence of god and theory of evolution wil be "true" -also as 1+1=2 to them.
I am using: true
you are using: "true"
But those are not the same. Saying that it is
"true" to them
Is just another way of saying they believe it. So what you said is that someone who believes in god believes in god, and someone who believes that 1+1=2 believes that 1+1=2. And as you say, someone may believe that 1+1.5 =2. But that is false.
Basically I am talking about truth, and you are talking about belief, except you call belief "truth". Don't do that.
1+1=2 is a standard example of something that is true. I used it not because I'm not aware that human situations are more complex, but rather because I'm still not sure whether you think it is true or not. Truth is different from perception or belief. When I get my eyes checked and they show me the list of letters, I may perceive an F as an E. But the truth is that it is an F. I may believe it is an E. But the truth is that it is an F. And I don't think the scaling is that drastic into human situations. I may perceive that someone is insulting me, and I may believe it, but the truth can be that they weren't insulting me. I don't think you have any grounds for claiming that the difficult is impossible.
Well, we believe something is true untill it is proved otherwise. Our opinions change -as may our beliefs, according to external circumstances, basicaly according to new information. Science is only as robust as the evidence it uses. Even then, the brain can make one individual disbelieve things in the face of what to another might be apparently overbearing evidence to the contrary.
Yes.
al Roumi
10-19-2010, 22:30
1+1=2 is a standard example of something that is true. I used it not because I'm not aware that human situations are more complex, but rather because I'm still not sure whether you think it is true or not. Truth is different from perception or belief. When I get my eyes checked and they show me the list of letters, I may perceive an F as an E. But the truth is that it is an F. I may believe it is an E. But the truth is that it is an F. And I don't think the scaling is that drastic into human situations. I may perceive that someone is insulting me, and I may believe it, but the truth can be that they weren't insulting me. I don't think you have any grounds for claiming that the difficult is impossible.
:laugh: yes I do believe 1+1=2, don't worry! I do also agree that absolute truth is very different to belief, hence my trying to demonstrate that two apparently simple but radicaly opposing equations can, to humans, appear as simple a truth as 1+1=2. Numbers are clean of the dross of reality.
The reason I am ambiguous about truth is that in reality, the occasions where we master complete information - and would hence be able to determine the absolute truth, are scarce. This means that when we bandy around terms like truth or fact in real life, we are actually talking more about a perception based on a quantity of information -which is itself perhaps not accurate and hence unfounded.
This has completey gone over into the territory of the current thread "a lie", but anyhoo.
gaelic cowboy
10-19-2010, 22:38
:laugh: yes I do believe 1+1=2, don't worry! I do also agree that absolute truth is very different to belief, hence my trying to demonstrate that two apparently simple but radicaly opposing equations can, to humans, appear as simple a truth as 1+1=2. Numbers are clean of the dross of reality.
The reason I am ambiguous about truth is that in reality, the occasions where we master complete information - and would hence be able to determine the absolute truth, are scarce. This means that when we bandy around terms like truth or fact in real life, we are actually talking more about a perception based on a quantity of information -which is itself perhaps not accurate and hence unfounded.
This has completey gone over into the territory of the current thread "a lie", but anyhoo.
In any situation where one or more of the parties involved has incomplete information that still does not make there reasoning or beliefs true for whatever they are doing or thinking.
Some years back we would use asbestos to fireproof a house because we had incomplete information we felt it had no health risk this was still wrong even though we did not know it.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-19-2010, 22:56
:laugh: yes I do believe 1+1=2, don't worry! I do also agree that absolute truth is very different to belief, hence my trying to demonstrate that two apparently simple but radicaly opposing equations can, to humans, appear as simple a truth as 1+1=2. Numbers are clean of the dross of reality.
The reason I am ambiguous about truth is that in reality, the occasions where we master complete information - and would hence be able to determine the absolute truth, are scarce. This means that when we bandy around terms like truth or fact in real life, we are actually talking more about a perception based on a quantity of information -which is itself perhaps not accurate and hence unfounded.
This has completey gone over into the territory of the current thread "a lie", but anyhoo.
Well lets jump back to this threads topic. I mentioned as an example reading Aristotle not just because of the interesting other culture but because he might have ideas that were true and I might learn some truth from reading them. His questions "what is virtue" etc are not as clear cut as 1+1. But you said you weren't interested in whether what he said was true. Why not? Nothing you've said about truth since then has explained it. In fact, the more complicated it is to get close to the truth the more I think you'd want to read philosophers with that end in mind.
Rhyfelwyr
10-19-2010, 23:25
someone may believe that 1+1.5 =2. But that is false.
Or do you just believe it to be false?
Tellos Athenaios
10-20-2010, 00:02
Well as with all Mathematical proofs: either they are correct, or the axioms from which they derive do not hold. For an “impossible” scenario wherein it is possible that all natural numbers are in fact equal to 21:
There's this village with a barber shop.
All the village's men are shaved.
All the men who do not shave themselves are shaved by the barber from the barber's shop.
The barber is one of the village's men.
If you can find this village it follows that 0 = 21, 1 + 1= 21, etc. etc.
al Roumi
10-20-2010, 10:40
Well lets jump back to this threads topic. I mentioned as an example reading Aristotle not just because of the interesting other culture but because he might have ideas that were true and I might learn some truth from reading them. His questions "what is virtue" etc are not as clear cut as 1+1. But you said you weren't interested in whether what he said was true. Why not? Nothing you've said about truth since then has explained it. In fact, the more complicated it is to get close to the truth the more I think you'd want to read philosophers with that end in mind.
I didn't (and wouldn't) say I am I not interested in absolute truth or not, ultimately I guess through wider experiences and learning of other views I'd hope to catch glimpses of it. What I was saying above is that (perhaps given the rarity of absolute truth), I am more interested in understanding how someone else might hold something to be true, which to me might be false. Why is this thing a truth for them? Why isn't it a truth for me? What are the conditions that lead us to our differening positions? Who is to say that one or the other is correct? Which is the truer truth?
Does anyone have a rope ladder? Only I seem to have disapeared up the [Place of little Sunshine] of philosophy and would like to get out now. No, frankly I couldn't give a [substance commonly associated with Place of little Sunshine] if that is true or not.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-20-2010, 16:04
I didn't (and wouldn't) say I am I not interested in absolute truth or not, ultimately I guess through wider experiences and learning of other views I'd hope to catch glimpses of it. What I was saying above is that (perhaps given the rarity of absolute truth), I am more interested in understanding how someone else might hold something to be true, which to me might be false I don't believe. Why is this thing a truth for them do they believe it? Why isn't it a truth for me don't I believe it? What are the conditions that lead us to our differening positions? Who is to say that one or the other is correct? Which is the truer truth?
Fixed :stare:
I think I've said that why people go wrong in their thinking is interesting, but mostly because it helps you find out what the truth is (which is more interesting). And you said you would hope to "catch glimpses of it through diverse ideas" which means you sort of agree, although I don't know why you don't pursue it directly.
But I don't think the approach of "well this is true to this culture, but not true to me" is a good way to approach it. It lends itself to sticking with your current beliefs. If their idea isn't true to you, if it's just kinda relative, why change your mind in any radical way? But if you don't just value diversity, and approach say, buddhism, with the idea that it is either a good way of life or not, then you may very well reject it (how intolerant?) but you actually give yourself more of a chance of embracing it. Because you are treating seriously buddhism's claim that your beliefs are false.
Vladimir
10-20-2010, 16:20
2+2=1
1+1=1
al Roumi
10-20-2010, 17:25
I think I've said that why people go wrong in their thinking is interesting, but mostly because it helps you find out what the truth is (which is more interesting). And you said you would hope to "catch glimpses of it through diverse ideas" which means you sort of agree, although I don't know why you don't pursue it directly.
But I don't think the approach of "well this is true to this culture, but not true to me" is a good way to approach it. It lends itself to sticking with your current beliefs. If their idea isn't true to you, if it's just kinda relative, why change your mind in any radical way? But if you don't just value diversity, and approach say, buddhism, with the idea that it is either a good way of life or not, then you may very well reject it (how intolerant?) but you actually give yourself more of a chance of embracing it. Because you are treating seriously buddhism's claim that your beliefs are false.
:grin: I'm not sure it IS about changing my mind, although I have adopted habits or beliefs from others. It is good to experience things and "expand horizons" but perhaps more important than affecting the latest fad is an appreciation of why and how things are different for other people.
al Roumi
10-20-2010, 17:41
EDIT: double post? weird.
I think I've said that why people go wrong in their thinking is interesting, but mostly because it helps you find out what the truth is (which is more interesting). And you said you would hope to "catch glimpses of it through diverse ideas" which means you sort of agree, although I don't know why you don't pursue it directly.
But I don't think the approach of "well this is true to this culture, but not true to me" is a good way to approach it. It lends itself to sticking with your current beliefs. If their idea isn't true to you, if it's just kinda relative, why change your mind in any radical way? But if you don't just value diversity, and approach say, buddhism, with the idea that it is either a good way of life or not, then you may very well reject it (how intolerant?) but you actually give yourself more of a chance of embracing it. Because you are treating seriously buddhism's claim that your beliefs are false.
:grin: I'm not sure it IS about changing my mind, although I have adopted habits or beliefs from others. It is good to experience things and "expand horizons" but perhaps more important than affecting the latest fad is an appreciation of why and how things are different for other people.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-20-2010, 18:29
What are you referring to with "affecting the latest fad"?
And what is "an appreciation of how and why things are different for other people"? Is that appreciation as in understanding? And what are the things that are different?
I find your use of words confusing...are you saying "it's important to understand why people believe things" or "it's important to acknowledge and respect the beliefs that other people have because they are equally valid".* The latter is multiculturalist so I assume you mean that. But I have just been arguing against that and saying that the truth is primary, and that when we treat it as such we respect other people more, and are less comfortable in our own beliefs.
*You word things in such a way that it implies both. But the second implication gets all of its apparent credibility from the truth of the first. Stated on its own it is not credible. It's the same think you do by using the word truth in quotation marks, and using "true for them" in place of "belief". Don't do that.
al Roumi
10-20-2010, 23:08
the same think you do by using the word truth in quotation marks, and using "true for them" in place of "belief". Don't do that.
I'll give you a better answer to the rest in the morning. I've not responded to this so far but why is it you dislike (I assume) my truth as perception/belief? You are kidding yourself if you think there is a practical absolute truth to everything. That sits at the very core of why people have different opinions in the first place. Are you going to insist that it is true that god exists or not? How on earth could you prove it either way! Much more, how could you persuade someone of the oppsoite opinion that they are wrong?
Sasaki Kojiro
10-21-2010, 02:56
I'll give you a better answer to the rest in the morning. I've not responded to this so far but why is it you dislike (I assume) my truth as perception/belief? You are kidding yourself if you think there is a practical absolute truth to everything. That sits at the very core of why people have different opinions in the first place. Are you going to insist that it is true that god exists or not? How on earth could you prove it either way! Much more, how could you persuade someone of the oppsoite opinion that they are wrong?
I dislike your use of the word truth when you mean belief because truth is importantly different from belief. You also seem to use "absolute truth" in place of "truth". Why must I expect there to be an absolute truth to everything if I don't think truth is the same as belief? I think that reworded properly this would read "why do you think some things are true"? But you yourself think many things are true.
Belief is when you hold that a certain proposition is true. So you see why it is bad to conflate the two? If we substitute your definition, it becomes "belief is when someone believes something" which isn't really a definition.
Now, are you claiming that the reason people have different beliefs is because there is no truth about certain questions? Why don't you just think that they have different beliefs because that particular truth is hard to find? For example, think about any historical question. What started the trojan war? Was it like homer described it? Historians have a wide variety of beliefs about these questions. But it can't be doubted that the events truly happened in a certain way.
One last thing, the two suggestions you make at the end are something I think it is important to cast off. It is not about proving, it is about giving the best reason we can. Should we give up on anything that we can't be absolutely certain about? And it is not important whether someone of the opposite opinion would be convinced. Could you convince someone who believed that the external world was an illusion that he was wrong? Possibly. But if you couldn't it wouldn't say much about whether the external world is an illusion.
al Roumi
10-21-2010, 13:41
In the context of multiculturalism and diversity, I am indeed talking about beliefs. Belief, which to all intents and purposes, seems like truth to the person who holds it. In this I mean things where the worth of an outcome -and hence the truth of the maxim, are defined by desirability of said outcomes. The desirability itself is defined by personal or cultural values. So in the case of abortion, we have two staunchly opposed camps divided by their valuation of the possible consequences of abortion (lets not get into those!).
I am not talking about truth in the sense of irrefutable evidence, I am talking about cultural norms and values -the very interest I have in diversity.
I take your point that (forgive the paraphrasing) "appreciation without proper examination does not lead to progress", but that's also not the point. Multiculturalism, as I said at the beginning, is about different people and cultures living alongside and with each other -with tolerance wrought from mutual understanding. It is not about social engineering in the sense of cherry-picking the best of a range of cultures to create an "uber-society" -which is where I understood you saw the value of such an exercise.
Perhaps winding back to your very first post in this thread, there certainly are disucssions to be had when trying to reconcile opposing cultural values, e.g. the role of women in society. No satisfactory outcome to such conflicts will happen without a measure of mutual understanding.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-21-2010, 17:24
In the context of multiculturalism and diversity, I am indeed talking about beliefs. Belief, which to all intents and purposes, seems like truth to the person who holds it. In this I mean things where the worth of an outcome -and hence the truth of the maxim, are defined by desirability of said outcomes. The desirability itself is defined by personal or cultural values. So in the case of abortion, we have two staunchly opposed camps divided by their valuation of the possible consequences of abortion (lets not get into those!).
I am not talking about truth in the sense of irrefutable evidence, I am talking about cultural norms and values -the very interest I have in diversity.
I think you have to say "cultural norms and values" then. Although values is a bad word as well. Because it implies that it is good. So, "cultural norms" seems best.
You say that:
1) The worth* of an outcome
2) the truth of a maxim (?)
Are defined by the desirability. But that is only true for things that are purely a matter of taste. As in, if I like dill pickles and you like bread and butter. Or "in my culture we stand 2 feet away when talking, in yours 4 feet away". But many (most?) things that we would call cultural norms aren't purely matters of taste. And those are the things people care about the most. The truth of whether abortion is wrong is not determined by cultural norms. But that seems to be the conclusion you reach when you conflate truth and belief.
I take your point that (forgive the paraphrasing) "appreciation without proper examination does not lead to progress", but that's also not the point. Multiculturalism, as I said at the beginning, is about different people and cultures living alongside and with each other -with tolerance wrought from mutual understanding. It is not about social engineering in the sense of cherry-picking the best of a range of cultures to create an "uber-society" -which is where I understood you saw the value of such an exercise.
Perhaps winding back to your very first post in this thread, there certainly are disucssions to be had when trying to reconcile opposing cultural values, e.g. the role of women in society. No satisfactory outcome to such conflicts will happen without a measure of mutual understanding.
I don't think multiculturalism is just tolerance from understanding. There is more their ideologically. It is the acceptance or promotion of other cultures for the sake of diversity. I have already described the problems with that.
I don't think it's about creating an uber society? :inquisitive:
But simply (as you bring up) it would be better if society was homogeneous in their acknowledgment of certain truths about how women should be treated. And so on. Why do you think opposing cultural values have to be reconciled? Some of them have to be stamped out, and don't require mutual understanding to do so, just the long arm of the law--think about "cultural values" as you call them that promote wife beating. I think it is only after talking in such a way that conflates truth with belief that you end up with a mental schema that puts basic morals in a relativistic framework like that.
*worth is another word like "values". It implies universality, but you are using it relatively.
***********************
Basically alh, there are three general ways to respond to a group of people with beliefs other than your own. You can say:
1) that's right, I was wrong
2) not important/matter of taste/live and let live
3) that's wrong
Multiculturalism focuses too much on #2. It replaces judgment of other cultures with a moral principle that they are simply to be tolerated, and it's reasoning for that is the claim that it is just a matter of belief anyway.
I think many people see it as a choice between multiculturalism and racism and xenophobia, unfortunately. They are right to argue that not discouraging other cultures simply because they aren't our own is important, and it's quite true in a modern state diversity should not be tampered with without good reason. But since it is primarily a moral position and not a philosophical one, it leads to a bad ideology. Very often when people are quite sure they are correct about a moral issue they reason about it badly.
Meh we have a cancer in our society and it's called islam. The absolute majority of christians and gays who fled to my swamp are intimidated and physically assaulted by people who want nothing but peace, people who are so disrespected that robbing grannies and harassing young white women is just cause and effect. It is, people from 100% neighbourhoods know that. Getting really tired of this. And my boy is on trial. Get. the. hell. out. this. is. the. Netherlands.
gaelic cowboy
10-25-2010, 15:17
Meh we have a cancer in our society and it's called islam Religon.
Fixed
Fixed
True of course but there is still the much bigger problem, the Islamphilae of the left. The left adores anything Islam because they feel and know they should, social exclusion hurts a lemming, they jump for the dhimmi of the year award every second they feed on taxes.
al Roumi
10-25-2010, 16:26
True of course but there is still the much bigger problem, the Islamphilae of the left. The left adores anything Islam because they feel and know they should, social exclusion hurts a lemming, they jump for the dhimmi of the year award every second they feed on taxes.
snore.
snore.
It's normal that gutmensch simply disregards the reasons behind the rise of the populist right. I hope the gutmensch keeps doing that. Gutmensch still don't understand the trouble gutmensch is in, way too elitist for comprehensiblity of the situation.
al Roumi
10-25-2010, 17:17
It's normal that gutmensch simply disregards the reasons behind the rise of the populist right. I hope the gutmensch keeps doing that. Gutmensch still don't understand the trouble gutmensch is in, way too elitist for comprehensiblity of the situation.
Gosh that sounds a lot like Golum.
Gosh that sounds a lot like Golum.
Ah, personally again, don't even try. I will completely destroy you in any effort, you can't you simply aren't smart enough. Try it, and I will prove it.
Strike For The South
10-25-2010, 17:43
It's normal that gutmensch simply disregards the reasons behind the rise of the populist right. I hope the gutmensch keeps doing that. Gutmensch still don't understand the trouble gutmensch is in, way too elitist for comprehensiblity of the situation.
One can simultaneously acknoweldge the reasons behind the rise while agreeing the cutting off an already estranged minority group is perhaps not the best way to go.
Simply because one does not buy into your view of apocolyptic muslim cultural genocide in the bastion of culture that is Holland does not mean one is ignorant or lacking sufficent foresight.
They could just be disagreeing
Simple disagreement would be lovely, setting up the climate for murder isn't. The left kills whatever it doesn't like, they have done it before and they will keep doing it. Pim Fortuyn wasn't the first, Janmaat was, he lived but his wife was paralysed in a leftist terrorist attack. As if that wasn't enough the permit to build an escalator for his now legless wife was refused by the 100% activist city council. Absolute sadistic trash. At the time, I was howling with the wolves, being 10 and all that, I thought she had it comming. Still remember the day my activist teacher at basic-school felt the need to :daisy: my skull on why this party was all wrong, my ears still bleed.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-26-2010, 00:36
In the context of multiculturalism and diversity, I am indeed talking about beliefs. Belief, which to all intents and purposes, seems like truth to the person who holds it. In this I mean things where the worth of an outcome -and hence the truth of the maxim, are defined by desirability of said outcomes. The desirability itself is defined by personal or cultural values. So in the case of abortion, we have two staunchly opposed camps divided by their valuation of the possible consequences of abortion (lets not get into those!).
I am not talking about truth in the sense of irrefutable evidence, I am talking about cultural norms and values -the very interest I have in diversity.
I take your point that (forgive the paraphrasing) "appreciation without proper examination does not lead to progress", but that's also not the point. Multiculturalism, as I said at the beginning, is about different people and cultures living alongside and with each other -with tolerance wrought from mutual understanding. It is not about social engineering in the sense of cherry-picking the best of a range of cultures to create an "uber-society" -which is where I understood you saw the value of such an exercise.
Perhaps winding back to your very first post in this thread, there certainly are disucssions to be had when trying to reconcile opposing cultural values, e.g. the role of women in society. No satisfactory outcome to such conflicts will happen without a measure of mutual understanding.
Truth is a philosophical absolute, it exists in only one form, the correct one. Perception of truth is what you are talking about.
If you don't believe in absolute truth then you flat out don't believe in Truth, the word has not meaning for you.
In terms of multiculturalism this is important, without Absolute Truth any culture is equally valid in any circumstance provided they are considered beneficial to the one subscribing to them.
If you do believe in Absolute Truth then all cultures are measured against that Truth, or you best guess of what it is, and some are found more wanting than others.
From this we can see that Multiculturalism is litterally a proposition without value - so we can reject it as philosophically useless.
Meh after reading about the hardships of an Egyptian gay who had to flee the islam only to find it here as well, it isn't just bad it's hell. Multiculture isn't dead, nobody means the Asians or the Hindu's after all. It are the arabs, they belong in the middle-east we don't have any desert to dust of, living in a modern civilisation is just too confusing.
It are the arabs, they belong in the middle-east we don't have any desert to dust of, living in a modern civilisation is just too confusing.
Thanks. Should I pick my stuff up now or do you want me to leave tomorrow?
Thanks. Should I pick my stuff up now or do you want me to leave tomorrow?
Depends on how much you ask, if that is too much it would be right now
Vladimir
10-26-2010, 12:58
Meh after reading about the hardships of an Egyptian gay who had to flee the islam only to find it here as well, it isn't just bad it's hell. Multiculture isn't dead, nobody means the Asians or the Hindu's after all. It are the arabs, they belong in the middle-east we don't have any desert to dust of, living in a modern civilisation is just too confusing.
That's a bit harsh. You understand they invented agriculture, law, and the first cities, right?
That's a bit harsh. You understand they invented agriculture, law, and the first cities, right?
lolwut, arabs didn't invent anything they conquered places where there was inventiion.There is no real contribution only camels and swords.
Depends on how much you ask, if that is too much it would be right now
Don't be nonsensical. I'm an Arab, at least partially.
You are saying that Arabs can't live in a modern society? Take the United States, for example. In 1999, the median annual income of one Arab-American family was $47,000, compared to a general $42,000. In 2009 the median annual income is $59,012 compared to a general $59,029, and that is counting the influx of people coming from the wartorn regions in the Middle-East. Arab-Americans are one of the most well-integrated people in the United States.
lolwut, arabs didn't invent anything they conquered places where there was inventiion.There is no real contribution only camels and swords.
Hey, it's Thomas d'Aquinas on the phone, he wants to have a word with you about a certain Al-Farabi.
Apoligies, was no ad hominum, go too far at times.
It's not me I'm worried about, I don't feel particularly attached to my Arabicity (I made that word up), but I don't think Arabs can't live in a modern society. Hell, look at Jordan. They're going in the right direction, as far as I can see.
al Roumi
10-26-2010, 15:51
Truth is a philosophical absolute, it exists in only one form, the correct one. Perception of truth is what you are talking about.
Yes.
If you don't believe in absolute truth then you flat out don't believe in Truth, the word has not meaning for you.
Quite. And again, where have I given you (and Sasaki) the impression I don't believe in absolute truth? My divergence from absolute truth to perceived truth is because cultural and social beliefs (perceived truths) are too complex/biased to be absolute.
In terms of multiculturalism this is important, without Absolute Truth any culture is equally valid in any circumstance provided they are considered beneficial to the one subscribing to them.
If you do believe in Absolute Truth then all cultures are measured against that Truth, or you best guess of what it is, and some are found more wanting than others.
Only if you measure cultures against each other. As I am at pains to explain, multiculturalism is not about measuring one culture or society against another. It is about mutual toleration based on understanding and negotiation.
From this we can see that Multiculturalism is litterally a proposition without value - so we can reject it as philosophically useless.
Whatever. If your purpose IS to blend cultures and identities into the best composite, then clearly multiculturalism is useless. My point is that that is not what multiculturalism is for -nor is it why its proponents like it!
Strike For The South
10-26-2010, 16:06
lolwut, arabs didn't invent anything they conquered places where there was inventiion.There is no real contribution only camels and swords.
There are 2 things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other peoples culture and the Dutch
al Roumi
10-26-2010, 16:24
There are 2 things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other peoples culture and the Dutch
:bow: Nigel Powers.
There are 2 things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other peoples culture and the Dutch
It's better to be known than liked, and everybody loves the Dutch or at least tries to, but everybody has an opinion on this pocket-superpower regardless. Holland pwns Texas by a landslide in coolness
Vladimir
10-27-2010, 22:20
:bow: Nigel Powers.
It's better to be known than liked, and everybody loves the Dutch or at least tries to, but everybody has an opinion on this pocket-superpower regardless. Holland pwns Texas by a landslide in coolness
Step back; breathe...
Strike For The South
10-28-2010, 16:25
It's better to be known than liked, and everybody loves the Dutch or at least tries to, but everybody has an opinion on this pocket-superpower regardless. Holland pwns Texas by a landslide in coolness
lol.
The only reason people know your country exists is because whores and smack are legal
One trick pony much?
The only reason people know your country exists is because whores and smack are legal
And they're planning to end that, too. Thinking of moving to Belgium, or France.
lol.
The only reason people know your country exists is because whores and smack are legal
One trick pony much?
You know it's true, it just doesn't get any more awesome. You are immediately everybody's best friend. Except in Belgium. And Texas probably but I mean common, at least Egypt decorated their desert with awesome pyramids.
rory_20_uk
10-29-2010, 10:24
I think that many others have legal or semi-legal positions on both of those issues, but first to market matters - Vaigra is not the best treatment out there, but it's the one everyone knows.
~:smoking:
I think that many others have legal or semi-legal positions on both of those issues, but first to market matters - Vaigra is not the best treatment out there, but it's the one everyone knows.
~:smoking:
Stupid example as viagra isn't cool, although I do understand it comes to mind naturally when discussing Texas market-technically. I still call fail.
Tellos Athenaios
10-29-2010, 12:55
I thought Viagra is Canadian for exports?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-29-2010, 23:26
That's a bit harsh. You understand they invented agriculture, law, and the first cities, right?
No, that was the Assyrians and Summarians, both groups conquered by the Arabs after the coming of Islam.
The Stranger
10-30-2010, 00:34
multiculturalism has always been more like pan culturalism...
Rhyfelwyr
10-30-2010, 20:12
You know it's true, it just doesn't get any more awesome. You are immediately everybody's best friend. Except in Belgium. And Texas probably but I mean common, at least Egypt decorated their desert with awesome pyramids.
If anyone wants to deck themselves in orange and come marching down my street, they are welcome anytime!
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-30-2010, 22:09
Yes.
Quite. And again, where have I given you (and Sasaki) the impression I don't believe in absolute truth? My divergence from absolute truth to perceived truth is because cultural and social beliefs (perceived truths) are too complex/biased to be absolute.
Only if you measure cultures against each other.
If you have accepted the above then some cultures are morally and practically better than others. So measuring them is not only possible, it is also litterally a philosopgical imperative.
As I am at pains to explain, multiculturalism is not about measuring one culture or society against another. It is about mutual toleration based on understanding and negotiation.
Whatever. If your purpose IS to blend cultures and identities into the best composite, then clearly multiculturalism is useless. My point is that that is not what multiculturalism is for -nor is it why its proponents like it!
As I said, multiculturalism doesn't work - as has been demonstrated time and again.
Rhyfelwyr
10-30-2010, 23:49
Maybe you could argue that multiculturalism does have some philosophical use in terms of promoting some absolute truths, since the value of peace that comes from harmony between different cultures is greater than the conflict that would be caused by allowing inferior cultures to be assimilated.
For example, when people feel their way of life is under threat, they often take it to an extreme to protect their identity. And this polarisation is what gives us Wahhabis and Jihadists etc.
Just a thought, couldn't leave without arguing with you PVC. :tongue2:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-31-2010, 01:44
Maybe you could argue that multiculturalism does have some philosophical use in terms of promoting some absolute truths, since the value of peace that comes from harmony between different cultures is greater than the conflict that would be caused by allowing inferior cultures to be assimilated.
For example, when people feel their way of life is under threat, they often take it to an extreme to protect their identity. And this polarisation is what gives us Wahhabis and Jihadists etc.
Just a thought, couldn't leave without arguing with you PVC. :tongue2:
Except.... not everyone shares our Christian desire to see man in a state of universal peace and love.
Such cultures must be struck down with righteous fury!
Ahem.
Sorry, I had a medieval moment there.
Still, India would be a much more miserable place today were it not for Western interference.
For example, when people feel their way of life is under threat, they often take it to an extreme to protect their identity. And this polarisation is what gives us Wahhabis and Jihadists etc.
Just a thought, couldn't leave without arguing with you PVC. :tongue2:
Nope, only ignorance does that.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-31-2010, 13:11
Nope, only ignorance does that.
I dissagree, one can feel threatened because of one's ignorance but ultimately it is the percieved threat, not the ignorance, that provokes the violent reaction.
Although, the New Atheists are pretty ignorant about Christianity and violently oppose it - so I suppose you do have a corralation in fact.
Although, the New Atheists are pretty ignorant about Christianity and violently oppose it - so I suppose you do have a corralation in fact.
How so? Violent no disrespectful yes, imho you should just deal with that, asking me to alter my daily business out of respect for your imaginary friends is much more intrusive than mocking said intrusion could ever be.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-31-2010, 18:03
How so? Violent no disrespectful yes, imho you should just deal with that, asking me to alter my daily business out of respect for your imaginary friends is much more intrusive than mocking said intrusion could ever be.
Not physically violent, but if you look at the invective that Dawkins, "religion is the cause of most wars" Hitches "religion ruins everything" or Pullman "I want to destroy the foundation of Christianity" you get the distinct impression this is more than just reasoned dislike, or even disdain.
Do you not think?
Not physically violent, but if you look at the invective that Dawkins, "religion is the cause of most wars" Hitches "religion ruins everything" or Pullman "I want to destroy the foundation of Christianity" you get the distinct impression this is more than just reasoned dislike, or even disdain.
Do you not think?
Obvious attacks, but I agree with them, and they can go in with a stretched leg I don't mind really
Still, India would be a much more miserable place today were it not for Western interference.
In the eyes of people from the West, yeah, and I agree. However, Muslim Indian scholars viewed the British raj as the Dar al-Harb.
Anything non-islamic can be that, it means 'house of war', land of unbelievers.
Anything non-islamic can be that, it means 'house of war', land of unbelievers.
I'm quite aware, thank you very much. I must correct you however, land of unbelievers is "dar al-kufr", meaning (literally) "house of the non-believers.
However, several Islamic scholars (especially from Persia) have said that a non-Shari'a state can very well be a dar al-salaam.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-31-2010, 21:23
In the eyes of people from the West, yeah, and I agree. However, Muslim Indian scholars viewed the British raj as the Dar al-Harb.
Non sequitur.
I'm quite aware, thank you very much. I must correct you however, land of unbelievers is "dar al-kufr", meaning (literally) "house of the non-believers.
However, several Islamic scholars (especially from Persia) have said that a non-Shari'a state can very well be a dar al-salaam.
Don't bs me I know my stuff, it simply means territory not yet under islam.
Non sequitur.
I don't know, it might be very important.
Since there apparently is a problem with Islam?
EDIT: Also, hey look, a self-describing post!
Rhyfelwyr
10-31-2010, 21:59
Nope, only ignorance does that.
This ignores the reactionary nature of almost every extreme political/social movement.
How so? Violent no disrespectful yes, imho you should just deal with that, asking me to alter my daily business out of respect for your imaginary friends is much more intrusive than mocking said intrusion could ever be.
With you 100%, atheists should be free to hate on me all they like and I should be free to be a Bible-bashing lunatic. If I hear one more person talk about the importance of 'respect' between different people then I will go and pimp-slap the **** out of them. I feel the urge to pimp-slap people a lot these days... :pimp:
'Respect' is one of those buzzwords the left likes to use to guilt-trip everyone into thinking like them and loving the people they do. There is no force more unstoppable or followed so blindly than "leftist moral outrage", my favourite term that I havent' used for a whlie now.
I hear people talking a lot about Christians moralising but I don't see it, it always seems to be a leftie that has to find something to be offended about. And worse they have to control everyone so that they can't offend them.
Bear in mind though, these are the attitudes not just of actual lefties, but also the centre-right. They're going to start pushing me to the old-style "far-right" as it is inappropriately called if things continue...
Furunculus
10-31-2010, 22:32
With you 100%, atheists should be free to hate on me all they like and I should be free to be a Bible-bashing lunatic. If I hear one more person talk about the importance of 'respect' between different people then I will go and pimp-slap the **** out of them. I feel the urge to pimp-slap people a lot these days... :pimp:
'Respect' is one of those buzzwords the left likes to use to guilt-trip everyone into thinking like them and loving the people they do. There is no force more unstoppable or followed so blindly than "leftist moral outrage", my favourite term that I havent' used for a whlie now.
this is why i prefer the ye olde' english ideal of; "Does it really matter what these affectionate people do — so long as they don’t do it in the streets and frighten the horses!"
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mrs_Patrick_Campbell
don't interfere with my life, and i won't interfere in yours.
Don't bs me I know my stuff, it simply means territory not yet under islam.
Don't be silly now. The Muzzies Muslims themselves can hardly agree on what constitutes "dar al-salaam", "dar al-harb" and "dar al-kufr". It's not something you, especially not you or me in that respect can pinpoint. Besides, it's not even a term from the Qur'an or Hadiths, but something a 13th century scholar made up to divide the world neatly into a world of non-believers and believers when it was important, military. You know, with the Mongols and all that?
Don't be silly now. The Muzzies Muslims themselves can hardly agree on what constitutes "dar al-salaam", "dar al-harb" and "dar al-kufr". It's not something you, especially not you or me in that respect can pinpoint. Besides, it's not even a term from the Qur'an or Hadiths, but something a 13th century scholar made up to divide the world neatly into a world of non-believers and believers when it was important, military. You know, with the Mongols and all that?
Goes further back it's a core principle, bit like it was for the coralignans to devide the world into this and that, but that was then and now is now anyway. No such thing as burning witches in the bible, but it happened anyway.
Goes further back it's a core principle, bit like it was for the coralignans to devide the world into this and that, but that was then and now is now anyway.
Oh no, no, no. The concept of dar al-Islam was something of a vague term until the 13th century scholar Abu Hanifa.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-01-2010, 12:40
Obvious attacks, but I agree with them, and they can go in with a stretched leg I don't mind really
Agreeing with them is one thing, hurling hatred and bile at a significant proportion of the population because they don't agree with you is not healthy. In fact, believing religion is "evil" or that religious beliefs "cause evil" is also unhealthy, because it assumes that, up until no more than 200 years ago pretty much everyone and everything was motivated by evil.
That's a Renaissance prejudice against the "ignorant" people of the past, it's a form of cultural self-hate, and it is inacurate.
So, it can't really be seen as intellectually very healthy.
Can it?
Oh no, no, no. The concept of dar al-Islam was something of a vague term until the 13th century scholar Abu Hanifa.
Your wrong, from the beginning there was the house of war 'Dar al Harb' and 'Dar al Islaam'. Don't know if it came from Abu Hanifa, but I do know he lived 500 years earlier. I think you are confused with the age of humanism where there was discussion on changing it to 'Dar al Salaam' and 'Dar al Kaffir'
@PVC I understand what you are saying, some will kick a man when he's down and you don't deserve such contempt. But did you ever have someone at your door trying to convince you of atheism, or saw atheist protests against a shop that's open on a certain day, 'you' limit me more yhan vica versa. I'm an atheist but I don't hate religious people, I just think it's silly.
al Roumi
11-01-2010, 13:08
If you have accepted the above then some cultures are morally and practically better than others. So measuring them is not only possible, it is also litterally a philosopgical imperative.
So you would measure these cultures on what scale? The scale of how western and liberal they are? Their technological creativity? Wealth? How much they value religion and how devout they are? How they treat strangers? How they treat women? How they treat the weak?
Please do provide me with an absolute measure for the "worth" of a culture, which can be disambiguated from any cultural values themselves -and hence not dictated by your own personal valuation of things.
Louis VI the Fat
11-01-2010, 13:40
So you would measure these cultures on what scale? The scale of how western and liberal they are? Their technological creativity? Wealth? How much they value religion and how devout they are? How they treat strangers? How they treat women? How they treat the weak?
Please do provide me with an absolute measure for the "worth" of a culture, which can be disambiguated from any cultural values themselves -and hence not dictated by your own personal valuation of things.Which culture do you deem morally superior:
A) Democratic Germany
B) Nazi Germany
I shall spare you from providing a list on just which aspects A is better than B, and suffice with the observation that if one accepts that one is better than the other, then one is not an absolute cultural relativist.
Your wrong, from the beginning there was the house of war 'Dar al Harb' and 'Dar al Islaam'. Don't know if it came from Abu Hanifa, but I do know he lived 500 years earlier. I think you are confused with the age of humanism where there was discussion on changing it to 'Dar al Salaam' and 'Dar al Kaffir'
Not Dar al-Islam, dar al-Salaam. Although the root of both Islam and Salam are the same, the meaning is somewhat more elusive. And it did not come from Abu Hanifa, but from Ibn Taymiyyah, who did indeed live in the thirteenth century.
The concepts existed, certainly, but what did and did not constitute dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb wasn't made clear until the thirteenth century, when it (apparently) became vital for Muslim states to survive. Interestingly, this can be correlated with the end of the Islamic Golden Age.
Seeing how the principles of dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb weren't built during Muhammad's lifetime, but rather during a time of political turmoil is very important when it comes to the designation of the West in the eyes of the Islamic world.
al Roumi
11-01-2010, 14:07
Which culture do you deem morally superior:
A) Democratic Germany
B) Nazi Germany
I shall spare you from providing a list on just which aspects A is better than B, and suffice with the observation that if one accepts that one is better than the other, then one is not an absolute cultural relativist.
Of course, as a liberal lefty A, but that it is MY OPINION, because I value some of what A has over B according to my own personal valuation of things. But now that you've asked me, why don't you ask Panzerjaeger*, for instance? Or, someone whom might identify with the far right?
Your post is the equivalent of asking a six year old who likes sweets but not cauliflower, whether they would prefer sweets or cauliflower. This isn't quite the elegant fencing I'm used to from you Louis :dizzy:
*picked only because I assume (possibly quite incorrectly, in which case I appologise in advance) that you might have a different opinion to Louis and msyelf in this.
al Roumi
11-01-2010, 14:26
The concepts existed, certainly, but what did and did not constitute dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb wasn't made clear until the thirteenth century, when it (apparently) became vital for Muslim states to survive. Interestingly, this can be correlated with the end of the Islamic Golden Age. ...and slap bang in the middle of the period of greatest threat to Muslim states by foreign aggression and occupation -crusades/outre-mer and the Mongols (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Mongol_alliance) (who were to a degree Nestorian Christians).
The Qu'ran being written during Mohammed's is controversial, and the Hadith being written after his death is an absolute certainty, dates are not terribly important unless you let someone live 500 years after he did. No it's very much Dar al-Islaam and that can be interpreted as Dar al-Salaam (no need for war in the House of Islam, lotsa infighting for historical perspective, things were falling apart) with which islamist reformers tried to replace it with, somewhere in the period you mention.
Louis VI the Fat
11-01-2010, 14:43
Of course, as a liberal lefty A, but that it is MY OPINION, because I value some of what A has over B according to my own personal valuation of things. But now that you've asked me, why don't you ask Panzerjaeger*, for instance? Or, someone whom might identify with the far right?
Your post is the equivalent of asking a six year old who likes sweets but not cauliflower, whether they would prefer sweets or cauliflower. This isn't quite the elegant fencing I'm used to from you Louis :dizzy:
*picked only because I assume (possibly quite incorrectly, in which case I appologise in advance) that you might have a different opinion to Louis and msyelf in this.Really? Is it only a personal opinion - like a preference of sweets over cauliflower - whether or not six million Jews should be exterminated?
Do you accept any morality at all?
If you happen upon a fourteen year old girl, who fell of her bicycle, is there moral equivalence between the man who calls an ambulance then lends her his cellphone to call her parents, and the man who drags her into nearby bushes, abuses her, then murders her to destroy the evidence of his act?
Even if current post-modern philosophy can pinpoint neither absolute truths nor morals, absolute moral relativism is a practical dead end. Resenment of absolutes, of people and ideologies claiming absolute truths should not mean one should fall for the trap of going the other extreme, to deny any morality or truth at all.
Rhyfelwyr
11-01-2010, 14:48
How is all this stuff about medieval Musims scholars directly relevant to us today anyway? Isn't it like arguing Christianity today is a threat because of the Crusades?
How is all this stuff about medieval Musims scholars directly relevant to us today anyway? Isn't it like arguing Christianity today is a threat because of the Crusades?
Sure but the history of the Islamic world just happens to be fascinating and discussing it is always fun. Of course it's irrelevant but we are on page 6 most OT has been said.
How is all this stuff about medieval Musims scholars directly relevant to us today anyway? Isn't it like arguing Christianity today is a threat because of the Crusades?
It is directly relevant in that Muslim scholars continuously refer to past scholars and events to justify their fatwas and stuff like that.
It is directly relevant in that Muslim scholars continuously refer to past scholars and events to justify their fatwas and stuff like that.
Why should we care about any of that? Screw their fatwas, it's not relevant to us we have different laws. I don't care if it upsets them. The more upset the better really when it comes to Islam, the sooner they are used to seeing Mohammed being raped by a donkey the better (disclaimer non-Dutch won't understand this). Puts getting the finger over something trivial gently in perspective.
al Roumi
11-01-2010, 15:46
Christianity today is a threat because of the Crusades?
Ahem, that's more or less EXACTLY what Al Qaida say... Or at least they point to the crusades and say "see, there is precendent! What the Christians are doing now is the same -more crusading".
How is all this stuff about medieval Musims scholars directly relevant to us today anyway?
Well, it's pretty relevant to Muslims because much in Islam looks back to the prophet. The Hadith is (in some ways) essentially a book to help you live your life like he did.
Ahem, that's more or less EXACTLY what Al Qaida say... Or at least they point to the crusades and say "see, there is precendent! What the Christians are doing now is the same -more crusading".
So what?
Sasaki Kojiro
11-01-2010, 16:03
Of course, as a liberal lefty A, but that it is MY OPINION, because I value some of what A has over B according to my own personal valuation of things.
Are you admitting though (after our earlier discussion) that it is either true or not? Your claim is just that you don't know whether it is true or not.
Vladimir
11-01-2010, 16:13
No, that was the Assyrians and Summarians, both groups conquered by the Arabs after the coming of Islam.
It's just another layer on the cake. We're all like that.
You're saying that Egyptians didn't build the pyramids.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-01-2010, 16:43
It's just another layer on the cake. We're all like that.
You're saying that Egyptians didn't build the pyramids.
No, it isn't because the Egyptians actually built those Pyramids (they aren't Arabs either, btw), the Arabs themselves didn't invent agriculture, law or cities, they took all those things from other people. The primary Arab invention is Islam, along with a few forms of curved sabre that might actually come from the Greeks originally anyway.
Saying the Arabs invented agriculture is rather like saying the Romans invented geometry.
They still came up with the greatest mathematic invention ever, the number zero, and in consequence algorithms. To give the arabs no credit at all.. Assyrians and Sumerians were also conquerors they didn't invent it, they were pretty developed already.
Rhyfelwyr
11-01-2010, 17:32
Why does it matter what 'race' invented what? It's not like we would suddenly have to view Islam more highly just because Arabs poineered civilisation. The Koran is pretty much just a plagiarisation of the Bible anyway.
al Roumi
11-01-2010, 17:43
Really? Is it only a personal opinion - like a preference of sweets over cauliflower - whether or not six million Jews should be exterminated?
How else would you explain Hitler and a good part of the Nazi party holding such views? Surely they formed their opinions that this was a “good” thing to do in the same way as you and I have arrived at the contrary position –through experience and reflection based on a framework of values.
Do you accept any morality at all?
If you happen upon a fourteen year old girl, who fell of her bicycle, is there moral equivalence between the man who calls an ambulance then lends her his cellphone to call her parents, and the man who drags her into nearby bushes, abuses her, then murders her to destroy the evidence of his act?
Even if current post-modern philosophy can pinpoint neither absolute truths nor morals, absolute moral relativism is a practical dead end. Resentment of absolutes, of people and ideologies claiming absolute truths should not mean one should fall for the trap of going the other extreme, to deny any morality or truth at all.
Of course I personally "accept morality" and naturally concur with the intended sense of your exposes. However, I recognise that to those with opinions as strongly held as my own, the truth of their derived beliefs is as great to them as mine is to me.
Yet, I also recognise that in practice, society must work out a way to accommodate these differing views for the greater good. I kept banging on about mutual understanding etc because that is the only thing that allows two conflicting views to begin to be peaceably reconciled; and tolerance because where possible, its easier just to live and let live.
I concede that by such reasoning, even such issues as equality of race, sex etc are questioned –but so they are throughout the world today, and so they have been throughout history. For example, it is fruitless and almost meaningless for people to state things like “human rights are universal” when they quite patently are not universally considered to be so in significant proportions of the world.
Tellos Athenaios
11-01-2010, 17:49
They still came up with the greatest mathematic invention ever, the number zero, and in consequence algorithms. To give the arabs no credit at all.. Assyrians and Sumerians were also conquerors they didn't invent it, they were pretty developed already.
No, the number zero comes from Indians (or at least first well known use of it). And you can have algorithms without zero. However 0 and 1 are exceedingly important in unifying frameworks in mathematics.
But Rhyfelwyr is right: none of these inventions have the remotest bearing on the cultural relevance/superiority of the various Arab nations today.
al Roumi
11-01-2010, 17:57
Why does it matter what 'race' invented what? It's not like we would suddenly have to view Islam more highly just because Arabs poineered civilisation.
:grin: because some of the members of this august forum are culturaly chauvinist. Following the earlier comments about India being better for British rule, it is certainly true that Britain is even better off for having ruled India, and indeed christendom for the crusades and outre-mer.
The Koran is pretty much just a plagiarisation of the Bible anyway.
..and considers its lineage rather important.
al Roumi
11-01-2010, 18:04
So what?
Well, while the west may have moved on to the point where "crusade" just means a concerted effort to do something, it still basicaly means "religious war against us" to some Muslims. So it's relevant to them and so is indirectly relelvant to you, as you probably wouldnt have so much to post about if some Muslims were not so sensitive about external attack.
No, the number zero comes from Indians (or at least first well known use of it). And you can have algorithms without zero. However 0 and 1 are exceedingly important in unifying frameworks in mathematics.
OK but surely shoarma, with garlic-sause, damned tasty
al Roumi
11-01-2010, 19:01
Are you admitting though (after our earlier discussion) that it is either true or not? Your claim is just that you don't know whether it is true or not.
I'm questioning the certainty that there is an absolute truth on the matter. There is no independant or mutually agreed arbiter, no absolute scale to measure belief/perceived truth in A or B against. Both parties are equally convinced by their own logic and reasoning that their belief/perceived truth is correct and the other unfounded.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-01-2010, 19:33
I'm questioning the certainty that there is an absolute truth on the matter. There is no independant or mutually agreed arbiter, no absolute scale to measure belief/perceived truth in A or B against. Both parties are equally convinced by their own logic and reasoning that their belief/perceived truth is correct and the other unfounded.
Well, obviously there is no mutually agreed arbiter. And "absolute scale" draws to mind the image of a giant ruler. But this is all beside the point. I thought we had got over the idea that people disagreeing make it so that there is no truth about the matter.
If hitler's reasoning is:
1) the jews made germany lose WWI and are responsible for the current economic situation, etc.
2) such people deserve extermination
3) therefore they should be exterminated
It is obvious that if (1) is false than he is wrong, regardless of whether he is convinced of his logic and reasoning. You are supporting a much broader conclusion than you claimed to earlier. Your argument fits better to claiming that we can't know whether (2) is true or false, which has been much more debated in philosophy than whether (1) can be true or false. You agree that Hitler can be absolutely wrong about the Jews having caused Germany to lose WWI, etc.
But you have not made a case for the claim that we can't know moral facts. You have only said that we disagree and then talked about how it is better for society if we tolerate ideas we disagree with. That is separate from whether there are moral facts or not.
Would you say for example that we can't know whether it is wrong to murder innocent children for fun? That it's just our opinion etc?
I have the very frustrating suspicion that your going to say something like "oh yes well of course there are moral facts like that old chap, but obviously it's chauvinist to expect all cultures to have the same moral ideas about food" and then a week later you'll be talking about how you don't know whether the holocaust was wrong again.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
11-01-2010, 19:46
And we still blaming today's generation of Germans for their ancestor's mistakes for what reason again? :inquisitive:
Oh, because they don't like having Muslims in their nation? Because they want people to learn German when they move to Germany?
Well if you are moving to the US, I expect you to learn English.
The Stranger
11-01-2010, 19:51
1) is not a moral fact it is an empirical fact.
so if 1) is wrong than hitler would be wrong for persecuting the jews, because his reasoning would be flawed, he would not be morally wrong, atleast that is still debatable.
of 2) it is the question whether it is objectively true or whether it is an opinion. (the fact that people disagree indeed doesnt mean there arent moral facts, it only means that it is hard or impossible to determine whether there are and if there which there are.)
The Stranger
11-01-2010, 19:54
And we still blaming today's generation of Germans for their ancestor's mistakes for what reason again? :inquisitive:
Oh, because they don't like having Muslims in their nation? Because they want people to learn German when they move to Germany?
Well if you are moving to the US, I expect you to learn English.
who is we?
and why do you expect someone learn english if he moves to the us?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-01-2010, 23:16
They still came up with the greatest mathematic invention ever, the number zero, and in consequence algorithms. To give the arabs no credit at all.. Assyrians and Sumerians were also conquerors they didn't invent it, they were pretty developed already.
No, the number zero comes from Indians (or at least first well known use of it). And you can have algorithms without zero. However 0 and 1 are exceedingly important in unifying frameworks in mathematics.
But Rhyfelwyr is right: none of these inventions have the remotest bearing on the cultural relevance/superiority of the various Arab nations today.
According to wiki zero is first mentioned by a Persian about 950 AD *shrug*. As you say though, it has no bearing today.
How else would you explain Hitler and a good part of the Nazi party holding such views? Surely they formed their opinions that this was a “good” thing to do in the same way as you and I have arrived at the contrary position –through experience and reflection based on a framework of values.
Values which assumed a subsection of humanity was worthless, that was wrong, and I think it's a judgment you can make absolutely.
Of course I personally "accept morality" and naturally concur with the intended sense of your exposes. However, I recognise that to those with opinions as strongly held as my own, the truth of their derived beliefs is as great to them as mine is to me.
This to me sounds like you not being willing to stick to your guns, rather than a coherent philosophical position. At the end of the day you can't call me a "cultural chauvanist" because I dissagree with pointless ritual murder.
According to wiki zero is first mentioned by a Persian about 950 AD *shrug*. As you say though, it has no bearing today.
Who, al-Khwarizmi? Yeah, Persian. And Muslim, at that.
I mean, Persian, Arab, Berber, I don't care. It has no bearing today, certainly, but then there are also people who say that "the Islamic golden age did not exist, it were all non-Muslims who did all the work", which is about as bad as saying that only Muslims did anything.
al Roumi
11-03-2010, 18:22
Well, obviously there is no mutually agreed arbiter. And "absolute scale" draws to mind the image of a giant ruler. But this is all beside the point. I thought we had got over the idea that people disagreeing make it so that there is no truth about the matter.
It isn't beside the point, this IS my point. You are consistently trying to talk about something else.
If hitler's reasoning is:
1) the jews made germany lose WWI and are responsible for the current economic situation, etc.
2) such people deserve extermination
3) therefore they should be exterminated
It is obvious that if (1) is false than he is wrong, regardless of whether he is convinced of his logic and reasoning. You are supporting a much broader conclusion than you claimed to earlier. Your argument fits better to claiming that we can't know whether (2) is true or false, which has been much more debated in philosophy than whether (1) can be true or false. You agree that Hitler can be absolutely wrong about the Jews having caused Germany to lose WWI, etc.
1 is wrong if you can provide him with evidence to counter his reasoning that jews were "the problem", but it would not obviate his underlying anti-semitism. You would not counter his anti-semitism, I think that animosity runs deaper than macro-economic explanations.
But you have not made a case for the claim that we can't know moral facts. You have only said that we disagree and then talked about how it is better for society if we tolerate ideas we disagree with. That is separate from whether there are moral facts or not.
Would you say for example that we can't know whether it is wrong to murder innocent children for fun? That it's just our opinion etc?
I have the very frustrating suspicion that your going to say something like "oh yes well of course there are moral facts like that old chap, but obviously it's chauvinist to expect all cultures to have the same moral ideas about food" and then a week later you'll be talking about how you don't know whether the holocaust was wrong again.
My point is that while we may have the moral fact that the holocaust was "wrong", others didn't -and don't. Why? Simply because they have a different moral scale or valuation -that could be to do with acceptance of the methods of genocide for use against a perceived enemy, or anti-semitism. This is what makes it impossible to assume that morality is uniform accross cultures. While you've picked an extreme example, I'm sure cultures could and have existed where murdering children for fun is acceptable.
I'm also not saying that everything is ok to me as long as its cultural! Rather, while I or you might disagree with something, it could well be ok to someone else because their culture tolerates or values it. Furthermore, because that agreement/disagreement is based on culturaly determined values, it is not a matter where there is an absolute measure of truth to either position -so neither party is legitimised in simply saying that the other is "wrong".
In the case of the holocaust, don't you think the victor has set the moral argument, and that had the victor been different, our views on the holocaust and Adolf might be rather different than despisal?
Sasaki Kojiro
11-03-2010, 19:59
It isn't beside the point, this IS my point. You are consistently trying to talk about something else.
Your point is something that is irrelevant? I don't think you mean that. Talk of mutually agreed arbiters (sounds like a person) and giant rulers in the sky is what's beside the point. Their lack of existence is what's beside the point, because they are not required for us to be able to say that something is wrong. All we need is an understanding of language, reasoning ability, and human feelings.
1) someone betrays us out of meanness, we have a human feeling about it
2) We understand what the word "wrong" means, because we understand how words get meanings and know that the definitions can't be made up by someone with no regard to that
3) We see that given the meaning of wrong and how we felt earlier, that person was wrong and we would be too if we did it
Fill in all of the other things that all of the non-sociopathic people with intact reasoning skills and an understanding of language agree on...eg killing our children for fun.
btw, as a pre-posting this note, my sincere belief is that you are simply using language incorrectly, nothing about sociopathy or reasoning skills. You can see how our disagreement stems from you defining morality differently. Yours seems to be "things taught by a childs parents" while mine generally follows the above framework. I think even rules that are told to children they learn through that experience. Don't you? Don't you think you have the ability to break away from a cultural rule that offends your senses and reason?
1 is wrong if you can provide him with evidence to counter his reasoning that jews were "the problem", but it would not obviate his underlying anti-semitism. You would not counter his anti-semitism, I think that animosity runs deaper than macro-economic explanations.
The point was simply that some moral conclusions are based on facts about the world that even you would agree can be wrong...and that people will often stop believing their conclusion in that case. You were painting with too broad a brush.
My point is that while we may have the moral fact that the holocaust was "wrong", others didn't -and don't. Why? Simply because they have a different moral scale or valuation -that could be to do with acceptance of the methods of genocide for use against a perceived enemy, or anti-semitism. This is what makes it impossible to assume that morality is uniform accross cultures. While you've picked an extreme example, I'm sure cultures could and have existed where murdering children for fun is acceptable.
I'm also not saying that everything is ok to me as long as its cultural! Rather, while I or you might disagree with something, it could well be ok to someone else because their culture tolerates or values it. Furthermore, because that agreement/disagreement is based on culturaly determined values, it is not a matter where there is an absolute measure of truth to either position -so neither party is legitimised in simply saying that the other is "wrong".
But some of them are wrong. You are claiming that people (including you) can't be wrong about these things. But all you offer as an argument is repetition of the claim that they disagree, in gussied up language. You equivocate a lot, for example:
"I'm sure cultures have existed where murdering children for fun is acceptable"
Disregarding the fact that this is a bizarre claim to start with...it would never have been acceptable. Accepted is the word you are looking for--it just states a fact about how people treated it. The word you used says that not only did they treat it that way, they were not wrong to do so.
You say that moral facts are things that someone can "have", but would be more appropriate for beliefs. Facts are something you know. Two people can have contradictory beliefs but they can't know contradictory facts.
You talk about "different moral scales" which implies equal validity (like celsius vs fahrenheit or something) when in fact all we have again is disagreement.
You say we can't assume that "morality is uniform across cultures" but here you are using morality in the descriptive sense--all you are saying once again is that people disagree. This says nothing about morality in the prescriptive sense.
You say it could be "ok to someone else...because their culture values it" which implies that it is alright for them to believe it, but all you say is that they do in fact believe it.
Oh and one whopper of a falsehood at the end where you claim the disagreement is based on cultural values. How on earth do you think our conception of morality has changed so drastically over time? It's because we base it on our feelings and reasoning.
Basically at this point I'm just going to say, believe whatever it is you want to believe but talk about it plain language. Say "culture A believes one thing and culture B believes another" ok? And then if you want to argue that neither can be right, do so, don't fiddle with the English language to avoid it. Morality is something about which there are no facts, this is a claim you are making. Widespread disagreement is not evidence that there are no facts. You have to explain why words don't mean what the fluent speakers of the language say they mean--how they have a secret philosophical true meaning. I hope at least that even though you still disagree you can get that you aren't really arguing, just stating basics with a heavy dose of implication.
At least then our posts will be shorter :beam:
In the case of the holocaust, don't you think the victor has set the moral argument, and that had the victor been different, our views on the holocaust and Adolf might be rather different than despisal?
Speak for yourself :shrug:
They would have to have a hardcore indoctrination program to achieve a significant amount of people around the world believing what they did wasn't wrong. You have a scary view of the power of culture over the human mind. Are my views about the hiroshima bombings set by the fact that the US was on the winning side? How about the bombings of dresden? Japanese internment camps? How does the world feel about that today?
al Roumi
11-04-2010, 18:07
WARNING! WALL OF TEXT
Your point is something that is irrelevant? I don't think you mean that. Talk of mutually agreed arbiters (sounds like a person) and giant rulers in the sky is what's beside the point. Their lack of existence is what's beside the point, because they are not required for us to be able to say that something is wrong. All we need is an understanding of language, reasoning ability, and human feelings.
There is cross cultural difference in reasoning. An absolute or impartial means of measurement is needed to ensure equal understanding across cultural divides. Otherwise, without a mutually understood and appreciated scale or set of rules, people just talk past each other (as I suspect we have been doing for a good while now).
1) someone betrays us out of meanness, we have a human feeling about it
2) We understand what the word "wrong" means, because we understand how words get meanings and know that the definitions can't be made up by someone with no regard to that
3) We see that given the meaning of wrong and how we felt earlier, that person was wrong and we would be too if we did it
Fill in all of the other things that all of the non-sociopathic people with intact reasoning skills and an understanding of language agree on...eg killing our children for fun.
btw, as a pre-posting this note, my sincere belief is that you are simply using language incorrectly, nothing about sociopathy or reasoning skills. You can see how our disagreement stems from you defining morality differently. Yours seems to be "things taught by a childs parents" while mine generally follows the above framework. I think even rules that are told to children they learn through that experience. Don't you? Don't you think you have the ability to break away from a cultural rule that offends your senses and reason?
Yes and no, you are talking about harm, which is not always a determinant of cultural value. There are people oppressed in any society, they feel harm every day, their culture still accepts it –even perpetuates it. The individual who even feels harmed will often also accept it because it is the norm in their culture.
The point was simply that some moral conclusions are based on facts about the world that even you would agree can be wrong...and that people will often stop believing their conclusion in that case. You were painting with too broad a brush.
I’m sorry to be the punctilious but you’re not setting a great example to follow. This “broad brush” is a continuation of your own strokes, I was following your own example –or more accurately, Louis’.
But some of them are wrong. You are claiming that people (including you) can't be wrong about these things. But all you offer as an argument is repetition of the claim that they disagree, in gussied up language. You equivocate a lot, for example:
"I'm sure cultures have existed where murdering children for fun is acceptable"
Disregarding the fact that this is a bizarre claim to start with...it would never have been acceptable. Accepted is the word you are looking for--it just states a fact about how people treated it.
Acceptable – to that culture. 50 points to Sasaki.
When you say “some of them are wrong”, you mean that [b]YOU think some of them are wrong. That does not make them wrong in a universal sense, just because you say they are.
The word you used says that not only did they treat it that way, they were not wrong to do so.
EXACTLY. Human societies can and do include a massive range of values and behaviors which can, when contrasted, appear utterly bizarre to one another. Yet, each will be “right” or accepted by its own culture, while denigrated by the other. Who is to say which one is more right than the other? We in the modern West think slavery is wrong, yet it was an integral part of many societies and cultures for eons. We can call it wrong all we like, contemporaries would no doubt not share such views. Please don’t fall for the hubris that we are better than our predecessors, different –yes.
You say that moral facts are things that someone can "have", but would be more appropriate for beliefs. Facts are something you know. Two people can have contradictory beliefs but they can't know contradictory facts.
You talk about "different moral scales" which implies equal validity (like celsius vs fahrenheit or something) when in fact all we have again is disagreement.
Disagreement, based on contrary cultural beliefs is rarely zero sum. This is why I am banging on about different moral scales, as two such scales (as with Celsius and Fahrenheit) will each measure the same behavior (temperature) with different but confusable outcomes, i.e. 30 degrees –which as you’ll agree means something quite different in Celsius than in Fahrenheit. The difference of opinion is caused by how each “scale” or culture interprets the behavior –the analogy being the equations at the heart of each scale and the interplay of values held by given cultures.
You say we can't assume that "morality is uniform across cultures" but here you are using morality in the descriptive sense--all you are saying once again is that people disagree. This says nothing about morality in the prescriptive sense.
By the “prescriptive sense”, do you mean a culturally prescribed value (which would be, to all intents and purposes identical to a culturally derived value) or a culture prescribing a value on others? :shrug:
You say it could be "ok to someone else...because their culture values it" which implies that it is alright for them to believe it, but all you say is that they do in fact believe it.
What I am saying is that they are entitled to believe whatever they do, that no other culture is independently certifiable as better or worse than another, and so no culture has the legitimacy (beyond that which it awards itself) to accuse another of wrong doing/immorality.
Oh and one whopper of a falsehood at the end where you claim the disagreement is based on cultural values. How on earth do you think our conception of morality has changed so drastically over time? It's because we base it on our feelings and reasoning.
So you are trying to say that morality is a personal thing, determined by an individual’s feeling and reasoning? I have to agree with this to an extent, but I think you are, and you show it elsewhere, unaware or blind to the effect of the wider culture of which you are a member. You would have to be a hermit for your morality and values to be purely defined by personal experience. Do you not think your culture, embodied by people around you, have shaped your own morals and values in any way?
Basically at this point I'm just going to say, believe whatever it is you want to believe but talk about it plain language. Say "culture A believes one thing and culture B believes another" ok? And then if you want to argue that neither can be right, do so, don't fiddle with the English language to avoid it. Morality is something about which there are no facts, this is a claim you are making. Widespread disagreement is not evidence that there are no facts. You have to explain why words don't mean what the fluent speakers of the language say they mean--how they have a secret philosophical true meaning. I hope at least that even though you still disagree you can get that you aren't really arguing, just stating basics with a heavy dose of implication.
At least then our posts will be shorter
I am opining that cultural perceptions create a multiplicity of views on a given subject, each derived by reasoning, but differentiated in their outcomes by the variables that are cultural values. Furthermore, I am saying that no single culture is more “correct” than another, as the measures of correctness are determined by that same culture’s values. Yes, this is self deterministic but unless you have recognition of shared values across cultures, there can be no mutually recognized comparison.
In the case of the holocaust, don't you think the victor has set the moral argument, and that had the victor been different, our views on the holocaust and Adolf might be rather different than despisal?
Speak for yourself
They would have to have a hardcore indoctrination program to achieve a significant amount of people around the world believing what they did wasn't wrong. You have a scary view of the power of culture over the human mind. Are my views about the hiroshima bombings set by the fact that the US was on the winning side? How about the bombings of dresden? Japanese internment camps? How does the world feel about that today?
I’m a little flabbergasted. Don’t you think openness, liberty and freedom for self analysis are cornerstones of western democratic culture? Might your world view and values not be different were you Iranian, Russian or Chinese?
Also, can’t you see how your own education from birth to adulthood is a (benign?) form of cultural indoctrination?
Sasaki Kojiro
11-04-2010, 19:24
My fundamental issue here is that you never bridge the gap between describing how different people disagree and concluding that there is no truth about the matter. It is as if I describe all the different views of whether the greeks attacked troy, and then conclude that there is no truth about whether they attacked troy. I would have a big gap in my argument, right? My point with most of that post is that the language you use gives the illusion of that gap being covered (e.g. "acceptable" states your conclusion but is barely different from "accepted" which is the description).
The question of whether morality is culturally determined you answer by defining morality as something that is culturally determined--you would say something like "these rules are an integral part of past societies, there are many different views". But that assumes a definition of morality to start with.
The only direct argument I remember you offering (apologies if I'm forgetting) was a kind of prudential, pragmatic argument that it is better to treat the moral beliefs of other cultures as equally valid so that we can understand and live together. But "it's better to treat" is not the same as "they are".
Your argument against moral facts is that there is no external scale, which is a decent argument I think. It certainly shows that some moral rules are relative. But it doesn't show that all are, or that the important ones are.
I'm objecting to your implied definition of morality. The words we have in our language that have to do with morality came into usage referring to something definite, not relative. It's fundamental to the definition of morality that it refers to facts. That is how we treat it and how we think about it, which is why people independently change their mind about what they believe is moral. And that's where the meaning of words come from. It is not something that can be changed on a whim. Up cannot mean down. I cannot define "my opinion" as "the truth" and then claim that because I believe something, it is true. I cannot say that a brave action is cowardly. And that is what relativism does with morals.
Understand that you can take a moral realist position, and argue that burkha's should not be banned (reenk made very good arguments in that fashion). And in fact if you don't adopt the moral realist position you cannot argue intelligibly against the ban. Because it would be belgium's culture in which it is then moral to ban the burkha. You would be reduced to saying "I don't like that, for no rational reason", or "bah!".
I just feel like the combination of the ambiguous language you use, the fact that some rules are different in different cultures, and the fact that you see it as the only way to treat other cultures with respect rather than being xenophobic is a very powerful bias for you towards a faulty philosophical position. But it's quite possible that you can argue coherently for every belief you have about other cultures from the moral realist position. Perhaps it is a moral truth that cultures must respect each other's rules 95% of the time, with exceptions for killing innocent children for fun, at which point they have an obligation to intervene.
Ah there's my boy (our blonde fury) , Merkel hat angst. Of course, you don't try to destroy someone (Sarrazin) only to declare multiculturalism dead two weeks later, such 180's we call opportunism. The populist right can't be stopped you idiots nobody is buying the hypocrisy of such newly aquired insights. Besides it's bull I'm perfectly happy in my multcultural society we get along fine when the illusion of 100% succes isn't active policy, political correctness is dead rest in pieces, no thanks to you you plumb eastblock work-horse. Step aside we don't need you. When you declare something dead you admit it's existane, you go girl
Edit good show you two by the way, that's a gentleman's sport
The Stranger
11-08-2010, 13:23
@sasaki:
you ask all_p to explain why (and perhaps even prove that) there no moral facts. And while it is true that you cannot conclude from the empirical fact that people disagree about their moral beliefs that there are no objective moral facts (aka that there is no truth when it comes to morals) it is equally untrue that you can conclude from the empirical fact that people have moral beliefs (belief a to be good and b to be bad) that there are moral facts (that when person x beliefs a and person z beliefs b, and a and b contradict, that only one of them can be true). It is still the question whether the laws of logic apply to morals, because, amongst others, there is a possibility that morals are fundamentally illogical.
so my question to you is, please explain why you believe (and perhaps prove that) there are moral facts.
The Stranger
11-08-2010, 13:28
Ah there's my boy (our blonde fury) , Merkel hat angst. Of course, you don't try to destroy someone (Sarrazin) only to declare multiculturalism dead two weeks later, such 180's we call opportunism. The populist right can't be stopped you idiots nobody is buying the hypocrisy of such newly aquired insights. Besides it's bull I'm perfectly happy in my multcultural society we get along fine when the illusion of 100% succes isn't active policy, political correctness is dead rest in pieces, no thanks to you you plumb eastblock work-horse. Step aside we don't need you. When you declare something dead you admit it's existane, you go girl
Edit good show you two by the way, that's a gentleman's sport
actually not. when you declare something dead, you declare that it has existed, if you take it 100% serious. but what she probably does is declare the idea of multiculturalism dead, in the same way that people have declared the idea of god dead (they thereby did not admit that he had ever existed), they do admit that the idea has existed.
What she couldve done also is say that multiculturalism doesn't exist and has never existed, but that would make too many people angry :P so she slightly phrased it differently and said almost exactly the same (if multiculturalism has ever existed it doesnt exist anymore = multiculturalism is dead)
When Nietszsche declared god dead it was a metaphore for the comming end of an era, he never believed in a god, it's the practise of worship that he declared dead. Such is the same here but Merkel deserves no credit for it she's an opportunist taking a populist stand for damage control.
The Stranger
11-08-2010, 14:37
When Nietszsche declared god dead it was a metaphore for the comming end of an era, he never believed in a god, it's the practise of worship that he declared dead. Such is the same here but Merkel deserves no credit for it she's an opportunist taking a populist stand for damage control.
so.. basically we say the same thing again only you have to add a (moral) judgment to the matter :P and cmon... declaring the death of ideas and such, everyone does it nowadays. art is dead, the artist is dead blablabla... its neither shocking nor innovating.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-08-2010, 17:30
@sasaki:
you ask all_p to explain why (and perhaps even prove that) there no moral facts. And while it is true that you cannot conclude from the empirical fact that people disagree about their moral beliefs that there are no objective moral facts (aka that there is no truth when it comes to morals) it is equally untrue that you can conclude from the empirical fact that people have moral beliefs (belief a to be good and b to be bad) that there are moral facts (that when person x beliefs a and person z beliefs b, and a and b contradict, that only one of them can be true). It is still the question whether the laws of logic apply to morals, because, amongst others, there is a possibility that morals are fundamentally illogical.
so my question to you is, please explain why you believe (and perhaps prove that) there are moral facts.
Because killing innocent children for fun is wrong, by the definition of "wrong". The analogy I would make is to say that there are facts about what color the sky is, because the sky is blue, by definition. There are not facts about how happy the sky is by contrast, because of what it is that the word "sky" refers to.
Well, it's a two part argument which I kind of jumbled together here. One part is a semantic argument, about whether moral statements are things that can be true or false. The other part is that some such statements are true, and I don't think that alh would disagree that my example is one of those true statements if they accepted the semantic part. Actually I really doubt that "whether there are moral facts" is what we are disagreeing about. I think it is whether any moral facts are universal, with alh claiming that in some cultures it would not be thought wrong to X, and then concluding that it isn't wrong to X in that culture. That relies upon a different definition of wrong.
I think your issue is a broader one of "when are we justified in believing something"? And arises similarly in response to other sophistical claims like "there is no mind independent world".
The Stranger
11-08-2010, 18:46
Because killing innocent children for fun is wrong, by the definition of "wrong". The analogy I would make is to say that there are facts about what color the sky is, because the sky is blue, by definition. There are not facts about how happy the sky is by contrast, because of what it is that the word "sky" refers to.
actually i disagree, for a few reasons. let me first start with the obvious and then work my way to the less obvious reason, which i also find hard to explain in english so i hope that you can forgive me if i make some mistakes or become incoherent.
1. it doesnt follow from the definition of the sky that it is blue. however there are facts about the color of the sky because it is a fact that the sky has a color. However in order to determine what color the sky has we have to go outside and determine the color. Therefore "the sky is blue" is a synthetic a fortiori statement. Unlike the statement that "all bachelors are unmarried" which is a analytic a priori statement because it adds no new information and we do not need experience to tell us that "all bachelors are in fact unmarried". These first type of facts are empirical facts, they are facts about the world and can be determined to be true or not only for so far they appear in the world. If there was no sky in the world, then it could not have a color, and it couldnt be blue. The second type of facts are a different type of facts, because even if the world would have no bachelors it would still be true that all bachelors are unmarried.
2. It doesnt follow from the definition of wrong that "killing innocent children for fun" is wrong. It follows from the definition of wrong that when you believe something to be wrong that you disagree with it. It follows from the definition of square that all sides are equal, and its interior angles are all right angles (90°). From this it follows that the opposite sides are also parallel. But nothing about the definition of square says that the square has to be blue. Yet it is a fact that there are squares which are blue, it is not a fact that all squares are blue. It follows from the definition of innocent that one who is innocent has done nothing evil/morally wrong, but if doesnt follow from the definition of innocent that it is wrong to kill someone who is innocent.
3. while it is a fact that there are people who believe that it is wrong to kill innocent children for fun, it doesnt follow from that that it is a fact that killing innocent children for fun is wrong.
analogy
it is a fact that people disagree about their morals, but it doesnt follow from that fact that it is also a (empirical, not to be mistaken with moral) fact that there are no (moral) facts in morals
analogy
you can not derive a moral rule from a empiral fact.
–adjective
1.
not in accordance with what is morally right or good: a wrong deed. (in this case something is "wrong" if it is not in accordance with one's morals, nothing about it states what these morals must be)
2.
deviating from truth or fact; erroneous: a wrong answer. (and again it doesnt say anything about "killing for fun is wrong".)
however i think what we need to establish first is this, in the case that there would be moral facts, what kind of facts would they be? most people would say that they are metaphysical facts, but perhaps you are a moral realist and you would say that they are empirical facts and they can be determined by experiment.
if you believe morals to be metaphysical you cant use the scientific method in order to determine whether one moral statement is wrong and the other is not. if you believe morals to be empirical than you can, but that gives rise to a whole different set of problems such as, how to we recognise moral facts etc etc
Sasaki Kojiro
11-08-2010, 20:46
I think you are right that I was misusing the phrase "...by definition". What I was trying to get at was this--when we first had the urge to call things wrong or immoral (and when we have it today) we have in mind something in the real world. If we were to win a race and the prize was given to someone else, we would call it unfair, and that's where the word comes from. That makes the meaning of "unfair" pretty solid. The person giving the prize would clearly by factually incorrect if they said "it may be "fair to you" that the fastest runner gets the 1st place prize, but according to me it is fair to give it to my son".
So what I was suggesting then was that "killing innocent children for fun" is a paradigm case of something that is wrong. Similar to how being burnt by fire is a paradigm case of something that is painful. That since our conception of pain and fairness and wrongness are built off of such cases, they have to be discussed in that framework. To do otherwise is use the same words but act like they refer to something different, which is why I said that about definition. And I think this shows that moral claims are things that can be true or false. What you are talking about is a different problem. For example, astrological claims are things that can be true or false, but they fail at being factual. So it becomes the much tougher question of when we are justified in believing something.
I don't think anyone would argue that we aren't justified in believing something is painful (even though some people may be tougher or less sensitive than others). But I think that is because it is not at all a confusing topic. Whereas morality is something that people can become confused about, and thus there is widespread disagreement. But I generally agree with the SEP's summary:
Some moral realists argue that the disagreements, widespread as they are, do not go very deep—that to a significant degree moral disagreements play out against the background of shared fundamental principles with the differences of opinion regularly being traceable to disagreements about the nonmoral facts that matter in light of the moral principles. On their view, the explanation of moral disagreements will be of a piece with whatever turns out to be a good explanation of the various nonmoral disagreements people find themselves in.
Other moral realists, though, see the disagreements as sometimes fundamental. On their view, while moral disagreements might in some cases be traceable to disagreements about nonmoral matters of fact, this will not always be true. Still, they deny the anti-realist's contention that the disagreements that remain are well explained by noncognitivism or by an error theory Instead, they regularly offer some other explanation of the disagreements. They point out, for example, that many of the disagreements can be traced to the distorting effects of the emotions, attitudes, and interests that are inevitably bound up with moral issues. Or they argue that what appear to be disagreements are really cases in which the people are talking past each other, each making claims that might well be true once the claims are properly understood (Harman 1975, Wong 1984). And they often combine these explanatory strategies holding that the full range of moral disagreements are well explained by some balanced appeal to all of the considerations just mentioned, treating some disagreements as not fundamentally moral, others as a reflection of the distorting effects of emotion and interest, and still others as being due to insufficiently subtle understandings of what people are actually claiming. If some combination of these explanations works, then the moral realist is on firm ground in holding that the existence of moral disagreements, such as they are, is not an argument against moral realism. Of course, if no such explanation works, then an appeal either to noncognitivism or an error theory (i.e. to some form of anti-realism) may be the best alternative.
however i think what we need to establish first is this, in the case that there would be moral facts, what kind of facts would they be? most people would say that they are metaphysical facts, but perhaps you are a moral realist and you would say that they are empirical facts and they can be determined by experiment.
I'm afraid I can't answer this properly. It's a difficult question, compared to moral realism which can be arrived at merely by rejecting sophistry. I think W.D. Ross gave a good description of how we acquire moral knowledge:
That our responsibilities are self-evident does not entail that they are obvious to everyone who reflects on them. Ross maintains that a responsibility is self-evident ‘not in the sense that it is evident from the beginning of our lives, or as soon as we attend to the proposition for the first time, but in the sense that when we have reached sufficient mental maturity and have given sufficient attention to the proposition it is evident without any need of proof, or of evidence beyond itself. It is self-evident just as a mathematic axiom, or the validity of a form of inference, is evident’ (RG 29; also 12, 32). The analogy with mathematics is instructive, for we acquire our moral knowledge in the same way we acquire knowledge of mathematical axioms. We apprehend that 2+2 = 4 by apprehending that 2+2 matches makes 4 matches and that 2+2 balls makes 4 balls, and so on. We apprehend the algorithm in the particular cases after repeated exposure to particular instances of its application, by a process of intuitive induction (FE 170). We apprehend that it is prima facie right to keep promises by apprehending that it is prima facie right to fulfill this or that particular promise. ‘What comes first in time is the apprehension of the self-evident prima facie rightness of an individual act of a particular type. From this we come by reflection to apprehend the self-evident general principle of prima facie duty’ (RG 33; also FE 170).
But in general it's a complicated subject that's a little beyond me. But I find the practical theory's like ross's and aristotle's virtue ethics far more sensible and genuine than many other attempts which are often biased, sophist, or attempt to be too systemized.
*************
On a personal aside from the argument, I doubt the sincerity of people who claim they don't think "killing innocent children for fun is wrong" is factual, and that we are justified in believing it.
The Stranger
11-08-2010, 21:35
it is indeed a difficult topic, and since i have serious trouble making correct and meaningfull phrases in english about it i think i will let it rest for now. perhaps ill try to write an essay about it :)
thank you for your response!
Sasaki Kojiro
11-08-2010, 21:52
I have trouble making the correct phrases in english too :laugh4:
al Roumi
11-09-2010, 18:22
Firstly, thanks for your patience Sasaki –I was away for a long weekend without the time to give this a proper answer/thought. I think it’s fair to point at a couple of assumptions in my argument, I’ll try to delve into them now.
I agree that a simple disagreement or difference of opinion doesn’t mean that both parties are right. However, I do think that when the valuation of what is right is subjective, that neither party can claim to be right over the other.
This is where my point regarding cultural values defining some aspects of morality comes in. I completely agree that morality is generated by experience and rationalising, but I do maintain that there is room for culture and ideology to play a part in these experience and rationality.
Abstaining from causing various forms of harm to “thy neighbour” seems to be a near universal moral, but when we look at things where the definition of harm varies –or where there are multiple and alternative “harms” consequent of the initial dilemma or circumstance, “moral” individuals will knowingly perpetuate systems and actions which cause harm for the greater good.
It is this kind of situation, of far greater complexity and consequence than “x harms y therefore x is wrong/bad/immoral”, that I have been referring to in our discussion.
To give you an example: As we might say the west values liberty and freedom of expression above all, some cultures value tradition and respectfulness above all. These are not equal or opposite sets of values, but they have some areas of mutual agreement, as well as contradiction. So, as the west claims it is vital that women are treated equally to men, other cultures might agree that women should be treated fairly, but without undermining their patriarchal social norms –hence not actually treating women equally to men. I know which view I agree with more, but I cannot say which view is, in an absolute sense, correct or wrong either.
What would actually make one wrong and the other right? A comparative Marxist/materialist view of a society's productivity? Surely one gauges or measures the worth of each position according to one’s personal scale/view. This subjective scale is, IMO, itself defined by what one values - hence westerners valuing outcomes according to the degree of liberty and equality and others according to the degree of tradition and respectfulness. This is circular reasoning, but I would venture that this circularity is actually why the talking past each other happens.
How can we objectively measure (the cornerstone of moral realism afaik from wikipedia) the outcomes when the criteria by which the outcomes are appreciated are subjective? Until one can transcend these cultural or personal values and propose a solution of objective, independent or mutually understandable worth, neither party will see eye to eye.
gaelic cowboy
11-09-2010, 19:03
I have trouble making the correct phrases in english too :laugh4:
Tommy Tiernan summed it up best here
"The English language is like a brick wall between me and you, and :daisy: is my chisel" (insert common Irish swear word)
Sasaki Kojiro
11-09-2010, 19:52
As I said in my reply to stranger, it is hard to say what exactly the basis for morality is, and it is often difficult to argue for one moral position over the other. The good thing about multiculturalism is that it acknowledges this, and is thus an improvement over the idea it largely replaced. But it should only acknowledge that it is difficult. It is not that neither party can claim to be right, it is that they cannot merely claim to be right, they must try and show that they are right.
I don't think though, that valuation of what is right is subjective. It is not a matter of arbitrary taste. And I think if we look at the differences in rules, we will see that they are not based on differences in taste. It is wrong to not tip your bartender in America, but not wrong in England (as I understand it). But we would not conclude that whether one should tip is subjective. In America the hourly wage for a bartender is very low, and tips are supposed to make up the difference. In England that's not the case. On the surface it looks like a difference but underneath it's the same principle.
My values are things that can be distorted and wrong. This is something that has to be admitted. Someone who is extremely selfish values their own wallet over the person who's car the just hit before driving off. There's no subjectivity there--they are wrong. "Values" is a word that I think confuses. It kind of begs the question. My "values" are not necessarily to be "valued". They are not necessarily worth anything. If I am extremely selfish, they are bad values.
I would extend that to the culture that values having women be servile. If you look at all the things that go into backing up their moral beliefs, I think you would reject many of them. Selfishness on the part of the men, and fear on the part of the women, for example. How is it a matter of taste?
And even when I am earnest and well meaning in my moral beliefs, I can be wrong and would admit it if I could be shown how. I may believe that X results in Y when it does not. I may not have any personal experience with something, and therefore not add enough weigh to it in my evaluation. I may have an underlying bias due to the way the idea was first presented to me--perhaps it is something I was taught while young and never questioned.
I acknowledge that there is a certain amount of variation. I think how much we value security has a window of subjectivity, for example. There are genetic differences that have to do with that. But then I don't think the value of acknowledging and working with such legitimate subjective ranges is itself subjective.
Frankly I think that multiculturalism, in its combat with xenophobia, has taken to leaning on the "values are subjective" type of argument as a crutch. If you are arguing with a xenophobe it's natural to avoid exposing yourself by making difficult arguments about the basis of morality, and trying to figure out and judge what all the causes of disagreement are. It's difficult but it's better to do it, because we will get closer to the truth that way. If someone is arguing against Mexicans bringing their culture here, we should be able to do more than say that it is subjective whether their culture is bad. That grants equal legitimacy to the xenophobe. We should instead be able to argue that it is good.
I don't think though, that valuation of what is right is subjective. It is not a matter of arbitrary taste. And I think if we look at the differences in rules, we will see that they are not based on differences in taste. It is wrong to not tip your bartender in America, but not wrong in England (as I understand it). But we would not conclude that whether one should tip is subjective. In America the hourly wage for a bartender is very low, and tips are supposed to make up the difference. In England that's not the case. On the surface it looks like a difference but underneath it's the same principle.
Everyone and everything wants a tip in America.
In England, everyone gets a good wage, and even then, we only tip 10% if the meal is good in a restaurant. That tip goes towards a bonus for all the staff, as the 'waiter/waitress' is only giving you a plate, it was the cook in the back which is doing the meal. You pay for what you ordered and you pay for everything, no hidden costs.
In America, random person opens door, then opens their hand. You are expected and pretty much "have" to tip or they go into an infernal rage. Even worse when they just take your money and they don't even give you your change, or even when you tip them, they cry about how you didn't tip them enough.
Then there is full of hidden costs. I remember using an American tour company for a holiday, they had so many hidden costs, it was unbelievable. It turns out they don't even pay the bus driver or the tour guide and you are expected to pay their entire wage in tips. What kind of barmy system is that? When I pay for something, I expect to have paid for it. I don't budget for random throwing money at my wallet at people. They got in a rage when they only got £200 in tips, £200 is a lot of money, and they were wanting like £500-700.
(Oh and that Tour Company wasn't cheap itself either. What on earth did they do with the money that we had to pay them? Line their back pockets with it?)
so.. basically we say the same thing again only you have to add a (moral) judgment to the matter :P and cmon... declaring the death of ideas and such, everyone does it nowadays. art is dead, the artist is dead blablabla... its neither shocking nor innovating.
I didn't say anything, just explaing what others said.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-09-2010, 23:23
Everyone and everything wants a tip in America.
In England, everyone gets a good wage, and even then, we only tip 10% if the meal is good in a restaurant. That tip goes towards a bonus for all the staff, as the 'waiter/waitress' is only giving you a plate, it was the cook in the back which is doing the meal. You pay for what you ordered and you pay for everything, no hidden costs.
You take a 5$ drink, make it 4$, and then the customer pays the extra 1$ only if the drink isn't bungled. Downside is that company is tempted to up the price, upside is that you get better service.
Tellos Athenaios
11-10-2010, 00:05
That's not how it works in the USA though. In the USA you pay for the drink, you don't pay for the waiter. So leaving without a tip is equivalent to not paying the waiter, basically.
In the UK/Netherlands/Germany/France/Belgium it's more like you pay for both, but if the waiter/house are any good it is custom to leave a tip; tips are pooled and divided according to some scheme among staff. So a venue where both quality and service of the product is top notch sees a generous additional income for its staff meaning an incentive for all concerned to do their best and more business (profit) for the venue too.
The Stranger
11-10-2010, 00:22
lets determine a few things.
1. If morals were objective this would mean that some people would be right in their moral beliefs and others wrong (since it is a known fact that some people have conflicting or even contradicting morals). However, even if it would be true that morals are objective, we have no way to find out which belief is objectively right and which one is objectively wrong.
2. The fact that we have no means to determine the truth of moral beliefs doesn't automatically entails that moral beliefs are (entirely) subjective, but it does make it more likely than if we had a method. The fact that people disagree about their morals doesn't mean that there is no truth in morals. However, accordingly the fact that certain people have similar morals doesnt mean that there is a universal truth in morals. We also need to remember that just because things are a certain way it doesnt mean it ought to be that way.
3. What needs to be established is the realm in which morals belong. Are they empiric statements? Are they taste judgments? Are they judgments of reason and ratio?
i also think that we need to take less drastic examples. Fur or No Fur? Who is right? And why? Are the people who object to fur on moral grounds right and all those people who have lived in the centuries before them wrong? How can we establish such a thing?
Furunculus
11-10-2010, 11:00
You take a 5$ drink, make it 4$, and then the customer pays the extra 1$ only if the drink isn't bungled. Downside is that company is tempted to up the price, upside is that you get better service.
don't want decent service, i want a hassle-free drink.
Rhyfelwyr
11-10-2010, 13:25
I've never seen my parents tip anyway. Heh, don't mind us miserly Scots, we're worse than the Jews!
I've heard there is a saying on the continent that when something is unfairly priced, it's known as Scots-price or something like that. Does such a saying exist?
gaelic cowboy
11-10-2010, 13:56
You take a 5$ drink, make it 4$, and then the customer pays the extra 1$ only if the drink isn't bungled. Downside is that company is tempted to up the price, upside is that you get better service.
I drank in a place where drink was free in Iowa IIRC it was in Cedar Rapids, you had to tip the bartender but twas all free I thinkit was called Drunken Monkey or summit.
When I got home no one would believe me this place existed it just seemed to fantastic like a magical gumdrop land with chocolate houses and all.
If it was not for the Atlantic and another few hours driving from Chicago there would be planeloads of Irish intent on seeing the delights of Iowa.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-11-2010, 05:41
lets determine a few things.
1. If morals were objective this would mean that some people would be right in their moral beliefs and others wrong (since it is a known fact that some people have conflicting or even contradicting morals). However, even if it would be true that morals are objective, we have no way to find out which belief is objectively right and which one is objectively wrong.
2. The fact that we have no means to determine the truth of moral beliefs ...
It's true that objective morality doesn't entail us being able to figure it out. But why do you say we have no way to find out? I think it's at least as tough to claim that it's a fact that we can't determine the truth of a belief as it is to claim that a basic moral (like murder) is factual.
3. What needs to be established is the realm in which morals belong. Are they empiric statements? Are they taste judgments? Are they judgments of reason and ratio?
The basics are self evident given adequate reasoning ability and information, and a person who is looking for a fact about it and not trying to grind an axe.
i also think that we need to take less drastic examples. Fur or No Fur? Who is right? And why? Are the people who object to fur on moral grounds right and all those people who have lived in the centuries before them wrong? How can we establish such a thing?
Well is a less drastic example the same as a more ambiguous example? How about, say, I promise to pick you up somewhere and then don't because I was watching a mildly amusing tv show.
But the animal rights movement is based in part on empirical claims about animal cognition. And the argument against fur would have to go further and show that the people wearing it were somehow immorally ignorant.
The Stranger
11-11-2010, 16:46
It's true that objective morality doesn't entail us being able to figure it out. But why do you say we have no way to find out? I think it's at least as tough to claim that it's a fact that we can't determine the truth of a belief as it is to claim that a basic moral (like murder) is factual.
The basics are self evident given adequate reasoning ability and information, and a person who is looking for a fact about it and not trying to grind an axe.
Well is a less drastic example the same as a more ambiguous example? How about, say, I promise to pick you up somewhere and then don't because I was watching a mildly amusing tv show.
But the animal rights movement is based in part on empirical claims about animal cognition. And the argument against fur would have to go further and show that the people wearing it were somehow immorally ignorant.
Untill we find a way to refute Hume's sceptiscism i think we can safely say that we have not found a way yet.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-11-2010, 17:13
Untill we find a way to refute Hume's sceptiscism i think we can safely say that we have not found a way yet.
I disagree and if I recall correctly hume was not as insistent on skepticism as many people who use his argument are. Basically lack of absolute certainty is only a problem if only absolute certainty will do. In other words if I can only be as sure that X is immoral as I am that sticking my hand in the fire will hurt, then alright.
The Stranger
11-11-2010, 17:54
well hume was aware that radical skeptiscism is highly unpractical, and therefor not useable in day to day life. but were now discussing the absolutes, the foundations of our morals and then i think we should take his skeptiscism into account.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-11-2010, 19:55
well hume was aware that radical skeptiscism is highly unpractical, and therefor not useable in day to day life. but were now discussing the absolutes, the foundations of our morals and then i think we should take his skeptiscism into account.
In what way aren't we taking it into account?
Rhyfelwyr
11-11-2010, 21:57
Diversity festival to accompany 2-minute silence. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328703/Remembrance-Day-Poppy-burning-Muslim-protesters-mar-Armistice-Day.html)
Fury! Outrage! Clash of civilizations! Send them all home!
The Stranger
11-12-2010, 03:04
In what way aren't we taking it into account?
i was reffering to this.
Basically lack of absolute certainty is only a problem if only absolute certainty will do
i just wanted to say that in the realm that the discussion about morals takes place i believe only absolute certainty will do. in the realm that morals are actually used... its not so neccesary.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-12-2010, 03:25
i was reffering to this.
i just wanted to say that in the realm that the discussion about morals takes place i believe only absolute certainty will do. in the realm that morals are actually used... its not so neccesary.
I don't see why you believe that :)
The Stranger
11-12-2010, 03:33
I don't see why you believe that :)
well i believe that objectivity cannot be achieved. but when you say that morals are objective and murder, rape, lying, wearing fur is always wrong no matter how some cultures or some eras have thought about it, then you will need to have absolute certainty because you are talking about absolute and universal values. and if you claim those values are objective no matter what than you gotta prove your claim beyond all reasonable doubt because if you dont it can always be asked How do you know that what you say is the truth and can you prove it to be so.
the problem is that none of the traditional answers hold up if you are really critical.
the culture relavist theory fails but the surface difference theory fails as well because the fact the it happens to be so that all the current cultures and as far as we know also the past cultures only differ on the surface this doesnt mean that a (human/reasonable) culture in which the morals are radically different could not exist
then you have the veneer theory which is at war with the biology/social animal theory etc etc
Sasaki Kojiro
11-12-2010, 03:36
well i believe that objectivity cannot be achieved. but when you say that morals are objective and murder, rape, lying, wearing fur is always wrong no matter how some cultures or some eras have thought about it, then you will need to have absolute certainty because you are talking about absolute and universal values. and if you claim those values are objective no matter what than you gotta prove your claim beyond all reasonable doubt because if you dont it can always be asked How do you know that what you say is the truth and can you prove it to be so.
It's objective whether I'm sitting on a chair or not but I don't need absolute certainty in order to be justified in claiming that I am sitting on a chair. And if I am justified in believing it and it's true then I know that I am sitting on a chair. So clearly I can know things without having absolute, Cartesian certainty. So I can also know that murder is wrong. The possibility of moral knowledge is what's important.
The Stranger
11-12-2010, 03:41
It's objective whether I'm sitting on a chair or not but I don't need absolute certainty in order to be justified in claiming that I am sitting on a chair. And if I am justified in believing it and it's true then I know that I am sitting on a chair. So clearly I can know things without having absolute, Cartesian certainty. So I can also know that murder is wrong. The possibility of moral knowledge is what's important.
you are talking about justification while i am talking about truth. ofcourse you are justified to belief something without having absolute certainty but you cannot know the absolute truth if you do not have absolute certainty. so you cannot make the absolute claim that morals are objective as long as you cannot refute humes skeptiscism.
however in your day to day life you do not have to take it into account with everything you do, that would be impossible.
whether you are justified in believing something is something else than whether what you believe is true.
because with the chair i can counter with the following
you see yourself sitting in a chair, (lets agree that this is enough justification to claim that you are sitting in a chair) so you are justified in believing that you sit in a chair, yet actually you are a brain in a vat and a scientist had stimulated you the belief that you are sitting in a chair and has stimulated you the vision that you see yourself sitting in a chair. so even though you are justified in believing that you sit in a chair you dont know that you sit in a chair because you are not sitting in a chair but you are a brain in a vat. and since you can never know for 100% that you are not a brain in a vat (even though its highly unlikely that you are) you can never absolutely know that you sit in a chair.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-12-2010, 03:46
you are talking about justification while i am talking about truth. ofcourse you are justified to belief something without having absolute certainty but you cannot know the absolute truth if you do not have absolute certainty. so you cannot make the absolute claim that morals are objective as long as you cannot refute humes skeptiscism.
however in your day to day life you do not have to take it into account with everything you do, that would be impossible.
whether you are justified in believing something is something else than whether what you believe is true.
That's not true TS...absolute certainty is not required for absolute truth. Isn't it absolutely true that the sun is bigger than the earth? I can't I know that the sun is bigger than the earth? But I can't be absolutely certain.
mind you, "absolute truth" is not a phrase I use often.
The Stranger
11-12-2010, 03:49
That's not true TS...absolute certainty is not required for absolute truth. Isn't it absolutely true that the sun is bigger than the earth? I can't I know that the sun is bigger than the earth? But I can't be absolutely certain.
mind you, "absolute truth" is not a phrase I use often.
how is it absolutely true that the sun is bigger than the earth? it would only be absolutely true if it was the definition of the sun that it was bigger than the earth. and if you know that it is absolutely true than i dont see how you cant be absolutely certain. and if you say that you cant be absolutely certain i dont see how you can know it to be absolutely true.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-12-2010, 03:56
how is it absolutely true that the sun is bigger than the earth? it would only be absolutely true if it was the definition of the sun that it was bigger than the earth. and if you know that it is absolutely true than i dont see how you cant be absolutely certain. and if you say that you cant be absolutely certain i dont see how you can know it to be absolutely true.
We started out this thread using absolute truth in the manner of universal truth. Can you define it? Because it seems like a nebulous concept the way you are using it and I don't see what the relevance to morality is...
That the sun is big is true relative to the earth, that the sun is bigger than the earth is true absolutely (without being relative to anything). That's how the word makes sense to me.
The Stranger
11-12-2010, 04:05
We started out this thread using absolute truth in the manner of universal truth. Can you define it? Because it seems like a nebulous concept the way you are using it and I don't see what the relevance to morality is...
That the sun is big is true relative to the earth, that the sun is bigger than the earth is true absolutely (without being relative to anything). That's how the word makes sense to me.
i dont see how you can prove that it is impossible that all the scientists have been wrong and that in fact the sun is not much bigger than it appears to us. its unlikely, i dont believe it myself, but it is a possibility. and even though it might be absolutely true that the sun is bigger than the earth, you cannot be absolutely certain thus i believe you cannot absolutely know it.
and indeed weve kinda strayed to epistomology and its only indirectly relevant to morals, or better said to the issue if we could ever make an objective claim, which includes the claim of an objective morality.
i think it could best be explained that an absolute truth is a truth which is both universal and eternal. universal truth would mean true for everyone at a given point and eternal truth would be a truth that is always true. and if you would combine such a truth you would get an absolute truth which is always true for everyone.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-12-2010, 04:22
i dont see how you can prove that it is impossible that all the scientists have been wrong and that in fact the sun is not much bigger than it appears to us. its unlikely, i dont believe it myself, but it is a possibility. and even though it might be absolutely true that the sun is bigger than the earth, you cannot be absolutely certain thus i believe you cannot absolutely know it.
But I feel like we've moved the yardstick...before we were talking about whether we can know an absolute truth without being absolutely certain, not about "absolutely knowing". Just plain knowing is fine. Like, I can be justified and believing something about the sun. And if it's true I know it, if it isn't I don't. Whether the scientists can prove it or not is not important.
i think it could best be explained that an absolute truth is a truth which is both universal and eternal. universal truth would mean true for everyone at a given point and eternal truth would be a truth that is always true. and if you would combine such a truth you would get an absolute truth which is always true for everyone.
Well, morals as we are talking about have to do with humans, so I guess we have strayed.
Although, I am generally cynical about the style of philosophy that focuses on trying to show that we can't know anything, can't prove anything, can't be absolutely certain etc. It just smells like they aren't engaged with any real world problems, or are using it selectively to argue against something they don't like.
The Stranger
11-12-2010, 14:52
But I feel like we've moved the yardstick...before we were talking about whether we can know an absolute truth without being absolutely certain, not about "absolutely knowing". Just plain knowing is fine. Like, I can be justified and believing something about the sun. And if it's true I know it, if it isn't I don't. Whether the scientists can prove it or not is not important.
it actually is important, because when you think you know something for certain reasons, and it happens to be true for different reasons, than you do not actually know it.
and about the absolute part i think we have been talking on different levels all along. you talk of knowledge of something which happens to be an absolute truth and ive been talking about knowing something to be absolutely true. you can indeed be justified in believing an absolute truth and by the daily definitions of knowing you can also know an absolute truth.
Well, morals as we are talking about have to do with humans, so I guess we have strayed.
Although, I am generally cynical about the style of philosophy that focuses on trying to show that we can't know anything, can't prove anything, can't be absolutely certain etc. It just smells like they aren't engaged with any real world problems, or are using it selectively to argue against something they don't like.
mind you that i'm actually not defending my own point of view, im more a common sense kinda guy but i think that for the sake of clarity and consistency on this philosophical level we should be more rigoruous.
and the entire problem of not being able to know anything beyond all doubt has to do with the prerequisite of truth in order for someone to know it. ive been trying to develop a notion of knowing which only involves justification because we can also know things which are not true (even though you could just read that as a negative statement of a positive fact). its a tough challenge.
a completely inoffensive name
02-06-2012, 09:12
I don't mean to revive a semi old thread for kicks, but I figured this article I read would be a nice revival of conversation about the subject and by posting here maintain a continuity that would be broken if I just made a new thread about it.
French interior minister says that not all civilizations are equal.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2012/02/201225162625127900.html
You disagree with that then? Of course some civilisations are inferior to others.
a completely inoffensive name
02-06-2012, 09:26
You disagree with that then? Of course some civilisations are inferior to others.
No, I don't disagree at all. I think interactions between civilizations is important so that good ideas can be shared and bad ideas identified, but I don't particularly care for leniency towards bad ideas from other cultures to promote harmony.
Papewaio
02-06-2012, 09:47
You disagree with that then? Of course some civilisations are inferior to others.
Fragony is correct and it can be easily proved.
After all isn't the society of today in most countries better then it was a hundred years ago in that same country. Longer lifespan, higher education, more freedoms, greater range of foodstuffs, less infant mortalities.
So whilst it might be impolite to compare societies on a spatial level, it is ok to compare our own society over time.
rory_20_uk
02-06-2012, 09:57
There are no metrics that would be agreed by everyone from all times, and no weighting of metrics. It is better based on what you have described, but there might be those who would think it worse by other measurements.
~:smoking:
There are no metrics that would be agreed by everyone from all times, and no weighting of metrics. It is better based on what you have described, but there might be those who would think it worse by other measurements.
~:smoking:
That.
Ask a capitalist about it and then go and ask a greenpeace activist.
It depends on what equality you want to test for.
Most civilizations aren't equal in most aspects but if you can weigh up military prowess with environmental protection, some bushmen may be right up there with the US culture.
Could you even say the US has/have (is it one state or 50?) one culture or is it multicultural?
Sasaki Kojiro
02-06-2012, 16:42
That.
Ask a capitalist about it and then go and ask a greenpeace activist.
It depends on what equality you want to test for.
Lol. Ask evangelical christians whether gay marriage was good, and then ask gay people! They won't agree! How significant!
WHAT METRIC COULD WE POSSIBLE USE
Lol. Ask evangelical christians whether gay marriage was good, and then ask gay people! They won't agree! How significant!
WHAT METRIC COULD WE POSSIBLE USE
Amount of colonies?
a completely inoffensive name
02-06-2012, 19:47
Question: What does it matter if people don't agree on a metric to measure by?
Papewaio
02-06-2012, 19:57
There is a whole range of metrics as we are looking at the span of human life. The most easiest to measure is life span.
Like any scientific measurement you have a +/- range attached and in some countries that data is going to be more fuzzy... And probably a correlation to how dangerous that country is as not even birth records are viable.
Greenpeace can whine until they choke on their on anti scientific hubris. 3% of the worlds energy budget goes into fixing nitrogen into the worlds soils. The science of agriculture and chemistry have allowed a true green revolution that has tripled our ability to feed people. Greenpeace is blocking as much of this as possible in the GMO sphere.
Anyhow lots of data for human life can be used. Main thing is to look at the trends and vectors. Human lifespan has doubled for most people in the last hundred years.
Vladimir
02-06-2012, 20:33
Amount of colonies?
You loose. :tongue:
No, wait...we all loose. :skull:
Question: What does it matter if people don't agree on a metric to measure by?
That everybody will see a different culture as superior?
Back to the roots people will think the culture of indians living with nature iss superior to all others.
Most people would probably think the USA ahave the best culture as the USA are rich and powerful.
Other people would believe that that's a horrible culture full of pressure and stress and that a more relaxed culture is far superior.
There is a whole range of metrics as we are looking at the span of human life. The most easiest to measure is life span.
Like any scientific measurement you have a +/- range attached and in some countries that data is going to be more fuzzy... And probably a correlation to how dangerous that country is as not even birth records are viable.
what if two countries have a similar lifespan but a completely different culture? Does that make these countries equal? And what about countries where people are sick all the time but held alive by chemistry and machines, does that sound like a great culture to everyone?
Anyhow lots of data for human life can be used. Main thing is to look at the trends and vectors. Human lifespan has doubled for most people in the last hundred years.
Does that mean culture has improved or science has made progress? Is scientific progress the measure for the value of a culture?
And yes Vladimir, we all lose, British culture is the best because it conquered the most other cultures, thus showing it's superiority.
Papewaio
02-06-2012, 23:05
As a single value lifespan is potentially the most accurate and telling rule of thumb. Then you can add other measurements to get a much better grasp.
I'm sure a ranking of countries lifespan and freedoms would have a high correlation.
Also I think comparison of countries is fine. If all countries are equal then refugees have no legitimate claim.
Furunculus
02-07-2012, 11:59
I don't mean to revive a semi old thread for kicks, but I figured this article I read would be a nice revival of conversation about the subject and by posting here maintain a continuity that would be broken if I just made a new thread about it.
French interior minister says that not all civilizations are equal.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2012/02/201225162625127900.html
he is right.
Question: What does it matter if people don't agree on a metric to measure by?
not much, the fact that it is difficult (for reasons mentioned above), does nothing to dissuade me from the principle of weighing merits of different cultures.
So whilst it might be impolite to compare societies on a spatial level, it is ok to compare our own society over time.
Imho you can absolutely do that. it's just an equation of benefits to conclude that western civilisation is superior to others.
Yes, of course, it's easy to take my own values and then judge everybody else by them, and then what's the point?
They can judge me by their values and then we bash eachother's heads in or discuss it until the end of times?
Sure not all cultures are equal, but he might have just as well said the sky is blue and everybody would agree.
gaelic cowboy
02-07-2012, 13:54
Not all cultures are equal the same as not all viewpoints are equal.
You certainly have the right to live in a certain culture or hold a certain view but thats the height of it.
go on Dara explain it for everyone (some cursing)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHVVKAKWXcg
Yes, of course, it's easy to take my own values and then judge everybody else by them, and then what's the point?
Does there have to be a point to a mere observation? Who is really making a point with cultural relativation, it simply isn't true that cultures are equal we are in various degrees of development. Had he said that that cultures CAN'T be equal it would have been something different entirely. The outrage over this is absurd although I don't intend to have a beer to the people he said it to
Strike For The South
02-07-2012, 17:20
I have a few absolute truths
Sasaki Kojiro
02-07-2012, 17:42
Yes, of course, it's easy to take my own values and then judge everybody else by them, and then what's the point?
They can judge me by their values and then we bash eachother's heads in or discuss it until the end of times?
If they are equal the banning the burkha was wrong. If they aren't, then that kind of legislation can be justifiable. So there's certainly a point to it.
I have a few absolute truths
But you will always be Texan But OT, what the he were you multiculti-folk thinking? Glad it's gone, but it's gone like the mistress you only :daisy: from 9 to 5. WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING, that you can just undutch the dutch, that you can just unfrench the french? That stove is hot don't touch it. Out of everything these bored rich kids managed to think of multiculturelalism is by far the worst idea ever they ever had
The strange thing about the whole "the-burka-is-imposed-by-men-who-oppress-their-women" thing is that a study performed here (the Netherlands) pointed out that it's mostly worn by converts and "born-again" Muslims.
The strange thing about the whole "the-burka-is-imposed-by-men-who-oppress-their-women" thing is that a study performed here (the Netherlands) pointed out that it's mostly worn by converts and "born-again" Muslims.
Do we have to accept either? One is :daisy: on how I see women and the other is :daisy: on it, If you can't accept that go somwhere else, you are not welcome here. Go to Sweden, they will run a marathon everything non-Swedish
If they are equal the banning the burkha was wrong. If they aren't, then that kind of legislation can be justifiable. So there's certainly a point to it.
I never said they're equal, I'm saying that cultures are more complex than such populistic statements suggest.
If I want to drink tea, I look to turkish culture, for baguettes I'd look to french culture, now which of the two is the superior one?
When we look at religious freedom, we used to say french culture is superior because it has religious freedom, then they banned the burka.
If we go and say their culture is inferior and that's why we're going to ban it bit by bit until they assimilate or leave, it reminds me of the borg.
There are two sides to that coin, there are people who don't want to accept our culture, yet live here, and there are people who want to but are met with rejection until they give up.
It shouldn't be illegal to wear a burka, it should be illegal to force someone to wear it.
It's also illegal to beat your wife, but it's not illegal to walk around with a wound.
What I mean is that in the latter case, justice relies on the wife reporting it and everybody accepts it, but in the case of "foreigners" they just ban the result of possible wrongdoing that may actually be wanted by the woman instead of the actual wrongdoing.
People simplify such issues because they don't care a lot about these "foreigners" who are oh so bad, but how is our culture better if it's just as ignorant and xenophobic as theirs?
Just because we have more money and stress and and luxuries that cause the producers to jump off of roofs due to their horrible treatment and bad pay?
a large part of our culture is even fine with ruining the whole planet, distributing poisonous or unhealthy food and poisoning nature and people in many other ways, even if you get to an overall rating for a culture I'm not so sure we'd come out ahead. Freedom is relative, we hold our slaves abroad and force people to take badly paid jobs because being unemployed makes them feel and be seen as worthless, it depends on the individual whether that can be defined as freedom or not.
Ignorant blanket statements won't convince me of our culture's superiority in any way.
Papewaio
02-08-2012, 02:47
Imho you can absolutely do that. it's just an equation of benefits to conclude that western civilisation is superior to others.
We are not the happiest. So whilst on average we have the longest lifespans and most freedoms western nations aren't the happiest.
I still think life span is a good rule of thumb. But if we could cherry pick from cultures around the world lifestyles as we do food stuffs I think we could have a much better set of societies.
multiculturalism is dead. long live multiculturalism 2.0
This is where we don't assume all aspects of any culture are equivalent. We also don't assume ours is the best. What we do is enable people to have informed choice and freedom to have the best of all and take responsibility for the consequences.
a completely inoffensive name
02-08-2012, 03:16
Freedom is relative, we hold our slaves abroad and force people to take badly paid jobs because being unemployed makes them feel and be seen as worthless, it depends on the individual whether that can be defined as freedom or not.
This seems completely....wrong. We are no better than societies that stone women because....we don't pay chinese workers enough?
Sasaki Kojiro
02-08-2012, 03:50
You aren't sure whether we'd come out ahead, well go figure it out! If ignorant blanket statements won't convince you, go read something that isn't ignorant...by the way I purposely said nothing in particular about the burka.
It's not a point scoring game where we add up our points and try to make the total come out greater than theirs (whoever "they" are...). You criticize our attitude towards the environment, you praise theirs, simple enough. Why would you wonder whether there is any point to it?
It's not a point scoring game where we add up our points and try to make the total come out greater than theirs (whoever "they" are...).
That's what I was saying.
This seems completely....wrong. We are no better than societies that stone women because....we don't pay chinese workers enough?
That's not what I was saying.
My point is that this politician talks about protecting our civilization and whatnot with blanket statements that reinforce the notion that other cultures are inferior to ours in every way. IMO other cultures may have benefits as well and instead of dismissing them outright based on blanket statements we may actually want to adopt some of their benefits. And hope that they adopt some of the benefits of our culture. The issue isn't black and white but pandering to xenophobic ideas makes it seem so and just reinforces these xenophobic ideas.
I guess I'm a failure at english if that really wasn't clear from my previous posts. :shrug:
Sure his statement is true but I take issue with the intention and the effect it has regardless of that.
a completely inoffensive name
02-08-2012, 07:51
That's not what I was saying.
My point is that this politician talks about protecting our civilization and whatnot with blanket statements that reinforce the notion that other cultures are inferior to ours in every way. IMO other cultures may have benefits as well and instead of dismissing them outright based on blanket statements we may actually want to adopt some of their benefits. And hope that they adopt some of the benefits of our culture. The issue isn't black and white but pandering to xenophobic ideas makes it seem so and just reinforces these xenophobic ideas.
I guess I'm a failure at english if that really wasn't clear from my previous posts. :shrug:
Sure his statement is true but I take issue with the intention and the effect it has regardless of that.
Ahh ok. Well you threw me off with the "freedom is relative" bit.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.