Pages: 1 … 5 6 7

 

2010-12-25 15:40:10
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6745
orientalism is more than east vs. west. it's a sociological theory about the way that we, individually and collectively as a society, view other societies and cultures alien to our own. the intellectual annexation and psychological process behind the way we reduce and simplify the state of other people's affairs to suit our own political ideologies and worldviews, etc. im not saying you're making it an east vs. west thing, i am merely suggesting that perhaps we have the lazy habit of reducing a complex historical problem in mauritania down into some crude assumptive generalisation.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-12-25 16:02:49
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6274|Vortex Ring State

Uzique wrote:

i am merely suggesting that perhaps we have the lazy habit of reducing a complex historical problem in mauritania down into some crude assumptive generalisation.
Well, I think that most people generally accept that "east vs. west" and orientalism-based explanations of the problem are always a simplification of the historical and cultural problems in foreign countries. It's a lazy habit, you could say, I'm saying that the problems are usually fairly complex, so the media just generalises it into an "east vs. west" thing.
2010-12-25 18:07:24
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6680|North Carolina

Uzique wrote:

i am merely suggesting that perhaps we have the lazy habit of reducing a complex historical problem in mauritania down into some crude assumptive generalisation.
I'm sure the context behind it is complex, but ultimately, the end results matter more than everything else.

In Mauritania's case, they clearly treat women like shit.  Therefore, regardless of why things turned out that way, they are simply not as evolved as we are regarding women's rights.
2010-12-25 20:14:27
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6745

Turquoise wrote:

Uzique wrote:

i am merely suggesting that perhaps we have the lazy habit of reducing a complex historical problem in mauritania down into some crude assumptive generalisation.
I'm sure the context behind it is complex, but ultimately, the end results matter more than everything else.

In Mauritania's case, they clearly treat women like shit.  Therefore, regardless of why things turned out that way, they are simply not as evolved as we are regarding women's rights.
nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-12-25 21:36:48
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6680|North Carolina

Uzique wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Uzique wrote:

i am merely suggesting that perhaps we have the lazy habit of reducing a complex historical problem in mauritania down into some crude assumptive generalisation.
I'm sure the context behind it is complex, but ultimately, the end results matter more than everything else.

In Mauritania's case, they clearly treat women like shit.  Therefore, regardless of why things turned out that way, they are simply not as evolved as we are regarding women's rights.
nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
Relativism can work to a degree, but it has more of a philosophical use than a practical one.  We each choose a set of ethics for ourselves that determine our priorities.

Mauritania's priorities are probably quite different from ours, but our priorities are more practical for the sake of cultural and economic dominance.  They are behind the times; we aren't.
2010-12-26 09:29:14
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6274|Vortex Ring State

Turquoise wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


I'm sure the context behind it is complex, but ultimately, the end results matter more than everything else.

In Mauritania's case, they clearly treat women like shit.  Therefore, regardless of why things turned out that way, they are simply not as evolved as we are regarding women's rights.
nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
Relativism can work to a degree, but it has more of a philosophical use than a practical one.  We each choose a set of ethics for ourselves that determine our priorities.

Mauritania's priorities are probably quite different from ours, but our priorities are more practical for the sake of cultural and economic dominance.  They are behind the times; we aren't.
well then again the argument comes that in the theoretical position that Africans and their culture ruled the world (Guns, Germs, and Steel anyone?), then this would be perfectly acceptable...

and I don't buy that "location affects morals" crap, if that applied, every region would have their own religion
2010-12-26 11:37:30
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6680|North Carolina

Trotskygrad wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Uzique wrote:


nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
Relativism can work to a degree, but it has more of a philosophical use than a practical one.  We each choose a set of ethics for ourselves that determine our priorities.

Mauritania's priorities are probably quite different from ours, but our priorities are more practical for the sake of cultural and economic dominance.  They are behind the times; we aren't.
well then again the argument comes that in the theoretical position that Africans and their culture ruled the world (Guns, Germs, and Steel anyone?), then this would be perfectly acceptable...

and I don't buy that "location affects morals" crap, if that applied, every region would have their own religion
I think "Guns, Germs, and Steel" is more relevant for determining who reached the top of the power pyramid first.  Yes, it is true that various things affect how quickly a society evolves, but I think the evolution itself is generally in the same direction for every society.
2010-12-27 02:16:30
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7050|Moscow, Russia

Turquoise wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I'm sure the context behind it is complex, but ultimately, the end results matter more than everything else.

In Mauritania's case, they clearly treat women like shit.  Therefore, regardless of why things turned out that way, they are simply not as evolved as we are regarding women's rights.
nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
Relativism can work to a degree, but it has more of a philosophical use than a practical one.  We each choose a set of ethics for ourselves that determine our priorities.

Mauritania's priorities are probably quite different from ours, but our priorities are more practical for the sake of cultural and economic dominance.  They are behind the times; we aren't.
i do agree that practical approach is the most important one at current stage of our civilization's development - we've developed means of ending the world but have yet to find a way to overcome the desire of ending it. in sink-or-swim situations "morality" means jack shit. uzique's of the world - the fucking intelligentzia - are, in all their self-assumed "enlightenment", sometimes so pathetically out of touch with reality that it's not even funny. however, without them out there pretending to know how to be decent men in indecent times we always get to aushwitz'es, gulags and hirosima's.
it truly is a fine line there.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-12-27 09:45:24
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6745
i pretty happily fill the roles of 'idealist', 'ivory tower intelligentsia', 'impractical theoretician', 'naive optimistic student' etc.

as you say... you have to keep the balance.

it's why the philosophical-analytical approach of Pragmatism is so successful - you have to synthesize and reason with both the rationalist and the empiricist; both the idealist and the materialist; the high-minded and the concrete. if you're too much of one and not enough of the other, you make irrational and unreasonable decisions-- whether your head is in the clouds, or whether you're too concrete to allow any ethics/morality.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-12-28 08:51:58
Ticia
Member
+73|5610

EVieira wrote:

Ticia wrote:

I think it was Ken some posts back who rightly mentioned the problem with rape in places that follow the Sharia law. When all sex outside of marriage is illegal and women are told to lead a very guarded life, just the simple fact of a woman alone on the street is enough to label her as a prostitute.
See it this way...you know how when a woman in our own societies dresses very provocatively she's seen as she's "asking for it"?
Rape is condemned there as it is here, difference is women here don't accept this kind of bullshit.
I don't think so. Rape is not condemned there at all, sex outside of marriage is. And its always the woman's fault.

There was a time when we were as backwards as they are now, when women were second class citizens. Women couldn't vote, work and rape was very frowned upon, but there really were no laws against it. Not any that actually had a decent punishment, when there was a law rape was often a simple felony or misdemeanor.

But we evolved, and we need to push the rest of the world to evolve too. Culture is not an excuse for oppression, not anymore at least.
And there you have it, 100% with you on this.
But is going to take awhile to see any real changes. Hell, slavery in Mauritania was only criminalized in 2007
As of now not I'm not sure if anything can be done but help women who seek asylum.
2010-12-28 13:44:44
EVieira
Member
+105|6753|Lutenblaag, Molvania

Uzique wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Uzique wrote:

i am merely suggesting that perhaps we have the lazy habit of reducing a complex historical problem in mauritania down into some crude assumptive generalisation.
I'm sure the context behind it is complex, but ultimately, the end results matter more than everything else.

In Mauritania's case, they clearly treat women like shit.  Therefore, regardless of why things turned out that way, they are simply not as evolved as we are regarding women's rights.
nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
Nonsense because of moral relativism? Yes, moral is relative. Some say morality can change even in certain situations. But more importantly, moral standards change in time. That's the point, Mauritania needs to start moving out of the middle ages and start by condemning rape. Its inexcusable, no matter what historical/cultural explanation is given, to not condemn rape in the 21st century anywhere in the global community.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
2010-12-29 08:38:18
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6745
wow so you acknowledge that morality is relative but then expect every single nation to progress alongside and with the west's history and timescale. hahaha. WOW. how incredibly intelligent. everything is relative - not just morality, and to impose your standards, progress and circumstances upon anyone else is narrowminded-- this is exactly what i am saying. turq's best counter-argument so far has been that reductionism and narrowmindedness is perhaps somehow crudely 'necessary', or a part of the way we, as a human species, look at the world. okay, perhaps. but you can't acknowledge that morality is relative and then expect every country with a vastly different socio-cultural history to be at the same fucking point. that's beyond retarded.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-12-29 09:27:12
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6680|North Carolina

Uzique wrote:

wow so you acknowledge that morality is relative but then expect every single nation to progress alongside and with the west's history and timescale. hahaha. WOW. how incredibly intelligent. everything is relative - not just morality, and to impose your standards, progress and circumstances upon anyone else is narrowminded-- this is exactly what i am saying. turq's best counter-argument so far has been that reductionism and narrowmindedness is perhaps somehow crudely 'necessary', or a part of the way we, as a human species, look at the world. okay, perhaps. but you can't acknowledge that morality is relative and then expect every country with a vastly different socio-cultural history to be at the same fucking point. that's beyond retarded.
He's not expecting them to be at the same point.  He's expecting them to move toward the same point.  That's a vital and important difference.

My point was that the simple truth is that we are more advanced than they are.  The hows and whys matter less than the current state of affairs.

Simply acknowledging that we are more advanced was really all I was getting at, but you seem to assume that moral relativism even denies us that.

Eveira isn't imposing his standards, he's suggesting that our current progress ahead of theirs is a good reason to condemn their practices and to aid the victims of their lack of progress.

It just seems like, again and again, you continually make excuses for the barbaric actions of less evolved cultures.
2010-12-30 09:07:17
Ticia
Member
+73|5610

Turquoise wrote:

Uzique wrote:

wow so you acknowledge that morality is relative but then expect every single nation to progress alongside and with the west's history and timescale. hahaha. WOW. how incredibly intelligent. everything is relative - not just morality, and to impose your standards, progress and circumstances upon anyone else is narrowminded-- this is exactly what i am saying. turq's best counter-argument so far has been that reductionism and narrowmindedness is perhaps somehow crudely 'necessary', or a part of the way we, as a human species, look at the world. okay, perhaps. but you can't acknowledge that morality is relative and then expect every country with a vastly different socio-cultural history to be at the same fucking point. that's beyond retarded.
He's not expecting them to be at the same point.  He's expecting them to move toward the same point.  That's a vital and important difference.

My point was that the simple truth is that we are more advanced than they are.  The hows and whys matter less than the current state of affairs.

Simply acknowledging that we are more advanced was really all I was getting at, but you seem to assume that moral relativism even denies us that.

Eveira isn't imposing his standards, he's suggesting that our current progress ahead of theirs is a good reason to condemn their practices and to aid the victims of their lack of progress.

It just seems like, again and again, you continually make excuses for the barbaric actions of less evolved cultures.
But then places like the US supposedly so advanced still make excuses for barbaric actions like the death penalty....

The whys and hows matter then? Can we use moral relativism for it?   
2010-12-30 09:17:33
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6680|North Carolina

Ticia wrote:

But then places like the US supposedly so advanced still make excuses for barbaric actions like the death penalty....

The whys and hows matter then? Can we use moral relativism for it?   
While I would agree that most of our economic peers regard the death penalty as barbaric, I would suggest that they would view it differently if they had as many murders as us.

Violent crime tends to be higher in America than in Canada, Australia, and Western Europe, but that has to do with a variety of factors that are mostly economic but only somewhat cultural.

So, the hows and whys matter for why we have more violent crime, but they don't matter as much with the death penalty itself, since it's really just a reaction to violent crime.   I would be willing to bet that we wouldn't have the death penalty if we had less violent crime to begin with.

By the same token, I think more of Europe would have the death penalty if they had more violent crime.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-12-30 09:18:20)

2010-12-30 09:22:58
Ticia
Member
+73|5610

Turquoise wrote:

Ticia wrote:

But then places like the US supposedly so advanced still make excuses for barbaric actions like the death penalty....

The whys and hows matter then? Can we use moral relativism for it?   
While I would agree that most of our economic peers regard the death penalty as barbaric, I would suggest that they would view it differently if they had as many murders as us.

Violent crime tends to be higher in America than in Canada, Australia, and Western Europe, but that has to do with a variety of factors that are mostly economic but only somewhat cultural.

So, the hows and whys matter for why we have more violent crime, but they don't matter as much with the death penalty itself, since it's really just a reaction to violent crime.   I would be willing to bet that we wouldn't have the death penalty if we had less violent crime to begin with.

By the same token, I think more of Europe would have the death penalty if they had more violent crime.
Just like Mauritania sees women differently? I'm sure they can give you variety of economic and cultural factors for it too.
2010-12-30 09:28:39
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6680|North Carolina

Ticia wrote:

Just like Mauritania sees women differently? I'm sure they can give you variety of economic and cultural factors for it too.
Well, they'd have to be some really good reasons to support prosecuting rape victims.  So far, Uzique hasn't provided any.
2010-12-30 13:43:17
EVieira
Member
+105|6753|Lutenblaag, Molvania

Uzique wrote:

wow so you acknowledge that morality is relative but then expect every single nation to progress alongside and with the west's history and timescale. hahaha. WOW. how incredibly intelligent. everything is relative - not just morality, and to impose your standards, progress and circumstances upon anyone else is narrowminded-- this is exactly what i am saying. turq's best counter-argument so far has been that reductionism and narrowmindedness is perhaps somehow crudely 'necessary', or a part of the way we, as a human species, look at the world. okay, perhaps. but you can't acknowledge that morality is relative and then expect every country with a vastly different socio-cultural history to be at the same fucking point. that's beyond retarded.
I never said anything about being on the same point. Turq understood what I meant, so you either don't want to get it or have nothing to add to discussion besides "WOWs" , "hahahas", "fuckings" and "retard".

I have a guess its the latter...
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)

 

Pages: 1 … 5 6 7

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard