Poll: Do all cultures (and their traditions) deserve respect?

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

OBL maybe a criminal but we rather not waste our resources on him even if was proven to be on our lands.

Homosexuality will cause the destruction of the human race if left unchecked.

There is no point of me posting in PnN because most here are narrow minded barbarians

This Pakistani is typical. Do not think this dude is an abberation. I have met many highly educated Pakistani's, and the stuff they say when they "let their guard down" is jaw-dropping.

GreenBean manages to make me look like a uber-liberal.

This is the enemy my leftie/liberal/moral relativistic crowd...he is a islamic fundamentalist, and he wants adulterers and homosexuals stoned to death (big stones for adulterers, little stone for gays, cuz they're so bad). He secretly admires Bin Laden, he hates Jews, he thinks the 9/11 thing was a jew/cia plot. These folks do not have their heads screwed on straight, and your not gonna change his mind about anything...because we are barbarians, and we are inferior.....

and you think we can "negotiate" or reason with people more radical than him?

So you wish to see me dead?

 

[Abraxas]

If heartsurgeon's summation was accurate, you seem eager, ready, and willing to deal in death for the beliefs of others; to support those who kill the innocent or at the very least the harmless. Why then, should you be offended if someone wishes for your death for your beliefs when you readily inflict it on others?

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Abraxas
If heartsurgeon's summation was accurate, you seem eager, ready, and willing to deal in death for the beliefs of others; to support those who kill the innocent or at the very least the harmless. Why then, should you be offended if someone wishes for your death for your beliefs when you readily inflict it on others?

Then Heatsurgeon was wrong. Obviously I don't support the killing of the innocent or killing for their beliefs or the harmless. You fail to understand the fact that I consider homosexuals harmful.

I think Americans justify the death and bdestruction that they've caused over the last 5 years by claiming that those murdered "wished" death upon them or are "barbaric". Since when did wishing death equal murder? It is barbaric to kill innocents and then blame collateral damage. I don't support killing anyone but I wouldn't blame those Iraqis and Afghans that do.

Perhaps it's time to stop blaming others and stop your people from murdering innocents and hand Bush over. Read the bolded bit again. You are right. Americans should not be offended when people hate them to the death.

 

[Abraxas]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Abraxas
If heartsurgeon's summation was accurate, you seem eager, ready, and willing to deal in death for the beliefs of others; to support those who kill the innocent or at the very least the harmless. Why then, should you be offended if someone wishes for your death for your beliefs when you readily inflict it on others?

Then Heatsurgeon was wrong. Obviously I don't support the killing of the innocent or killing for their beliefs or the harmless. You fail to understand the fact that I consider homosexuals harmful.

You are correct, I do not understand it. Clearly nothing they do has any impact on you. In either case, I find those who kill homosexuals to be harmful (even if you generously use large stones to do it) so that leaves us in a dilemma.

I think Americans justify the death and bdestruction that they've caused over the last 5 years by claiming that those murdered "wished" death upon them or are "barbaric". Since when did wishing death equal murder? It is barbaric to kill innocents and then blame collateral damage. I don't support killing anyone but I wouldn't blame those Iraqis and Afghans that do.

Perhaps it's time to stop blaming others and stop your people from murdering innocents and hand Bush over. Read the bolded bit again. You are right. Americans should not be offended when people hate them to the death.

Perhaps it is time to stop painting over broad caricatures of people based on where they live. Not everyone in the US supports killing anyone, indeed, I would wager most don't. In case you hadn't noticed, the vast majority of Americans do not support Bush nor do they support his war. Claiming it makes sense to believe all Americans should die because a few Americans believe you should, well, is senseless. Might I suggest you judge the individual and not the nationality?

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Abraxas
Perhaps it is time to stop painting over broad caricatures of people based on where they live. Not everyone in the US supports killing anyone, indeed, I would wager most don't. In case you hadn't noticed, the vast majority of Americans do not support Bush nor do they support his war. Claiming it makes sense to believe all Americans should die because a few Americans believe you should, well, is senseless. Might I suggest you judge the individual and not the nationality?

Do you believe that those Muslims that believe that Americans should die be killed? Do you believe that those Muslims that believe you should die be handed over the the US. Do you believe Osama Bin Laden be handed over? Do you believe we should risk our lives in order to do so?

Do you believe that those Americans that believe that all Muslims should be killed should be handed over to the Muslims? Do you believe Bush should be impeached and trialed?

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Things like our Bill of Rights are not universal, and they are a rather new concept to human civilization. Moreover, they are also greatly threatened by everyone, including ourselves.

A really basic and easy value judgment on a culture should be their human rights and if they uphold them. Those who fail to meet such standards should be judged and found wanton. Such regard implies pressure for them to remedy the abuse of human rights. To ignore such differences is to invite the abuse of human rights.

It is clear which side I stand on. Everyone should be judged.

Except Jesus, because Jesus is magic.

 

[Abraxas]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Abraxas
Perhaps it is time to stop painting over broad caricatures of people based on where they live. Not everyone in the US supports killing anyone, indeed, I would wager most don't. In case you hadn't noticed, the vast majority of Americans do not support Bush nor do they support his war. Claiming it makes sense to believe all Americans should die because a few Americans believe you should, well, is senseless. Might I suggest you judge the individual and not the nationality?

Do you believe that those Muslims that believe that Americans should die be killed?

No, I believe they should have a serious, honest, mental internal discussion and think hard on whether all those they believe deserve death really do. I believe most humans, if they were to think with their heads instead of their emotions, would be far more tolerant and willing to accept the differences they now feel people should be killed over.

Do you believe that those Muslims that believe you should die be handed over the the US.

No, I absolutely do not believe in thought crime.

Do you believe Osama Bin Laden be handed over?

I do, he should stand trial for his actions.

Do you believe we should risk our lives in order to do so?

Well, he did enter your country illegally and uses your territory to commit acts of war against the US. I think it fair that at the very least you cooperate in allowing a US force to go in after him.

Do you believe that those Americans that believe that all Muslims should be killed should be handed over to the Muslims?

No, again, I do not believe in thought crime.

Do you believe Bush should be impeached and trialed?

An interesting question, and in the end, in a perfect world, yes he should. As Clinton should have, and all who came before. The actions of each lead to the deaths of countless people and those people should at the very least be required to answer to the public for those deaths. In a practical world, there is no method of doing so other than simply voting them out of office. All who cause the death of another, be it outside the law or within, should be required to justify their actions, however, no such court exists for those who kill with the stroke of a pen. Again though, in the real world, no country would limit themselves in such a fashion and so while it would be nice if those who wage war and cause death were called into account, understand realistically it will never happen.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Abraxas

Do you believe Osama Bin Laden be handed over?

I do, he should stand trial for his actions.

Do you believe we should risk our lives in order to do so?

Well, he did enter your country illegally and uses your territory to commit acts of war against the US. I think it fair that at the very least you cooperate in allowing a US force to go in after him.

[/quote]

I believe his trial should be held in the country he is captured. What is the difference between a crime and an act of war?

After recent events and the failure of the Pakistani army to do much I would support a US force going after the insurgents as long as the follow the same rules of engagement that the Pakistan army has been following. That means no air cover, no artillery, no heavy weapons, no attacks on civilian buildings (even if they are harboring terrorists). Also all the captured should be handed over the the Pakistani military and they decide what happens. But I don't think the US would accept fighting without air cover. Civilians would be spared but at the cost of heavy American losses. We can NOT expose our own citizens to danger. American has shown that they prefer killing a few hundred innocents in order to save a few of their men; which is unacceptable.

 

[Abraxas]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Abraxas

Do you believe Osama Bin Laden be handed over?

I do, he should stand trial for his actions.

Do you believe we should risk our lives in order to do so?

Well, he did enter your country illegally and uses your territory to commit acts of war against the US. I think it fair that at the very least you cooperate in allowing a US force to go in after him.

I believe his trial should be held in the country he is captured. What is the difference between a crime and an act of war?

The difference between a crime and the act of war is whether or not the act, if sanctioned by a government, will lead to war between two nations. In the case of the 9/11 attacks, where the 3,000 civilians were killed, such an attack would spark war. If he had instead masterminded a dastardly plot to knock over a large number of potted plants, not so much, even if it is vandalism and criminal mischief.

After recent events and the failure of the Pakistani army to do much I would support a US force going after the insurgents as long as the follow the same rules of engagement that the Pakistan army has been following. That means no air cover, no artillery, no heavy weapons, no attacks on civilian buildings (even if they are harboring terrorists).

Does this apply to raids only in civilian areas or do these restrictions, in your mind, also cover the Pakistani side of the Tora Bora mountain compound which has long been an al Qaeda stronghold (and little else)?

Also all the captured should be handed over the the Pakistani military and they decide what happens. But I don't think the US would accept fighting without air cover. Civilians would be spared but at the cost of heavy American losses. We can NOT expose our own citizens to danger.

Understandable. However, in such a scenario, how difficult would it be for Pakistani police forces to simply go door to door in a region he is believed to be hiding? After all, he is a criminal in your country too. It seems to me police action taken in civilian centers would be due diligence in your own criminal justice system.

American has shown that they prefer killing a few hundred innocents in order to save a few of their men; which is unacceptable.

America has or Bush has? There is, after all, a difference.

 

[heartsurgeon]

We can NOT expose our own citizens to danger

Perhaps the good citizens of Pakistan should point out where Bin Laden is located, thus sparing everyone any risk of collateral injury.


you have all these funny rules...Bin Laden can kill innocents, Bin Laden can be a criminal, the Pak military may be unable to arrest him, you want the US troops to find him, but only if they don't kill anyone, and after they have him, he be turned over to Pakistan..

that's silly.

if "civilians" don't want to get hurt, they should tuen Bin Laden in, and avoid any conflict at all.


Harboring and protecting a criminal is a crimnal act itself.
As I have pointed out many times, and completely ignore, over 90% of the deaths in Iraq are Muslin killing Muslim. In particular, it is Al Qaeda in Iraq, killing Iraqi's....

this doesn't seem to bother you....Al Qaeda (Bin Laden's people) killing other Iraqi Muslims...
but you want Bush executed?


Do you believe the jews and the cia planned the 9/11 world trade center attack?

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Abraxas Does this apply to raids only in civilian areas or do these restrictions, in your mind, also cover the Pakistani side of the Tora Bora mountain compound which has long been an al Qaeda stronghold (and little else)?

The geography of these mountains is complex. There are numerous small villages and nomads that maybe killed if air cover is used. If the ToraBora mountains only had Osama and his followers, Pakistan would already have reduced it to dust. It is quite prepared to undertake such operations as it did against the rebels in the red mosque. You must remember that Osama has killed more Pakistanis than Americans.

Understandable. However, in such a scenario, how difficult would it be for Pakistani police forces to simply go door to door in a region he is believed to be hiding? After all, he is a criminal in your country too. It seems to me police action taken in civilian centers would be due diligence in your own criminal justice system.

It would be a breach of privacy going door to door without any proof whatsoever. That's against our teachings. If he is living amongst civilians then he shall be treated as any criminal; If he takes up arms then he shall be treated as a rebel. The tribal regions are an autonomous area within a country that have their own laws. It will be difficult to find him if he hides there. You can never be sure which of these tribes holds OBL. It would be stupid and illegal to declare war against all of these tribes just because one of them are harboring terrorists. And these tribes does not like the federal government interfering in their affairs.

America has or Bush has? There is, after all, a difference.

I've always been told that democracy was a rule of the people. If it is then Americans should have the power to stop Bush. If they don't they are partly responsible for his actions; I dare say the same way the Taliban was responsible for Osama's actions. The were not involved in the attacks yet they did nothing to stop him or capture him.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Perhaps the good citizens of Pakistan should point out where Bin Laden is located, thus sparing everyone any risk of collateral injury.

It would be far too easy to hide OBL within a tribe. We can not declare war on all the tribes just because one tribe is hiding him.

you have all these funny rules...Bin Laden can kill innocents, Bin Laden can be a criminal, the Pak military may be unable to arrest him, you want the US troops to find him, but only if they don't kill anyone, and after they have him, he be turned over to Pakistan..

The American army will be acting on behalf of the Pakistani government. Anything else would be considered a violation of our sovereignty. And therefore it is the government's right and duty to have him tried in Pakistan.

if "civilians" don't want to get hurt, they should tuen Bin Laden in, and avoid any conflict at all.

Don't generalize. That's like saying that one person in 50 murdered a man so we will kill all 50. That may happen in America but it won't happen here.

Harboring and protecting a criminal is a crimnal act itself.

As I have pointed out many times, and completely ignore, over 90% of the deaths in Iraq are Muslin killing Muslim. In particular, it is Al Qaeda in Iraq, killing Iraqi's....

All those deaths are criminal deaths happening under the occupation. America is partly responsible for not being able to control the crime in their occupied land. Those that kill should be tried not murdered.

this doesn't seem to bother you....Al Qaeda (Bin Laden's people) killing other Iraqi Muslims...
but you want Bush executed?

Seems like you have trouble comprehending what I'm saying. Bin Laden and all those who have killed should be tried.

Do you believe the jews and the cia planned the 9/11 world trade center attack?

I have no proof even if I were to say that.

 

[Abraxas]

The geography of these mountains is complex. There are numerous small villages and nomads that maybe killed if air cover is used. If the ToraBora mountains only had Osama and his followers, Pakistan would already have reduced it to dust. It is quite prepared to undertake such operations as it did against the rebels in the red mosque. You must remember that Osama has killed more Pakistanis than Americans.

Granted, but at the same time, as large as they are and as sparse as the villages and nomads are, there are going to be massive empty tracts of land where only the bunker network exists. Further, it would be quite easy for US aerial surveillance from drones to figure out what, if any, villages and nomads are in the area before employing artillery or air cover. It seems to me one could compromise on that issue and simply forbid air strikes within a reasonable distance from any human habitation.

It would be a breach of privacy going door to door without any proof whatsoever. That's against our teachings.

I'm not talking about kicking in doors, I am talking about police forces walking around, knocking on doors, and asking those inside if they have seen Osama. I don't think it is an invasion of privacy, simply on the ground intelligence gathering from those that consent to give intelligence.

If he is living amongst civilians then he shall be treated as any criminal; If he takes up arms then he shall be treated as a rebel. The tribal regions are an autonomous area within a country that have their own laws. It will be difficult to find him if he hides there. You can never be sure which of these tribes holds OBL. It would be stupid and illegal to declare war against all of these tribes just because one of them are harboring terrorists. And these tribes does not like the federal government interfering in their affairs.

Again, nobody was talking about declaring war on all the tribes. However, if, as you say, he has killed thousands of Pakistanis, it would seem to me your government should take a more active role in seeking him out before he kills even more. If the tribal regions are autonomous, can your government not negotiate with theirs and offer some kind of payment for their cooperation in finding someone responsible for the deaths of thousands of your countrymen?

I've always been told that democracy was a rule of the people. If it is then Americans should have the power to stop Bush. If they don't they are partly responsible for his actions; I dare say the same way the Taliban was responsible for Osama's actions. The were not involved in the attacks yet they did nothing to stop him or capture him.

America is a Republic, that means elected representatives have the power to stop Bush. There is no mechanism in place for the populace to directly remove him from office (no matter how much we would like to). I certainly would agree that those who voted for this war, and voted for people based on this war, do share blame. But what of those who not only voted against the war, not only voted against those who voted for the war, but actively donated time and effort into removing Bush from power via the electoral system? Do we share the blame as well because we were too few to stop Bush?

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Abraxas
Granted, but at the same time, as large as they are and as sparse as the villages and nomads are, there are going to be massive empty tracts of land where only the bunker network exists. Further, it would be quite easy for US aerial surveillance from drones to figure out what, if any, villages and nomads are in the area before employing artillery or air cover. It seems to me one could compromise on that issue and simply forbid air strikes within a reasonable distance from any human habitation.

Most of these fighters live within the populace probably holding human shields. If air cover and artillery weren't an issue the Pakistani army would have used them. The death and destruction that American planes and bombers have called elsewhere with "precaution" in order to avoid civilian deaths is enough reason for us to not allow it.

I'm not talking about kicking in doors, I am talking about police forces walking around, knocking on doors, and asking those inside if they have seen Osama. I don't think it is an invasion of privacy, simply on the ground intelligence gathering from those that consent to give intelligence.

Fair enough. We are already doing that. But the government's police force only extends to the urban areas in the tribal FATA region.

Again, nobody was talking about declaring war on all the tribes. However, if, as you say, he has killed thousands of Pakistanis, it would seem to me your government should take a more active role in seeking him out before he kills even more. If the tribal regions are autonomous, can your government not negotiate with theirs and offer some kind of payment for their cooperation in finding someone responsible for the deaths of thousands of your countrymen?

Yes but killing innocents in order to find him would be hypocrisy. They have been negotiating since 2001. We have found many of the top leaders of Alqaeeda that way but no luck yet with OBL.

America is a Republic, that means elected representatives have the power to stop Bush. There is no mechanism in place for the populace to directly remove him from office (no matter how much we would like to). I certainly would agree that those who voted for this war, and voted for people based on this war, do share blame. But what of those who not only voted against the war, not only voted against those who voted for the war, but actively donated time and effort into removing Bush from power via the electoral system? Do we share the blame as well because we were too few to stop Bush?

Fair enough.

 

[The Green Bean]

double post

 

[heartsurgeon]

your justifications are utter nonsense

if a "civilain" in this country assists a murderer, thet share in the guilt of the murderer, they are not "innocent civilains"

why don't you just admit you think the jews and cia set up 9/11...you know you believe it...

any comments on this:

Islamist militants have beheaded two women in Pakistan after accusing them of being prostitutes, police said on Friday.

how come the men who used the prostitutes were not beheaded...that's not equal treatment of men and women is it (oh, yes, you don't believe in that either).

you live in a country apparently overrun with "islamic militants" whom you cannot seem to arrest because they are being shielded by "innocent civilians" that you cannot possibly hold responsibly for anything..

i don't think any of you are "innocent civilians" your whole society breeds and encourages this insanity.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
your justifications are utter nonsense

if a "civilain" in this country assists a murderer, thet share in the guilt of the murderer, they are not "innocent civilains"

why don't you just admit you think the jews and cia set up 9/11...you know you believe it...

any comments on this:

you live in a country apparently overrun with "islamic militants" whom you cannot seem to arrest because they are being shielded by "innocent civilians" that you cannot possibly hold responsibly for anything..

i don't think any of you are "innocent civilians" your whole society breeds and encourages this insanity.

Perhaps you need to wipe out our entire race just like Hitler tried.

Islamist militants have beheaded two women in Pakistan after accusing them of being prostitutes, police said on Friday.

how come the men who used the prostitutes were not beheaded...that's not equal treatment of men and women is it (oh, yes, you don't believe in that either).

I've said many times that these terrorists follow a deviated version of Islamic law. The men should've been punished as well. Additionally these people have NO right to carry out any punishments on their own but bring it to the active state court. Those who have carried out the punishments should be tried for murder.

 

[Andyb23]

Green Bean are you still instigating here? Ridiculous.

Let me say something, there are many pecularities to many cultures. But I personally find many Islamic and African practices appalling and inhuman. Especially the way they treat women and animals.

My own ancestors in Northern India as well have strange practices such as Johar where a woman burns herself after her husband dies, but interestingly this practice was instituted after an Islamic attack. After all the men died in battle the women would burn themselves in order to not become part of the 'harem' and not have their children become slaves.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Kadarin

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
All cultures and their traditions deserve examination and analysis. Do they all deserve respect, no matter how repugnant? No. Cultural traditions past and present have ranged from human sacrifice to cannibalism to stoning gays and adulterers. Sorry, I can't respect those traditions. I can recognize the right of a culture to practice whatever tradition they feel is legitimate for their purposes. But that doesn't mean I must respect it.

However, if you had grown up in the ancient Aztec culture with its ritual human sacrifice, you would have perceived the world through its eyes, and you might have had trouble making sense of Christianity. Had you grown up in ancient Sparta, you would probably not only think nothing of killing babies that weren't "good enough" to be Spartans, you would wholeheartedly endorse it. It's very difficult, if not impossible, to be completely objective about this subject as we are all shaped by the societies in which we live.

I agree. The most rational answer yet. We simply can not judge another culture until the measures used are accepted by them. In other words, you will have to think like an Aztec to understand the world through their eyes. The problem I see with many people today is that they are narrow minded and base all their judgements on their social norms and teachings.

edit: The OP is being biased by saying "(no matter how misguided, harmful and dangerous)" Something that is misguided dangerous and harmful according to one culture maybe the exact opposite to another. That in itself is so subjective and there is no universal definition of good and bad.

Then what do we base our judgments on?

You are just a man. An equal. You shouldn't be judging another man. Only god can do that.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: yllus
Today I was reading an editorial in my daily newspaper entitled Civilizing barbarism. In it, an editor from the paper examined a University of Toronto professor's almost-defence of the practice of genital mutilation in Sudan.

Please excuse the unnecessarily inflammatory anti-liberalism tone of the next paragraph which summarizes my question:

[Janice Boddy] obviously can't endorse [female circumcision], but a careful reading of her book demonstrates that she's embraced one of the great lies of modern liberalism: Any culture is as good as any other culture and its tradition-endorsed practices (no matter how misguided, harmful and dangerous) deserve respect.

To think of an example practice, we'll describe "female genital cutting", as Professor Boddy describes female circumcision:

The type of cutting widely favoured in the Sudan, "pharaonic circumcision," or "pharaonic purification," involves, she says, "paring [a curiously chosen word, normally used for wood carving or the preparation of fruit] a girl's external genitals and stitching together remaining skin so as to cover the wound, all but obscuring the urethra and vaginal opening."

Personally, I believe in a basic set of human rights that all people are entitled to. Those rights to me are pretty well pronounced in the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights back in 1948.

However, occasionally I hear people in this forum say that we shouldn't judge other nations and their cultures. That view is usually supported by the idea that we are not living within some perfect culture that has the right to pronounce the practices of others as wrong or amoral.

So, what side do you fall upon? Please add commentary as to why.

Note: If you're going to hop into this thread to say "Islam is wrong" or "The U.S. is amoral" or anything pointless like that, just go away and do so in another thread. This isn't about any one nation or culture - it's a general question.

I'd say that any society that respects individual freedoms without judgment and treats all people equally is a society worthy of my respect. This requires everyone to respect everyone else equally though and that isn't going to happen as long as there are people who think that people are more or less worth because of nationality/sex/sexual orientation/ethnicity/color of skin/religion or any other traits.

There will never be such a society until we have evolved beyond the morons we are now.