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

[PrinceofWands]

While I have my own beliefs and feelings, they are biased and accurate only for myself. Absolutely everything in the universe is relative, and I accept the limited scope of my own 'righteousness'.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

The ground reality is that Americans tend to consider themselves superior to us because they have power and money. Most American actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are considered barbarous according to my culture. The mere fact that you have killed a disproportionate number of people to avenge 9/11 is enough of a pretext to declare war. I consider this vengeful action on the same lines as terrorism. As long as the US does not understand the roots of our culture, there is no way they can win the war on terror. Many here see it as a war on culture.

I have found Pakistanis to be charming, hospitable, intelligent, and at the same time completely bigoted and paranoid. I have heard well educated, intelligent Pakistani's I have know for years, claim that Mohammed Atta was brainwashed by the Israelis to fly the airplane into the World Trade Center, and that all the Jews were warned to get out of the buildings.

I find it fascinating that you consider U.S. actions in Afghanistan "barbarous." We have allowed a democratically elected representative government to take the place of a murderous totalitarian regime. There is nothing of any material value in Afghanistan whatsoever, so we did not invade Afghanistan to seize it's resources. We deposed and killed agents of a government that directly supported the attack of the United States. You complain that killing these people is "disproportionate". They began the war, we did not. They killed innocents, the limited number of military casulaities were at the Pentagon. By what moral authority do you have to judge our actions in self-defense? How dare you claim that action was barbarous? The war in Afganistan was supported by the United Nations.

Saddam Hussein over his 20 year totalitarian rule, was responsibl;e for the death of at least 1 million people. He killed hundreds of thousands of his own countrymen, and hundreds of thousands of fellow Muslims in Iran...I do not recall your outrage being voiced over that "barbaric" activity "against my culture".

Your hypocrisy is nothing new. Complaining about the U.S. is a convenient diversion from actually dealing with your own self-induced problems...adopting the victumhood mentality..the U.S. is to blame for all you problems.

The treatment of Shia by Sunni, and Sunni by Shia is barbarous. The U.S. is not killing Iraqi's, the deaths in Iraq are by Iraqi's and non-Iraqi muslims, killing each other. I do not see millions of people trying to immigrate into Pakistan or the Middle east, I see millions trying to gain entery into the U.S, to live here (and in the other great Satan, Great Britain).

To be fair though, the US IS ABSOLUTELY killing Iraqi's...though they are also killing each other.

 

[heartsurgeon]

US IS ABSOLUTELY killing Iraqi's

I believe the vast majority of deaths in Iraq are not at the hands of American's. Many of those being killed by American's, in Iraq, are not Iraqi's (Al Qaeda in Iraq, and insurgents).

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

US IS ABSOLUTELY killing Iraqi's

I believe the vast majority of deaths in Iraq are not at the hands of American's. Many of those being killed by American's, in Iraq, are not Iraqi's (Al Qaeda in Iraq, and insurgents).

I can't imagine any sane person with an IQ over that of a kumquat willing to state that the US hasn't killed innocent Iraqi's during this whole thing. It's simply absurd. There WILL BE civilian casualties in an urban war (or honestly, in any war). It HAS happened. I'm not saying that fact dictates the total moral compass of our actions, merely that it must be accepted.

The US HAS acted immorally in the past, and will continue to do so. Mistakes HAVE been made, and will be made in the future. We HAVE KILLED innocents, in Iraq and other theaters of operation, and we WILL continue to do so. This is absolute fact. Again, not saying that's the whole picture; merely stating truth which should always be considered.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

US IS ABSOLUTELY killing Iraqi's

I believe the vast majority of deaths in Iraq are not at the hands of American's. Many of those being killed by American's, in Iraq, are not Iraqi's (Al Qaeda in Iraq, and insurgents).

I can't imagine any sane person with an IQ over that of a kumquat willing to state that the US hasn't killed innocent Iraqi's during this whole thing. It's simply absurd. There WILL BE civilian casualties in an urban war (or honestly, in any war). It HAS happened. I'm not saying that fact dictates the total moral compass of our actions, merely that it must be accepted.

double post, kinda

 

[Gneisenau]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

US IS ABSOLUTELY killing Iraqi's

I believe the vast majority of deaths in Iraq are not at the hands of American's. Many of those being killed by American's, in Iraq, are not Iraqi's (Al Qaeda in Iraq, and insurgents).

I can't imagine any sane person with an IQ over that of a kumquat willing to state that the US hasn't killed innocent Iraqi's during this whole thing. It's simply absurd. There WILL BE civilian casualties in an urban war (or honestly, in any war). It HAS happened. I'm not saying that fact dictates the total moral compass of our actions, merely that it must be accepted.

The US HAS acted immorally in the past, and will continue to do so. Mistakes HAVE been made, and will be made in the future. We HAVE KILLED innocents, in Iraq and other theaters of operation, and we WILL continue to do so. This is absolute fact. Again, not saying that's the whole picture; merely stating truth which should always be considered.

It would have been easier if you had posted this one first. In all honesty, your first post kinda sounds like you thought the US is mowing them down wholesale. I know you didn't explicitly say that, but the tone of your writing can be implied that way.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Gneisenau

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

US IS ABSOLUTELY killing Iraqi's

I believe the vast majority of deaths in Iraq are not at the hands of American's. Many of those being killed by American's, in Iraq, are not Iraqi's (Al Qaeda in Iraq, and insurgents).

I can't imagine any sane person with an IQ over that of a kumquat willing to state that the US hasn't killed innocent Iraqi's during this whole thing. It's simply absurd. There WILL BE civilian casualties in an urban war (or honestly, in any war). It HAS happened. I'm not saying that fact dictates the total moral compass of our actions, merely that it must be accepted.

The US HAS acted immorally in the past, and will continue to do so. Mistakes HAVE been made, and will be made in the future. We HAVE KILLED innocents, in Iraq and other theaters of operation, and we WILL continue to do so. This is absolute fact. Again, not saying that's the whole picture; merely stating truth which should always be considered.

It would have been easier if you had posted this one first. In all honesty, your first post kinda sounds like you thought the US is mowing them down wholesale. I know you didn't explicitly say that, but the tone of your writing can be implied that way.

Yeah, I can see that. Especially given my absolute opposition to our actions since GWB took over. However, heartsurgeon committed the same error by stating that, "The U.S. is not killing Iraqi's". That's not only silly, it's a disservice and should be countered wherever expressed.

 

[heartsurgeon]

well, did a little research about the "barbarous" U.S. troops in Iraq...

I doubt this site is a Republican Front:

The IRAQ BODY COUNT Database

I just tabulated one complete page of data, and of the 320+ deaths listed on one page (total civilian Iraqi deaths according to this site is between 71,000 and 78,000), OVER 90% WERE NON-US MILITARY.

Is there any indignation in Pakistani (or the rest of the Arab world) about these barbarous acts?

you can read about what actually happened...the non-US Military deaths have odd little comments posted next to them like.."tortured and mutilated" "beheaded", "women, children and family" etc.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
well, did a little research about the "barbarous" U.S. troops in Iraq...

I doubt this site is a Republican Front:

The IRAQ BODY COUNT Database

I just tabulated one complete page of data, and of the 320+ deaths listed on one page (total civilian Iraqi deaths according to this site is between 71,000 and 78,000), OVER 90% WERE NON-US MILITARY.

Is there any indignation in Pakistani (or the rest of the Arab world) about these barbarous acts?

So, extrapolating from your own numbers (assuming the ratio holds):

7,100-7,800 innocent civilians have been killed by the US military. More than twice as many as died on 9/11. So who do you think Iraq should invade seeking vengeance for that atrocity? After all, we did it...well actually we invaded someone who had nothing to do with our own civilian deaths, so I guess if Iraq chose to invade Italy it would make about as much sense.

Like I said, the US has killed Iraqis...and not just military targets.

 

[imported_Tango]

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?

Obviously on your personal definition of good and bad, which is obviously derived by the culture you grew up in.

Nobody can say you should have no definition of good and bad, but it's important to understand they are completely incidental. You think what you think because you are the product of a certain society, instead of another.

Personally, I think we should keep western countries true to the universal declaration of human rights. But I openly recognize that those we call universal human rights are just the result of western history, and do not reflect values other societies have.

 

[heartsurgeon]

7,100-7,800 innocent civilians have been killed by the US military.

hmm...Saddam was killing about 50,000 people/year during the 20 years of his reign, that's a million people. Seems like the death rate is actually lower now.

by the way, we are currently in Iraq at the request of the democratically elected representatives of the people.

by the way , why don't you repeat yourself another time.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Tango

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?

Obviously on your personal definition of good and bad, which is obviously derived by the culture you grew up in.

Nobody can say you should have no definition of good and bad, but it's important to understand they are completely incidental. You think what you think because you are the product of a certain society, instead of another.

Personally, I think we should keep western countries true to the universal declaration of human rights. But I openly recognize that those we call universal human rights are just the result of western history, and do not reflect values other societies have.

So in a really evasive and convoluted sort of way, you're simply saying not all cultures believe the same thing. Profound.

You lose me when you jump to the conclusion that any culture is as valid or "good" as another based on your profound premise. Tell me again... why can't one individual, group, tribe, or society have ideas that are better than another?

I get the feeling it's all based on the intellectually cowardly feelings of discomfort such thought bring to you. After all, recognizing that not all concepts and principles are equal means you have to judge... and judging is so 20th century.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Tango

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?

Obviously on your personal definition of good and bad, which is obviously derived by the culture you grew up in.

Nobody can say you should have no definition of good and bad, but it's important to understand they are completely incidental. You think what you think because you are the product of a certain society, instead of another.

Personally, I think we should keep western countries true to the universal declaration of human rights. But I openly recognize that those we call universal human rights are just the result of western history, and do not reflect values other societies have.

So in a really evasive and convoluted sort of way, you're simply saying not all cultures believe the same thing. Profound.

You lose me when you jump to the conclusion that any culture is as valid or "good" as another based on your profound premise. Tell me again... why can't one individual, group, tribe, or society have ideas that are better than another?

I get the feeling it's all based on the intellectually cowardly feelings of discomfort such thought bring to you. After all, recognizing that not all concepts and principles are equal means you have to judge... and judging is so 20th century.

I might write in a convoluted way, and I apologize for that. English is clearly not my first language.

But to answer the question in bold: any culture is as valid as another because there is no objective perspective on this issue. Logic since Aristotelean philosophy states that an objective perspective must be generated from outside of a system, and no human being is without a own set of principles and concept, thus nobody can be objective. What appears good to a tribe is different from what appears good to another one because their mental schemes are different.

Again, this is not to say I do not believe (strongly, even) in many things that, to me, are just right. But I just reiterate it is important to understand my belief is based on a skewed set of concepts, in particular those embraced by my culture.

I don't know why you thing this is intellectually coward. In fact, it is the only possibility. Nobody in the world can claim to have an external view on mankind because each one of us is the product of a society and a culture. Doing so is just blind.

I will make a practical example to make myself understood. A few years ago there was a public debate in France about female circumcision. The debate was about making it legal for a person more than 18 years old to have surgery to obtain circumcision in France, considering that many travel to North Africa to do it, in much less safe medical environments.

Now, on one hand, why wouldn't you allow somebody who willingly wants to have her own body mutilated in such a way to have it done? On the other hand the practice of female circumcision is a disgusting practice which violates many of what our society considers human rights.

My position was that it should not be allowed. And this is because I believe there are certain basic principles that define western thought, based on a humanist/illuminist tradition that should not be challenged lightly. They are the fundamentals of our society and culture and without those the very essence of what we are and think would collapse.

Still, I do not think that female circumcision is wrong for everybody, everywhere in the world. If a mature, mentally sane woman chooses so, it's her right to do it. She must have right to self-determine the shape of her own body. Just, she shall do it in a place where it is part of their culture, and where such a practice does not clash with the basic concepts of our society. Take the airplane, go to Algeri, have surgery, take the plane back. Done deal.

So: do I think it's a wrong practice? Yes, for somebody coming from our tradition and culture, I can't but think the practice of female circumcision has its roots in gender-control pressures of a society with no gender-equality ideals. And I do think that gender equolity is a right ideal, for which I would be ready to fight.

But again, my perception of this comes from a very clear and precise cultural heritage, going back to our greek/roman philosophical base, through the renaissance, illuminism and industrial age.

Of course nobody can spend his life questioning his own beliefs and the reasons why he has these beliefs. So each one of us will have something he considers good and something he considers bad. And I do agree that it is important to fight for what we consider right. But it's what WE consider right. Not what IT IS right.

 

[cwjerome]

Tango, I'm still not getting it through in my stubborn little brain. I understand that cultures believe different things, and along with that, they believe they are "right" (or just assume it's right because they haven't been exposed to anything else). I don't need elaborate examples and such.

It sounds like a semantic issue. You believe you are right, and acknowledge the fact that you believe some ideas are better than others... and as long as you say "I consider it right" and not "It is right" then it's all good. Well I can go along with that. I think it would be intellectual cowardice to not be able to make a value-judgment at all. But if you can judge, by qualifying it with "I think" or "we think" (instead of "It is"), then that seems reasonable.

I believe reality is objective, but how we all perceive it of course isn't. The most we can do is use the best logic, best reasoning, and best possible evidence to get as close as we can to it. Because the more in-line we are with what's real, the better off we'll all be. Therefore, some ideas and concepts and principles will be better than others.

 

[piasabird]

Ghengis kahn - I find it hard to beleive this group did anything good. Hell, I could be wrong.
Hitler's Super Race - Another fine Example.

Carnigee probably had a lot of things right. Maybe he was a ruthless business man, but he did some good in the world in the end. He was able to succeed because he fled his oppressors in Scotland and went to America where he was free to succeed. The concept of a country where people are free to pursue their dreams and live in freedom, and speak their mind, was unique.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Tango, I'm still not getting it through in my stubborn little brain. I understand that cultures believe different things, and along with that, they believe they are "right" (or just assume it's right because they haven't been exposed to anything else). I don't need elaborate examples and such.

It sounds like a semantic issue. You believe you are right, and acknowledge the fact that you believe some ideas are better than others... and as long as you say "I consider it right" and not "It is right" then it's all good. Well I can go along with that. I think it would be intellectual cowardice to not be able to make a value-judgment at all. But if you can judge, by qualifying it with "I think" or "we think" (instead of "It is"), then that seems reasonable.

I believe reality is objective, but how we all perceive it of course isn't. The most we can do is use the best logic, best reasoning, and best possible evidence to get as close as we can to it. Because the more in-line we are with what's real, the better off we'll all be. Therefore, some ideas and concepts and principles will be better than others.

You understood what I meant perfectly and it can be synthesized exactly as you wrote: as long as you say "I consider it right" instead of "it is right" we are all good and happy. It might just be semantics, but for me it makes the big difference between an extremist or zealot and an individual with whom you can talk. If one think his truth is THE truth, why would he ever compromise, or even listen to anybody saying anything else?

Yup, but what I disagree with is the idea of an objective reality. Many things have not an objective reality. In fact many things have not a reality at all. And these also seems to be the kind of things men kill each others for all the time.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Tango, I'm still not getting it through in my stubborn little brain. I understand that cultures believe different things, and along with that, they believe they are "right" (or just assume it's right because they haven't been exposed to anything else). I don't need elaborate examples and such.

It sounds like a semantic issue. You believe you are right, and acknowledge the fact that you believe some ideas are better than others... and as long as you say "I consider it right" and not "It is right" then it's all good. Well I can go along with that. I think it would be intellectual cowardice to not be able to make a value-judgment at all. But if you can judge, by qualifying it with "I think" or "we think" (instead of "It is"), then that seems reasonable.

I believe reality is objective, but how we all perceive it of course isn't. The most we can do is use the best logic, best reasoning, and best possible evidence to get as close as we can to it. Because the more in-line we are with what's real, the better off we'll all be. Therefore, some ideas and concepts and principles will be better than others.

You understood what I meant perfectly and it can be synthesized exactly as you wrote: as long as you say "I consider it right" instead of "it is right" we are all good and happy. It might just be semantics, but for me it makes the big difference between an extremist or zealot and an individual with whom you can talk. If one think his truth is THE truth, why would he ever compromise, or even listen to anybody saying anything else?

Yup, but what I disagree with is the idea of an objective reality. Many things have not an objective reality. In fact many things have not a reality at all. And these also seems to be the kind of things men kill each others for all the time.

So what's you basis for determining what is better than another? If there is no objectivity somewhere to scale it, how can one thing be more good than another? You have to have some philosophy, some rationale (besides, "This is my culture and this is how I think") to back up a judgment. Otherwise it's just random, a whim... and being prepared to fight -and possibly die- for random whims, or any idea not based firmly in some sort of moral certainty, seems really odd. And dumb.

Here's an easy example to demonstrate what I'm saying. Say one culture uses logical thinking, testing, and advanced tools and reasoning to determine that a certain tree bark can be processed to help treat diabetes. Say another culture believes chanting certain phrases before a fire treats the same problem because their ancestors have taught them so.

Is one idea better than another? What if the quality of life and life expectancy of the ill people for the former is drastically higher? Is one idea more congruent with reality, ie the physical universe and the laws that govern it? Perhaps?

This is what I mean by scale. If we are to judge, there has to be some way to measure ideas against each other. This idea is basically the foundation for the Age of Enlightenment, and Age of Reason, and all that has followed. The idea that we can observe and try to rationally understand "reality" and improve our situation in this world is the catalyst for progress. The problem as I see it though, is that we have come very far scientifically in this area, but not socially/behaviorally... our technology has skyrocketed while our philosophy has stalled.

 

[Moonbeam]

It strikes me that anybody who approached this subject with an ounce of impartial mentation will immediately be struck by the fact that regardless of what anyone's culture is, they will be convinced, ineluctably and almost without exception, that it is also the best.

This tells me two things, right off the bat. The first is that the acquisition of culture includes, as a part of the process of inculcation, a motivated need to defend whatever it may be, and two, that what one's culture is has nothing to do with ones own value or worth, but is a pure accident.

It was, in part, this realization, long ago, that caused me to reject everything I was ever taught to believe. It was the loss of all moorings that caused me to suffer the anguish of utter despair and hopelessness, to see that life is totally without any meaning. It was only at the end of the rope did something unexpected happen that turned me inside out.

 

[Moonbeam]

Here is a Sufi story that has much bearing on the issue, in my opinion:

"It is related that Moses called a humble shepherd a blashphemer, because he heard the poor man offering to comb God's hair, wash His robe, and kiss his hand.

God admonished Moses.... "Thus hast thou driven away a worshipper from the nearest to Me that he could approach."

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Tango, I'm still not getting it through in my stubborn little brain. I understand that cultures believe different things, and along with that, they believe they are "right" (or just assume it's right because they haven't been exposed to anything else). I don't need elaborate examples and such.

It sounds like a semantic issue. You believe you are right, and acknowledge the fact that you believe some ideas are better than others... and as long as you say "I consider it right" and not "It is right" then it's all good. Well I can go along with that. I think it would be intellectual cowardice to not be able to make a value-judgment at all. But if you can judge, by qualifying it with "I think" or "we think" (instead of "It is"), then that seems reasonable.

I believe reality is objective, but how we all perceive it of course isn't. The most we can do is use the best logic, best reasoning, and best possible evidence to get as close as we can to it. Because the more in-line we are with what's real, the better off we'll all be. Therefore, some ideas and concepts and principles will be better than others.

You understood what I meant perfectly and it can be synthesized exactly as you wrote: as long as you say "I consider it right" instead of "it is right" we are all good and happy. It might just be semantics, but for me it makes the big difference between an extremist or zealot and an individual with whom you can talk. If one think his truth is THE truth, why would he ever compromise, or even listen to anybody saying anything else?

Yup, but what I disagree with is the idea of an objective reality. Many things have not an objective reality. In fact many things have not a reality at all. And these also seems to be the kind of things men kill each others for all the time.

So what's you basis for determining what is better than another? If there is no objectivity somewhere to scale it, how can one thing be more good than another? You have to have some philosophy, some rationale (besides, "This is my culture and this is how I think") to back up a judgment. Otherwise it's just random, a whim... and being prepared to fight -and possibly die- for random whims, or any idea not based firmly in some sort of moral certainty, seems really odd. And dumb.

Here's an easy example to demonstrate what I'm saying. Say one culture uses logical thinking, testing, and advanced tools and reasoning to determine that a certain tree bark can be processed to help treat diabetes. Say another culture believes chanting certain phrases before a fire treats the same problem because their ancestors have taught them so.

Is one idea better than another? What if the quality of life and life expectancy of the ill people for the former is drastically higher? Is one idea more congruent with reality, ie the physical universe and the laws that govern it? Perhaps?

This is what I mean by scale. If we are to judge, there has to be some way to measure ideas against each other. This idea is basically the foundation for the Age of Enlightenment, and Age of Reason, and all that has followed. The idea that we can observe and try to rationally understand "reality" and improve our situation in this world is the catalyst for progress. The problem as I see it though, is that we have come very far scientifically in this area, but not socially/behaviorally... our technology has skyrocketed while our philosophy has stalled.

I absolutely agree. That's why I wrote many things have not an objective reality and some things have not a reality at all.

When the problem is treating diabetes, we can have a pretty accurate reality. When you put religion, culture, morality and identity... then it's much harder to do so.

 

[Saint Michael]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It strikes me that anybody who approached this subject with an ounce of impartial mentation will immediately be struck by the fact that regardless of what anyone's culture is, they will be convinced, ineluctably and almost without exception, that it is also the best.

This tells me two things, right off the bat. The first is that the acquisition of culture includes, as a part of the process of inculcation, a motivated need to defend whatever it may be, and two, that what one's culture is has nothing to do with ones own value or worth, but is a pure accident.

It was, in part, this realization, long ago, that caused me to reject everything I was ever taught to believe. It was the loss of all moorings that caused me to suffer the anguish of utter despair and hopelessness, to see that life is totally without any meaning. It was only at the end of the rope did something unexpected happen that turned me inside out.

That seems like a glib assessment to me. It makes me think of that scene in the Life of Brian where the Jews are sitting around planning on how to overthrow the Roman empire, and in a flash of bombastic rhetoric the leader says "And what did the Romans ever do for us?". Somebody in the back pipes up "The aqueduct?". And the rest of them chime in with a series of benefits the Romans have brought. At the end the leader asks again grudgingly: "Okay, besides the aqueduct, wine, the roads, sanitation, medicine, the baths, education, and public order... what have the Romans ever done for us?".

One might look at a snapshot of people existing within their own accidental culture and have to admit that it is working as perfectly as any accidental culture can, simply because it has to. But for me it's impossible to not believe that they wouldn't be better off with the inclusion of basic parts of our culture (which we took in part or in whole from others, I should say), especially female liberation.

So in the sense that there exist certain cultures out their with a dearth of some of the basic freedoms and qualities that make life as enjoyable as possible for as many members as possible, freedoms and qualities that ours has, I do believe that our culture is superior to some others. Of course, that is not to say that ours is perfect, because by no means is it, but when it comes down to comparison I'd say ours fares well on the global scale.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

The ground reality is that Americans tend to consider themselves superior to us because they have power and money. Most American actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are considered barbarous according to my culture. The mere fact that you have killed a disproportionate number of people to avenge 9/11 is enough of a pretext to declare war. I consider this vengeful action on the same lines as terrorism. As long as the US does not understand the roots of our culture, there is no way they can win the war on terror. Many here see it as a war on culture.

I have found Pakistanis to be charming, hospitable, intelligent, and at the same time completely bigoted and paranoid. I have heard well educated, intelligent Pakistani's I have know for years, claim that Mohammed Atta was brainwashed by the Israelis to fly the airplane into the World Trade Center, and that all the Jews were warned to get out of the buildings.

I find it fascinating that you consider U.S. actions in Afghanistan "barbarous." We have allowed a democratically elected representative government to take the place of a murderous totalitarian regime. There is nothing of any material value in Afghanistan whatsoever, so we did not invade Afghanistan to seize it's resources. We deposed and killed agents of a government that directly supported the attack of the United States. You complain that killing these people is "disproportionate". They began the war, we did not. They killed innocents, the limited number of military casulaities were at the Pentagon. By what moral authority do you have to judge our actions in self-defense? How dare you claim that action was barbarous? The war in Afganistan was supported by the United Nations.

Saddam Hussein over his 20 year totalitarian rule, was responsibl;e for the death of at least 1 million people. He killed hundreds of thousands of his own countrymen, and hundreds of thousands of fellow Muslims in Iran...I do not recall your outrage being voiced over that "barbaric" activity "against my culture".

Your hypocrisy is nothing new. Complaining about the U.S. is a convenient diversion from actually dealing with your own self-induced problems...adopting the victumhood mentality..the U.S. is to blame for all you problems.

The treatment of Shia by Sunni, and Sunni by Shia is barbarous. The U.S. is not killing Iraqi's, the deaths in Iraq are by Iraqi's and non-Iraqi muslims, killing each other. I do not see millions of people trying to immigrate into Pakistan or the Middle east, I see millions trying to gain entry into the U.S, to live here (and in the other great Satan, Great Britain). It's a bitter pill to realize another culture or goverment or society is more successful. We don't look down on Pakistani's, we rightly prefer our own system, and believe we do it better", and why shouldn't we? Do you know how many Pakistani's live in the U.S., and are citizens here? If it;s such a "barbarous" system, why aren't they leaving the U.S?? I only see the Pakistani communities getting LARGER here!! Gee, for such a "barbarous" place, Pakistani's appear to be finding a lot of things they like...they are building Mosques (how many churches or synagogues have they built recently in Islamabad?). How many non-Pakistanis have immigrated into Pakistan recentlly?

Saddam's or anyone else's wrongdoings does not justify American actions. You invaded Afghanistan to kill as many AlQaeeda and Taliban that you could even if that meant hundreds or thousands of civilian deaths. I consider this vengeful attack barbarous as much as I consider 9/11 barbarous. You should have stopped once 3000 of theirs died. Again, this is a matter of perspective. I do not believe that the US is to blame for or our problems for it is us that have failed to progress. But the U.S has been a nuisance in our internal affairs. We are doing well and the US wants elections by bringing back two of the most corrupt leaders in our history. I would like the repeat, the killing of Shiahs and sunnis is not a representation of the Islamic culture. People will kill on the pretext of anything for power especially when much of is at stake. However, I do feel that the spread of western values is a threat to our own which I consider to be superior.

If Pakistanis want to migrate to the US, be it. I for one do not wish to do so! And most of them do not migrate for cultural reasons. They do it to earn more more money. If I know my numbers correctly, more Afghans immigrated to Pakistan in the last 10 years than the those Pakistan that emigrated.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

7,100-7,800 innocent civilians have been killed by the US military.

hmm...Saddam was killing about 50,000 people/year during the 20 years of his reign, that's a million people. Seems like the death rate is actually lower now.

by the way, we are currently in Iraq at the request of the democratically elected representatives of the people.

by the way , why don't you repeat yourself another time.

Because they know we're keeping them in power...it's simple self-preservation on their part. Then again, they've also come very close to official requests for US forces to depart, and the people who elected them overwhelmingly support us getting the f outta dodge. You know you're not wanted when the people you're keeping alive seriously consider telling you to leave. Oh, and one more thing...we're in Iraq because we invaded without justification in order for GWB to get his rocks off. We're in Iraq because we're an unjust aggressor with imperialistic tendencies. Just because there happened to be a convenient benefit for humanity means nothing.

But that's all a discussion for another thread. I believe I made my point as it relates to your error/lie already.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Saint Michael

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It strikes me that anybody who approached this subject with an ounce of impartial mentation will immediately be struck by the fact that regardless of what anyone's culture is, they will be convinced, ineluctably and almost without exception, that it is also the best.

This tells me two things, right off the bat. The first is that the acquisition of culture includes, as a part of the process of inculcation, a motivated need to defend whatever it may be, and two, that what one's culture is has nothing to do with ones own value or worth, but is a pure accident.

It was, in part, this realization, long ago, that caused me to reject everything I was ever taught to believe. It was the loss of all moorings that caused me to suffer the anguish of utter despair and hopelessness, to see that life is totally without any meaning. It was only at the end of the rope did something unexpected happen that turned me inside out.

That seems like a glib assessment to me. It makes me think of that scene in the Life of Brian where the Jews are sitting around planning on how to overthrow the Roman empire, and in a flash of bombastic rhetoric the leader says "And what did the Romans ever do for us?". Somebody in the back pipes up "The aqueduct?". And the rest of them chime in with a series of benefits the Romans have brought. At the end the leader asks again grudgingly: "Okay, besides the aqueduct, wine, the roads, sanitation, medicine, the baths, education, and public order... what have the Romans ever done for us?".

One might look at a snapshot of people existing within their own accidental culture and have to admit that it is working as perfectly as any accidental culture can, simply because it has to. But for me it's impossible to not believe that they wouldn't be better off with the inclusion of basic parts of our culture (which we took in part or in whole from others, I should say), especially female liberation.

So in the sense that there exist certain cultures out their with a dearth of some of the basic freedoms and qualities that make life as enjoyable as possible for as many members as possible, freedoms and qualities that ours has, I do believe that our culture is superior to some others. Of course, that is not to say that ours is perfect, because by no means is it, but when it comes down to comparison I'd say ours fares well on the global scale.

That, as I said, is how anyone in any culture, with few exceptions, feels. And, as I also said, you feel a need to defend. If you are going to argue that I'm glib, you case should prove something other than what I said.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Ghengis kahn - I find it hard to beleive this group did anything good. Hell, I could be wrong.

You are.