Obviously you can see the double-standard here? You start by stating the state has NO place to tell people what to wear and then you yourself say it is unacceptable for women to walk around in public naked because YOU consider the vagina a raw form of sexuality. In essence telling people what to wear, what their freedoms are limited to! You set the boundaries. Well, firstly, in regards to "raw sexuality" I say so what? So what if there is “raw sexuality” in public? [Incidentally, Brittany Spears probably does more in one video to promote “raw sexuality” than the viewing of women walking around naked.] Why should your feelings about “raw sexuality” in public and their effects on children effect what many women may want to do as “individuals”. You did say America was unique in that it is all about safeguarding the individual? Now you seem to say: Hey, wait a minute, sure these women may want to walk around naked - BUT they are effecting these other members of society - children. So which is it? Let's face it; in a society all individuals affect other individuals. You will not be able to make a public decision without it affecting others. As that is the case - it is up to the society as a whole to decide what is acceptable and what is not. That is, society will take precedence over the individual. That is the nature or soceities. It IS the same in the USA. What I have a problem with is the USA telling a DIFFERENT society what will and what will not be acceptable behaviour in THEIR society. Who gave the USA the f*cking right to do that? I am sure many Muslim men in Afghanistan consider the female-form as well as female-face to be “raw sexuality” in the very same manner that you consider the vagina to be “raw sexualize” [and there may even exist safety reason for it as well]. Yet, you seem to think THEY have no say in this matter - that YOU will make their decision FOR them?!? How would you like it if they where to do this to YOU? And, sure enough, in a generation or two I am fairly certain that Afghanis will come to view the female form and face as natural - in the same manner that Americans do. [ironically Afghanistan gave women the right to vote well before America had, also it was not uncommon to see Afghani women in the capitol wearing miniskirts 50 years ago – shows what a generation or two of war will bring]. I am also sure that if America was completely and easily conquered and if women were forced to cover themselves that within a generation or two – that would be considered normal in the USA. Does that make sense? Can you see what I am trying to get at? It is not our right nor place as Americans to decide for other countries what they should and should not do in their societies. We should lead by example and example alone. And that's what that arse-face knee-jerk imbecilic spoilt little rich-kid GWBush needs to learn. But Bush has always gotten his way, he had never had to work for anything and the only self-realization he has seemed to come to was via some neo-fundamental Xian catharsis about why he should not be a boozer. We as Americans deserve better than some spoilt out-of-touch Billionaire silver-spoon-in-his-arse rich-kid running our country. I personally think that it is not correct for me or any other American to force another society to accept my definitions of normalcy. That isn’t to say America did not have the right to attack Afghanistan. Afghanis made their bed, now they will have to sleep in it. They choose align themselves with a group of people who were attacking the US and if you lend your support to attacking someone who can flatten you with a blink, expect to be flattened. Again, this is you making a morally judgment one what you consider a sexual organ. Using your own rational, if a person was to think the female form as well as face is a “sexual organ” then it is acceptable to legally require there covering-up.
So you completely deny that american citizens exalts their nation? You have to show me where i denied that in the first place, do tell me which nation doesn't have nationalism? Using your logic, anyone who is a nationalist is a fascist. Fascism (I will bold to make it abundantly clear) is when the government propagates, and enforces jingoistic nationalism through control of the media, and education systems, and when the government in power isthe state. Comprehend now? The exaltation that Americans feel for their nation may be stronger then in other nations, but it not even close to being an American experiance. Since the government of the US doesn't activity control the media (and I know you'll roll your stupid eyes on that one too), it's education system is biased, but which isn't? And the party isn't the nation, so learn what fascism means then we'll talk google master. The state soooooooo control you. And they make you think that they don't by appealing to individualism. But then they say "hey, remember the nation, be rpud", bla, blah blah, and the result is obvious, you believe that it is your idea, while in fact they put it into your minds. They say "we are doing this for the sake of our nation" or "freedom", or the oldest excuse of "national security", and then make you believe that this i right, when in fact they are just controlling you. Its one thing to talk jibberish, its quite another to prove it. Prove to me that the government is "controlling me"? That is an American ideal from the very begining it is the American reason d'etre, as the first liberal state we were the most radical in protecting individual rights, people's rights are protected the constitution and American's are not some puppet people here, if we were we wouldn't need to vote there would be predetermined leaders of our nation. Yes I do believe that this president is fighting for freedom, that's not rhectoric he is actually doing what he said he was going to do. Correct me if I am wrong but weren't there elections in Afghanistan and Iraq lately? Seems the presidents plans seem to be working, you just can't handle that bitter pill. ...!?!? You didn't quite made sense half-way through there.... Son I forgot a comma, you forget how to spell: I don't those stupid semantic games bc is lowers the quality of the debate, but the quality isn't up to snuff as it is. But once again, most american wars had draft. Now, once again, people are brainwashed to be patriotic, which happens to help when you need people to go to war by their own "voluntary" will... Well then explain to me why enrollment into the US army is falling below expectations? Seems to show shit to that argument doesn't it? Why is the US military struggling to get the men they need to fight these wars, and why in the US during the Vietnam war protests against the draft and the war? Seems to throw more shit in your face of your pure hatred of the United States. Brainwashed? Surely its not me... Outside of US soil? *I'm running out of "rolleyes".... Outside US soil the US can do whatever it pleases, so there is no real restraints, sure the UN is there to tell us "no,no" but we will do it anyways because our cause is noble, and people around the world may fret but we are doing what is nessecary to save our world from the savages of religion, and restrictions. You mean a plutocratic.... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! No I mean pluralistic state, look it up on google. Oh great! Let's choose between two parties! One of which happens to always lose, for some strange reason!!! *more rolleyes here..... The Democratic party has only begun to lose recently the Democrats controlled the US for close to 50 years, this is only the shift in US politics that shift back and forth over the century, eventually the Democrats will get back into power, hopefully once we've used the GOP for all they got. A two party system works in the UK, it works in the US, and many other states and your basic misunderstanding of political systems is quite obvious. George Bush is the perfect example of an american..... *rolleyes That's how I know you have a skewed view of America as some religious, idiotic state, inhabited by morons. You have no respect for the American people, your the fascist here by dumbing down, and by stereotyping 300 million people many of whom are NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING LIKE GWB. Hitler would have loved to use you against the Jews. Not to mention I seriously doubt this is true.... Does the country in which you reside buy airtime on TV? Does not your country endorse in campaigns to support nationalism, in Canada for instance didn't they have that scandal over the propaganda mismanagment to keep Quebec in the confederation? That's propaganda...as we now know you don't even know what propaganda is. Abroad. And... by brainwashing you.... Abroad America has no responsibilty, American actions aboard have no bearing on whether the state is "fascist", Britain did the same thing it was not fascist, but because America does it it is. I see the double standard now. 99% of the prison population is made out of people who were severely abused and neglected during their childhood. Meanwhile, you have a criminal ruling the country... *more rolleyes If you are going to present a source make it VIABLE, and credible please google boy. If you do the crime your going to do the time, bad shit if your in jail. Ha! Everyone are puppets there, including a huge majority of the population!!!! Well again its so easy to spew nonsense, but can you prove what you are saying? Once again, it is all about image. You can pretend to be democratic, but you live in a very plutocratic society. Do you know what democracy means? Without google-ing it? If you think its only a election, you got to go back to school. I hope you wake up... Son I am awake, I live in Washington I am closer to the core then you are, I know so much more then you and its pretty damned obvious to the most laymen of observors, hopefully ur eyes won't fall out with your stupid rolleye tendencies, because that's about 50% of your post. Frankly your post is a living logical fallacy. ...pockets, you say.... you know that the very concept of patriotism is exclusive, right? The disease is called xenophobia.... Not American patriotism, American patriotism accepts all people as long as they identify themselves as Americans, and act like Americans, there are pockets of xenophobia, and racism, in every nation there is to suggest otherwise is pure ignorance. San Francisco is exclusive, just look at the movie stars. Any racism there? Plus...Los Angeles is one of the capitals of crime...New York.... well.... I could be nice and say they are tolerant, but I doubt... So a few bad apples are going to ruin the pot? Sorry but compared to 90% of the world America is very tolerant, I want the US to resemble the Netherlands but that isn't going to happen with religious conservatives. Tell me the honest truth lad, would you rather live in Tehran or San Francisco? I know your going to say Tehran because you hate America so much that you can't see the folly of your ways. That your position is not my worry. I'm much more worried about what the majority believes in. The majority can relatively easy be manipulated in all democracies, I don't worry to much about them. You should worry about the intelligensia because we are the one's who made the ideals which the sheeple follow, we are the egg they are the chicken. I'm not a "google master". I studied that. I only use google to find the evidence again, so that I can point it out. Sorry but you should get a refund from you studied...because it has failed you horribly. I don't hate US, I hate the ignorance that spreads world wide, from it. You hate the US, and its people as evidenced by your contempt for 300 million people by equating them to GWB which you obviously feel is a bad thing. Me too. Son, you think to much of yourself...I'm telling you that now. I don't aggrandize myself at all. *understatment of the yr goes to" It's there, right before your eyes. Wheter you want to see it or not is your own business. I cannot make you see what is obvious. Bush's war is obviously perpetrated by the "freedom is slavery" philosophy. That's ur unsupported position, that goes against the facts of the matter which is that the people of Iraq and Afghanistan voted in record numbers and they are benefitting from opening up to the world, technology, healthcare, education, democratic government, we are only laying the foundations for their rise into model societies, you really underestimate the power of ideology here in the US, if this were real politik America wouldn't have bothered because Iraq wouldn't have been worth it. Well... let's say I'm a humanist liberal... But not when it comes to corporations, because they are the anthetesis of real freedom. A humanist liberal is a "synonym compound" they mean the same thing...now I know you don't know the two forms of liberalism...if you need to know I am a autonomous liberal. Look it up on google... I don't see how I went off on an tangent. Because what I was talking about was get this...a metaphor, you took it literally and went off into a tangent. Not at all, I clearly pointed out the heart of the issue. Sorry but this is the saddest example of a argument I have EVER encountered. The point is that just because americans bought cars from Japan, doesn't mean that without americans, Japan wouldn't have sold cars. Learn, please: Firstly Japan would have fallen into communist hands if it were for the aid plan that spent billions in rebuilding Japan, if it wasn't for American demand in the Korean war, Japanese industry wouldn't have gotten off the ground. So without those two preconditions Japan wouldn't have been exporting cars to anyone maybe apart from the USSR. LEARN YOUR HISTORY! You mean the one that Bush stole? Or all the ones that the brainwashed people voted? What are you talking about, last I checked Bush wasn't the president of Iraq...I can tell you don't understand what your reading. I'll quote you in ur infinite wisdom You mean the only intelligent american tv show out of... how many? More than 500. What does that say about americans..... *more rolleyes... So, All in the Family, MASH, Murphy Browne, etc. are stupid shows too? Or TLC, or the Discovery channel? You are so full of it you make me sick. No, they only listen to you. They make the decisions. They decide whether you are right or not. Looks like it is you who needs to "get a clue". No they don't only ask me, they involve me in the decision what do you think neo-copratism is? GET A CLUE...your such a loser its not funny son.
Not only women but men as well, yes by definition the Vagina and the Penis are sexual organs and for a man can get erect if the timing is right do you want your children to walk around seeing some guy popping a boner? What I am saying is that one can do what he/she wants as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others...negative rights as it is known. The state has no right to tell me what not to wear as long as I am not adversly affecting the rights of others. A naked man/woman impinges on the rights of the child because the a child's right is not to be exposed to raw sexuality, this is a special circumstance of course because only a child has that right not a adult, if it were a adult only area then one may do what he wants. Well, firstly, in regards to "raw sexuality" I say so what? I agree in theory so what, I don't have a problem with nudity. But children should not be exposed to that, do you honestly disagree? [Incidentally, Brittany Spears probably does more in one video to promote “raw sexuality” than the viewing of women walking around naked.] Possibly but again the difference is in her cause: >She has first ammendment right to express herself >If one doesn't like it one can change the channel In this instance a child cannot change "the channel" its in their face, and one really doesn't have much of choice. You did say America was unique in that it is all about safeguarding the individual? It goes both ways, sometimes to safeguard the majority of indivduals is greater then the minority. Its not a perfect theorm to be sure, but it is better then nothing. For instance here I am safeguarding the youth of the naton. That is, society will take precedence over the individual. That is the nature or soceities. It IS the same in the USA. [/COLOR] I disagree, if that were true slavery would be around, segregation as well, and other such vile things, it was the importance of individual rights that changed society, it all comes back to the harm principle you violate that then you aren't allowed to do what you want, otherwise do what u will. What I have a problem with is the USA telling a DIFFERENT society what will and what will not be acceptable behaviour in THEIR society. Who gave the USA the f*cking right to do that? Its not the USA, it is liberalism you keep on associating the US with a state, I associate it with an ideal that is merely contained by borders, not unlike the French or Russian revolutions. You must agree that you'd rather see 50 million people living liberal lives instead of their repressive Islamic ways...disagree? Sure they may not like that we imposed it on them, but at the end of the day they will appreciate that at least they tasted freedom. I am sure many Muslim men in Afghanistan consider the female-form as well as female-face to be “raw sexuality” in the very same manner that you consider the vagina to be “raw sexualize” [and there may even exist safety reason for it as well]. Yet, you seem to think THEY have no say in this matter - that YOU will make their decision FOR them?!? I am sure they do, but here the key difference they males in that society do not decide whether or not a woman should wear the burkha it should be the woman's choice alone, making that into law is problematic. Exactly they don't have a say in the actions of the individual, and they should butt out unless if what they individual is doing is harmful to society at large. How would you like it if they where to do this to YOU? Difference is that if they were to do this to me it wouldn't work because I am not Islamic, one can be a libearl no matter the backround is, again liberalism is permeable Islam is not. Does that make sense? Can you see what I am trying to get at? I do...but its not convincing to me. It is not our right nor place as Americans to decide for other countries what they should and should not do in their societies. I disagree, using that logic it would have been immoral to stop the Nazi's from killing the Jews,homosexuals, etc. This idea of sovereignty is dying in a globalized world, and western liberal values rule the day and if you don't adapt ur as dead as Stalin. We should lead by example and example alone. Of course I agree with you, but how can this happen if they people aren't given their democratic rights to choose? Again, this is you making a morally judgment one what you consider a sexual organ. Using your own rational, if a person was to think the female form as well as face is a “sexual organ” then it is acceptable to legally require there covering-up. By definition a Vagina is a sexual organ a face isn't, no matter what those ppl say. There's objective fact and mere idiocy...
Internationalist have you ever seen native people? of any country, especially africa they ALWAYS go naked and there sociaty isnt degraded, maybe they should invade YOU for forcing men and women to wear clothing against there wishes? dont you think so?
Nudity wouldn't do jack to a kid as long as he or she isn't taught that it is some big thing. They will ignore it just like you or I ignore somebody's clothes.
Funny enough if we looked back over a thousand years, that’s probably how many children in the tropical regions, African continent, Australian aboriginals, native Americans and probably many Asians as well were raised. For many of these peoples it was the European Xian sensibilities that prevailed as they conquered the globe and only then was it felt that nudity was wrong [as you can read in many English ledgers kept as they traversed the globe.] Oh, for sure it wasn’t just the English – the Japanese also made the Koreans cover themselves, in difference to their emperor. But my point is, what is considered “sexual” is societal. Your society thinks a man walking around with a hard-on is sexual in another it is/was considered natural. Are we agreed? I’m personally not flustered either way. If I were to live in a society that thought covering up was “weird” and nudeness “normal” then I would be fine with my children seeing naked people and being naked themselves. I only used the nudeness example because most people have a sense of what is right and what is wrong concerning this. Much like most people consider homosexuality to either be right or wrong. In truth there is no absolute right or wrong – only what society considers is right or wrong. I didn’t mean for my Brittany comment to be related to sexuality in a moral sense – only in that sexy videos are probably more erotic then seeing a 40 year old mother of two walking around nude with her 50 year old nude husband! Yes “safeguarding” on your terms of what is “safe” for youth. Maybe I believe clothing is “harming” children and therefore you are harming children and I’m “safeguarding” society. I THINK I’ve made the point that what is correct behavior and what is incorrect behavior is decided by societies? Yes? You know, many Americans think two men marrying is ruining society. They feel that by protesting this they are safeguarding society. You know many Americans think abortions are ruining society. They feel that by protesting abortions (and killing doctors) they are safeguarding society. Well, maybe they are right or maybe they are wrong – BUT, those decisions will be made by the SOCEITY. I may think long hair is wrong. I mightn’t like long hair on a man? Therefor if my children SEE long hair on a man they will be effected. Or maybe I think it’s wrong for a man to have short hair. My children seeing short hair on a man are ill affected by this short hairness. Or maybe I don’t want my children exposed to tattoos on people – I may think that’s wrong. Or maybe I don’t want my children to see people master animals – I may think owning an animal is wrong. Or maybe I don’t want my children to see people eat meat – I may be vegan. Or maybe I don’t . .. . . bla bla bla . . . All of these are decisions made BY society. And that is as true in America as it is in Afghanistan. So again, yes, some Afghanis may think it is not correct behavior for a women to walk around in public without covering her form and her face. And that is as morally correct as THEIR society decide it is. It is not up to me to tell them what is correct for them – because I am not their master. They are adults. They can and will make up their own minds about what is correct and not correct. Now do we agree? Yes, you are correct – from your point of view. Slavery is considered bad – now a days. It was not morally wrong 200 years ago. Back then it was morally correct. Segregation was correct morally - now it is not. As to the “harm principal”, I think I have made the argument that THAT is for society to decide. That is unless you think owning an animal is harming my children and therefore should be banned, or eating meat or having long hair – or anything else I and I ALONE can think up. Again slavery, segregation, eating meat, walking around nude, etcetera, are all decisions a society will have to determine is OK or not. [Incidentally, we segregate men from women and some may argue we treat the Chinese like slave labor – or maybe we ourselves are enslaved to the rich or to the dollar? Hell, maybe we should be Communistic Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Again; these decisions are for society to decide] 1) Repressive is in the eye of the beholder. Many Europeans think we Americans are legally repressed. 2) I don’t disagree with the ends - just the means. Although I wish there were no religion, Islamic or otherwise, I do not think it is my place to decide what these Islamists should believe. Or how their societies should behave. If it were my choice we'd all be Atheists. IS THAT FAIR? Haaa! And who is it that determines what is and what is harmfull? Oh, maybe the society at large! And, as it JUST SO HAPPENS, Afghani society has already made a decision on this and it, as a whole, believes that a woman without a full covering is harmful!!! So you agree! Women should be covered from tip to tail!! I’m not sure if this answers my question. Would you like it? Well, what about this time around? Yes using that logic we should have stayed out of the war – and if it were not for Japan we may have and that would have been fine by me. Except then we wouldn’t be here because all of history would have changed. So you want to go free the Tibetans? How about the North Koreans? How about the Iranians – they just killed a mentally retarded school girl last month for sexual provocation. How about the Vietnamese – many of them are still being screwed over by their government. Should we try THAT again? How about all the many different wars going on between the Africans? Are YOU willing to do the fighting? These are NO DIFFERENT than what the Germans have done. Other than in many peoples imaginations because there has to be Gad dam WWII movie on somewhere in the States every other Gad dam Technicolor day and hence we have such a distorted view of reality somehow it was the US that won the war and not the Russians. AND yippie aye yayee! We saved the Gad Dam World . . . . . . . Yes it’s a big misfortune that we coudn’t stayed out of the war. And I’ll tell you what – I am sure that in a half century France would be have been French and Germany German and China Chinese – because these wars had been fought for millennia and these particular societies are too resilient to be subverted. Or they would have been long ago (and maybe were a little). Julius Caesar unreservedly annihilated the Franks and yet there they are. And no America to help them out - - - Very Odd that One???!?!?! I was thinking in terms of centuries. By your definition of course. Not by Tahitian Islanders pre-French colonization. It IS a societal choice – hopefully you can see that now. And I hope you realize that it is NOT the RIGHT of America to make these decisions for other societies. Lastly, the people of France and Japan and Germany and China are bound together by culture and language and religion. Americans are not. They are bound by the ideals Freedom and Democracy and Rule of Law. Therefore, for America to remain United States it appears that, like many other religions, these ideals must be spread – if anything for self-reaffirmation. And that is why we continue to go to war. Many Americans actually confuse ideas in the Constitution with their very own religion! I for one say we can remain United by leading by example and that is the only and best way forward for the US.
i totally agree with your point of view. What is considered harmful or acceptable is all relative. The only reason breasts and genetalia are considered sexual by western society is because we cover it up. In tribes in which they are fully naked, they don't see genetalia as sexual objects, they see it as part of their bodies, the same way i look at your arm. In afghanistan the whole body is sexual as it is all forbidden. As soon as you make something forbidden, it is longed for. You wouldn't have thousands of teenagers surfing the net for porn if there were no nudity laws. Not for the reason that they can just look out the window, but for the reason that the mystery would be gone, and the whole body would just be seen as a body and nothing else.
I'm not too sure about the doing away with porn part. I never tire of looking at fully clothed attractive women that I see in real life. And I never tire of seeing images of fully clothed, partially clothed, or completely unclothed attractive women in magazines, television, or on my computer. But our culture has sexualized nudity, because sex and bathing are virtually the only times were are nude.
Internationalist : Outside US soil the US can do whatever it pleases, so there is no real restraints, sure the UN is there to tell us "no,no" but we will do it anyways because our cause is noble, and people around the world may fret but we are doing what is nessecary to save our world from the savages of religion, and restrictions. I hope i understood the just of this statement correctly, please do tell me if i am wrong. Having a noble cause is no where near enough. I hate to use the cliché example of the Nazi's, but they also thought they had a noble cause. I am sure you realize there are actually no "good" and "bad" sides in a war, simply what you have been taught is good and bad, or what you think is good and bad. For that reason a noble cause is not enough, because each side thinks its cause is noble. The ouvert non-chalance in that statement amazed me. The US most certainly cannot do whatever it pleases, at the very least if it doesnt listen to the UN (an organization they themselves helped create) it would still be guided by their ever so valuable moral compass. I believe the U.S. is suffering more from the "savages of religion" as you so put it, than many other countries are. As an atheist i am apalled at the growing connection between church and state. Of course when you say "savages of religion" you are referring to Islam, and when a muslim says it they may think of christianity. That above reason is why many people have a problem with what the U.S. does. Everything is relative to the oberserver. For that reason the U.S. should not mix itself into conflicts that do not concern it. U.S. intervention in WWII is a more complex matter. That was done to assist the world, there were no questions about that. The fact that there is an argument as to whether the Iraq war was done for oil or not, clearly proves that these are two mutually exclusive conflicts.
some good points there sebastian. I think people like internationalist (hahaha, just realized the oxymoron) need to step back and look at both sides of the argument rather than one. Me being from a neutral country think that america shouldn't have acted as 'unproffesional' as they did to make revenge for 9-11. As far as i know it, USA is meant to be best in the world for information hoarding with all their undercover projects, so im sure they could have used a covert approach to capturing osama and saddam rather than just flushing them out with explosives. One thing that i think could be considered is the fact that in afghanistan, USA is viewed as nazi germany was viewed by us, and Osama, being the smart one he is, thought that he could make a pre-emptive strike against the new nazi's. Although that statement isnt accurate at all, neither were USA's reasons for bombing Iraq.
I would support Bush if I thought he supported me. Or even if I thought he supported the best interests of humanity. As far as I can tell he seems to support the interests of the wealthy and well-connected to the detriment of everyone else. National governments cannot create democracy. Only the people on the ground can do that. The only thing America (or any national govt.) can do is create conditions favorable for democracy to evolve, and an objective look at history shows very little progress in that direction. Democracy seems to take root in spite of America's effort rather than because of it.
Funny enough if we looked back over a thousand years, that’s probably how many children in the tropical regions, African continent, Australian aboriginals, native Americans and probably many Asians as well were raised. Oddly enough in most of those instances there was indeed a covering up of the sexual organs, yes breasts were shown, and there a high level of nudity but in almost all cultures there is a tendency to cover up the sexual organ. For many of these peoples it was the European Xian sensibilities that prevailed as they conquered the globe and only then was it felt that nudity was wrong Exactly, that is what is going to happen, liberalism will spread around the world (and it was xtian ethics that did that not liberal one's) to enlighten the people. I will state now why I think your relativist argument isn't a good one: The world has does indeed have many different ways of looking at a situation,some cultures don't mind killing children for their religion, but that does that make it right? Using your moral relativist theory, anything that a culture does is moral as long as it is considered moral by that society. Then there can be so such thing as a universal morality, and as a result there would be no such thing as morals. Liberalism is the only ethic that can be adopted by all people's of the Earth, and thus is the only univeralistic ethic. Basically I dealt with your entire post... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think people like internationalist (hahaha, just realized the oxymoron) need to step back and look at both sides of the argument rather than one. What makes you think I haven't? You think I just say things because I like the look of my own words? Firslty my name is not a oximoron it is what I believe, the internationalization of liberal ethics, thus an internationalist, an internationalist doesn't have to be someone who kowtows to the whims of the UN you know. Secondly I have looked at the "other sides", and they are insufficent to be universalistic, any religion cannot be universalistic, communism cannot because it engages in class conflict, fascism as well, liberalism is the only ideology that appropiately takes into consideration the will of the individual, and liberalism unlike other beliefs doesn't have a code of values, so if anything liberalism is the greatest expression of humanity out there.
Then we'll agree to disagree. Except: just because there are not universal morals, that doesn’t imply there are no morals. Just no universal morals. [Then there can be so such thing as a universal morality, and as a result there would be no such thing as morals.]There are morals - and they are based in society (not the entire universe Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Even you yourself, with this notion of Universal Liberalism, are just a product of your very own societies idea's of morals – I belonged to the very same society. Luckily, I had the fortune to move away for a number of years and now have the advantage of seeing the America from the outside. You should give it a try and then talk about this. Regardless, surely you can see that even within America there are no Universal morals. Perhaps it would be best if Americans directed their attention on America, rather than trying to force their Universal (read: American) values onto other peoples. You can call it “Liberalism” all you want, but when you boil it down – in the end you simply have one society (America) forcibly deciding (read: killing people) what is going to be moral for Another society (non-America). I just do not think that is right.
Except: just because there are not universal morals, that doesn’t imply there are no morals. Yes it does because morals are true for all people's otherwise it is subjective nonsense, much like religion. Is it moral to rape a woman if she doesn't have sex with you (which is permitted in Islam)? According to your logic, yes it is. But as the enlightened people's of the world know it is not. So again no universal morality no morality. There are morals - and they are based in society (not the entire universe Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Nonsense which allows other societies to abuse rights of human beings. Even you yourself, with this notion of Universal Liberalism, are just a product of your very own societies idea's of morals – I belonged to the very same society. Luckily, I had the fortune to move away for a number of years and now have the advantage of seeing the America from the outside. What a grave mistake and err you have just done, firstly are you suggesting that liberalism is a purely American concept? That only America has liberal values, I will freely admit that American liberal values are one (one which I personally preferr) but I don't say that liberalism is an American thing, frankly it is very much a non-American thing, it is a European concept. Although it be a European concept it doesn't mean it cannot be a universal one, frankly you must agree that it is the only ideology on this planet that can be enforced on the people of the world, and in a positive way. You should give it a try and then talk about this. Where do you get off telling me what to do son? You think I haven't travelled? You shouldn't presume things about people you know nothing about, I have been to Europe, and I have been to the Middle East and I have seen the differences from enlightenment and ignorance. Regardless, surely you can see that even within America there are no Universal morals. Oh there is a universal morality in America and that's liberalism, there may be different variations of that morality but it is liberal non the less. Perhaps it would be best if Americans directed their attention on America, rather than trying to force their Universal (read: American) values onto other peoples. Liberalism is a eternal battle to be sure, but that doesn't mean that we can't help the people of the world decide for themselves what they want with their lives, in order for liberalism to survive as we have seen in WWII we have to be on the offense against religious ignorance, tyranny, communism, and fascism at all times. Sadly other libearl states aren't taking up the slack so we have too. You can call it “Liberalism” all you want, but when you boil it down – in the end you simply have one society (America) forcibly deciding (read: killing people) what is going to be moral for Another society (non-America). [/B] That is what liberalism has always done, forcing down ppl's throats we are just continuning the tradition and the world has been better for it. I just do not think that is right. But enslavement of millions because of this feeblemindedness is? While we have the power to spread liberty and we don't, that's immoral.
Yes it is subjective, but not nonsense. Just because something is subjective doesn’t make it nonsensical. For example, love is subjective, hate is subjective, fear is subjective, and beauty is subjective. I would hate to see a day when the idea of a achieving a certain attractiveness was considered a “universal moral” whereby everyone in the world was made (forced, coerced, manipulated) to mimic this ideal beauty. If you have read everything I had written above and still feel you have the right to impose your moralistic belief on the entire world – then we’ll have to agree to disagree. I do agree that your notion of Liberalism is attractive, I do not agree that (and frankly find it oxymoronic) to promote it by means of killing mass numbers of innocent people to achieve it. America should lead by example and example alone. 1) By my moralistic belief, no it is not moral. That is not to say it isn’t moral by another’s belief. 2) No I do not think that mainstream Islam permits rape, but maybe it does as interpreted in the ME – so yes, if that were true, then for those people rape would moral – to them. Sorry if I wasn’t clear – no I don’t think Liberalism is quintessentially American and yes I agree it has it’s roots in Europe, at least as we practice it now. And that’s my point – AS we think of it. It’s funny, the way you write one would get the impression that these societies are barbaric cave-dwelling tribes without the faintest hint of civility, I assure you, that they are not as backwards as you may think. Funny enough, the reason they exist, is because they have their own system of morals and codes and I for one say leave them to discover a better system if one exists for them. I’m curious: (1) Is elective abortion moral? (2) Is forcing a child to go to church moral? (3) Is raising a child Islamic moral? (4) Is raising a child Atheistic moral? (5) Is jailing someone for stealing food to eat moral? (6) Is restricting use of recreational drugs moral? (7) Is selling tobacco moral? (8) Is jailing someone for selling their own sex moral? (9) Is Americans killing 20 innocent Iraqi civilians per day to bring about a democracy moral? My mistake, I didn’t mean it as a put down. I meant it as advice in so much as I have had the fortune to travel. You are right I shouldn’t have been presumptuous. I’m not trying to attack you and I hope you don’t confuse our conversation with the plethora of other peoples writings. I wrote the advice to travel in good nature. So we should ban religious freedom now? When a male sea lion kills off another seals cubs, because it has been rejected for mating, would you say that the seals are immoral? If you could genetically engineer these seal lions to behave as you would have them behave – would that be moral? Are humans more speacial compared with other living animals in nature?
Yes it is subjective, but not nonsense. Just because something is subjective doesn’t make it nonsensical. For example, love is subjective, hate is subjective, fear is subjective, and beauty is subjective. Love, hate, fear, etc are nonsense by definition those aren't logical actions taken by a human being, shot urself in the foot did we? It is subjective and thus is nonsense because it has no intellectual bearing, and thus has no cognitive reasoning other then emotive responses that one learns from their ignorant society and parents. For instance science isn't nonsense because it is universalistic, morality is no different. If you have read everything I had written above and still feel you have the right to impose your moralistic belief on the entire world – then we’ll have to agree to disagree. But the problem is that you are putting the whole argument into a very combative context, that I want to impose my morality on others as if it were a bad thing. Again my moral code of ethics allows others to believe what they want, they just can't impose that on anyone else because it degrades their rights. This is why liberalism is a universal ethic, my belief I don't have one per se, that is what sets liberalism apart I am not telling people what not to do per se, I am only saying that you can do pretty much whatever you want as long as it doesn't negative effect others, how can anyone rationally be against that? The only moral value of liberalism is liberty. Imposing my belief system allows others to flourish in tandem, so I really don't see the argument. I do agree that your notion of Liberalism is attractive, I do not agree that (and frankly find it oxymoronic) to promote it by means of killing mass numbers of innocent people to achieve it. America should lead by example and example alone. That's a pretty idea, but that never happens liberal states have always imposed their ethics on others because others do not know about liberalism, for instance how can American be an example if it is consistently villianized in these countries, how can liberalism flourish if these people are largely taught the Quran or the Bible as fact, instead of secular and true education? We have to impose this on others because they wouldn;t have had it any other way. Look at Iran for instace, the students who are taught in the ways of liberal ethics are fighting against the Mullahs while the mass of ignorance supports the Mullahs. Ignorance is liberalism's greatest enemy along with religion and for millions they are stuck in a bubble of it, its time to burst it. 1) By my moralistic belief, no it is not moral. That is not to say it isn’t moral by another’s belief. No it isn't moral period, if you cannot universalize this maxim it cannot be a moral maxim. Again like science if it cannot be universalized it is foolishness, also in accordance with Kantian ethical theory we would be treating the woman as a means not an end, which is quite immoral. Secondly this goes to show how immoral religion is, this goes to the Socratic criticism of Divine morality by stating "is it moral because God says it, or is it moral because God chooses it?" This idea of allowing millions of women to be raped because you feel it is moral for some is quite sick, do you have no sympathy? 2) No I do not think that mainstream Islam permits rape, but maybe it does as interpreted in the ME – so yes, if that were true, then for those people rape would moral – to them. Read above...this is a complete bull shit argument. It’s funny, the way you write one would get the impression that these societies are barbaric cave-dwelling tribes without the faintest hint of civility, I assure you, that they are not as backwards as you may think. I've been there and I can assure you that a facade of modernity is quite effective. These people are ignorant, most cannot read, most have no idea of science, their education stems from "the book", sure the cities may be more enlightened but the majority of these societies live in the hinterland in tribes, whose only real source of education is that "book". Funny enough, the reason they exist, is because they have their own system of morals and codes and I for one say leave them to discover a better system if one exists for them. If you live in a cave lets say and someone throws down a book of Kant let's say and you read it and you become a Kantian, and no one else ever shows you an alternative, how are you going to change? Welcome to these people's lives. (1) Is elective abortion moral? Explain this further. (2) Is forcing a child to go to church moral? No because your forcing someone to do something they don't want to do. (3) Is raising a child Islamic moral? Its amoral in the sense that it is not objectionable until the child voices his apathy, disgust, etc to that religion. What would be immoral is to tell the child that Islam is the only law and can be imposed on all people's. (4) Is raising a child Atheistic moral? Same as above. (5) Is jailing someone for stealing food to eat moral? Yes, the real immoral actor would be the society for allowing that man to steal in the first place. (6) Is restricting use of recreational drugs moral? Its immoral, people should be given the right to destroy themselves, alternatively society should not have to pay for their medical bills. (7) Is selling tobacco moral? No they are only responding to market demand, people choose to buy the cigarette no one forced them to. (8) Is jailing someone for selling their own sex moral? No its not, because the person should be able to do what they want with their body. (9) Is Americans killing 20 innocent Iraqi civilians per day to bring about a democracy moral? If the killing was intentional yes. So we should ban religious freedom now? No, but we should try to wheen ppl off religion. But under my ethical system one can believe what one wants to the extent that it is a personal expression of faith. When a male sea lion kills off another seals cubs, because it has been rejected for mating, would you say that the seals are immoral? Animals are not rational, thus they have no capability of morality. Are humans more speacial compared with other living animals in nature Obviously, we are rational, read Kant.
Well, the general accepted use of nonsense is “of no value” and that is its definition as well. Internationalist, every action taken in a society has an effect on another person. [Like I said, what if I don’t like long hair? You going to make everyone cut it for me? As that is stupid then whom is it that decides what it acceptable behavior within a society? The obvious answer is the people that make up the society. Hence if in Afghanistan the society deems it immoral for a woman to show her face in public – well then, it’s immoral in that society.] I have a question: The Tibetans have a spiritual leader called the Dali Lama (you could say he’s similar to a Mullah or Pope I guess) and although he’s a nice guy he seems to want to continue to teach his people a Chauvinistic Masculine Spiritual Religion that places women second to men (similar to all religions, with the exception of Daoism) and Superstition above rational thought. You’ll not find a woman Dali Lama anytime soon. So the Chinese felt it was necessary to conquer this land and bring the Universal Truth of Atheism to the Tibetan people. Restricting your comment to only the Universal truth of Atheism (brought to Tibet by the Chinese): Would you agree that the Chinese did a Universal Moralist thing by using the Chinese Army to crush the meager Tibetan Army occasionally killing innocent monks, innocent civilians, and eventually banishing the Dali Lama, ALL to bring this oh so enlightening Universal Moral truth – that of Atheism and Free Thought? Do you agree to that? You support GW Bushes campaign in Iraq; I must assume you support the Chinese one in Tibet? (1) I’m concerned that you feel millions of women are being raped? Do you think that so many Muslim men are raping Muslim women? I don’t think so. But, I stand by my statement. (2) You know that we could save millions and millions and millions more if we spent on food, medicine, and education what we spent on war. Have you no sympathy?!? You support Bush spending our money to foolishly try to kill, cajole, and manipulate a country to adopt Western principals. Would it not be much wiser if the USE gave that “Pretty Idea” a go and instead fed, educated, and medically treated the world. Call me crazy – but I think these acts of kindness and leading by passion and example would do more than the sword. I’m not disagreeing with this. Yes it sucks to be them. But I do not think it is my place to change them – other than by example, good works, and generosity. I still can not imagine that millions of women are being raped in the ME. My Iranian friend certainly never mentioned anything like that. I’ll speak with him about it. Also, yes it sucks to be them, can you imagine being taught the crap in some 2000 year old superstitious book! But still, it’s not my place to force them to live like me. Oh, and, I have a Muslim friend that lives right here in Sydney. He thinks there are 4 times the number of women than men in the world (hence the four wives), that the Qur’an in infallible, that Arabic is Gods very own language and superior to all other languages, that Islam is spreading the fastest it ever has – the whole world is opening their eyes and turning to the truth and that Islam will eventually conquer the globe and a whole host of other crap. After having a small religious conversation with me (beginning with notion of Is God capable of doing anything and ending on round squares) one hour later it ended with an “I don’t care what you say the Qur’an is true”. And that’s an University educated person right here in the Liberal West. I can only imagine what a waste of money it is to think we're going to change the people in the ME. This war was fought for oil and when the oil runs out we’ll leave and this crazy notion of Universal Morality will be a forgotten ideal left in the annals of history. Only, we the American people will be stuck paying the Chinese and Japanese for the loans we borrowed to have our little adventure. The world will not think of America the Virtuous but America the Warmonger and if you doubt it just look at a recent BBC poll that found MOST people in the world TRUST CHINA over the USA! Lead by example – not the sword!
