nigel99 470 #76 November 18, 2007 QuoteBetter off before democracy? Ahhh, no. Better off before being ruled by a dictator, yes. The problems being experienced in establishing stable democracies in former African colonies is not a failing of democracy, it is a combination of the after effects of decades of exploitation and a completely cack handed turn over of power. I am not sure how much you know about southern africa - but Mugabe was put in place as a "suppossed" democratic leader (after he murdered Muzerewa - the true elected leader that the US & UK refused to acknowledge). Exploitation? Having lived in africa most of my life I really struggle to see colonialisation as "exploitation" that is a false guilt complex that the Brits need to get over. The Brits took technology and medicines that was possibly 1000 years ahead (or more) of the culture there. Did that give the British an advantage over the locals - yes of course but I believe the British acted pretty respectably in Rhodesia. Now Ian Smith and the Rhodesian Front were a completely racist group and that is another whole issue. To my knowledge only Rhodesia and the US have successfully Unilaterally Declared Independance from the British empire - the UK should have not let Smith get away with that and confronted him.Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,489 #77 November 18, 2007 QuoteI am not sure how much you know about southern africa - but Mugabe was put in place as a "suppossed" democratic leader (after he murdered Muzerewa - the true elected leader that the US & UK refused to acknowledge). Yes, I know. But in practice you cannot say that Zimbabwe is a democracy. QuoteExploitation? Having lived in africa most of my life I really struggle to see colonialisation as "exploitation" that is a false guilt complex that the Brits need to get over. The Brits took technology and medicines that was possibly 1000 years ahead (or more) of the culture there. Did that give the British an advantage over the locals - yes of course but I believe the British acted pretty respectably in Rhodesia. Now Ian Smith and the Rhodesian Front were a completely racist group and that is another whole issue. To my knowledge only Rhodesia and the US have successfully Unilaterally Declared Independance from the British empire - the UK should have not let Smith get away with that and confronted him. The UK wasn't the only colonial power in southern Africa. The way some areas were treated falls barely short of genocide. Still, my point is that you cannot put a bare framework of self rule in place, pull out completely of a nation you controlled and then when it doesn't work say "Oh, well democracy is obviously not suited to this area of the world."Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #78 November 18, 2007 QuoteIs that your view on Child Protective Services in this country? You can go to jail for properly dealing with a smart ass punk. You do realize that was a sarcastic comment in response to a previous post that stated ... QuoteIf that's the way the want their country to be, that is their problem. I am not interested in trying to change people who don't want to change. I am just glad that I don't live there. .. don't you?"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #79 November 18, 2007 QuoteThe problem with your "Universal Standards" is that there is no such thing. Universe implied ONE, so thus a standard supported by 100% of people, not some, or most but ALL. In your post you are applying your rules and ethics but thet dont apply to everyone. Who said anything about support? The support of something alone does not make it right or wrong ..."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #80 November 18, 2007 <> Something that you think is right or wrong does not make it a Universal Standard. People from all over our world judge things by their own yardstick to set their own Standards. So how would define a Universal Standard if not agreed to by 100% of the population? (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BikerBabe 0 #81 November 18, 2007 "there's no such thing as a universal standard" that statement, made in the context of this argument, is, in fact, a universal standard (or at least it's being presented as one). So you've already proven yourself wrong. Why is your universal standard correct, but others' incorrect? See the issue here with moral relativism? the "philosophy" doesn't hold up under logical scrutiny. The argument here is not IF there is an objective moral standard. the argument here is what things fall into the right vs wrong category of those standards. Would you not agree that in this case, rape is, in fact, being viewed as morally wrong? The rapists are being punished. What differs between our society and theirs is the location of the line being drawn between what is right and what is wrong. In most societies, females riding in a car with unrelated males doesn't cross that line of right vs. wrong. So rather than fighting about the existence of objective moral truths (they very obviously exist), we should be arguing about what those objective moral truths (universal standards, if you will) are, and what they are not.Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #82 November 19, 2007 TAKE CARE : Moral Compasses that are Always biased towards the west are still broken!!!! <> No I haven't. <> Where did that come from? I never set a universal standard. In fact I suggested that there is no such thing. <> Yes it does, because you/we are judging by our own personal moral yardstick and can not easily do so from anothers perspective. <> Yes it is, that is exacltly what MY argument is and I'm saying that isn't one. << the argument here is what things fall into the right vs wrong category of those standards.>> But you can only do that if you have a set of standards to follow and that is not the case. Different cultures live by different standards. Who's to say which is WRONG and which is RIGHT? By MY standards the act in the INITIAL topic of this thread (Lashing what I would call a victim) is wrong. But this is obviously not a Universally held standard. but so (to me) is.. Capital punishment - althought that clearly is not a UNIVERSAL STANDARD, Genital Mutalation, Slavery, State sponsored terrorism, Rendition, & Detention without what I know as Due Process (i.e. Gitmo) - also clearly a shite standard and thankfully not UNIVERSAL (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #83 November 19, 2007 Quote>THere seems to be a lot of talk that suggests that once the oil runs out we are screwed. Only if we are dumb enough to not prepare for that day. You over-estimate the intelligence of the American populace. Quite optomistic, I'd say.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #84 November 19, 2007 QuoteQuoteExplain why democracy (and more specifically constitutional representative democracy) is not applicable to non-european cultures. I agree with Skyrad that Democracy does not appear to work very well in alot of cultures. To be perfectly honest I don't understand the reasons why this is true but I will give a couple of examples: Iraq - Saddam clearly had a better grasp than the "democratic" alternative. Zimbabwe - The country was far better off before democracy. (This is true of most southern african countries if compared before and after independance from the colonies) I suspect that for democracy to work people must have the belief in themselves and that they are capable of questioning and confronting the leadership. This appears to be a foundation stone for successful democracy. The US has this sense probably stronger than most (refer to JohnRich's post regarding why gun ownership is so important). Where a country has a strong cultural or religious tendency to "obey at all costs" I don't think democracy works very well. It is better to have a benign monarchy/external force in control. In this way I think that the US fails the world as it meddles in other peoples business and yet does not shoulder the responsibility. I would prefer the US came out as an Imperialist nation (which it continually flirts with anyway) and actually colonised the countries where is tries to right wrongs - this would remove the vacuum's they tend to leave. Lastly I think that Europe is loosing its ability to question leadership and I believe that at some point in the future we or our children will be abused by politicians with to much power and nobody with the will to confront them. A good post and i agree with your points. You could also use the example of Tito and Yugoslavia.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #85 November 19, 2007 Quote in parts of Sudan it’s ‘only’ 40 lashes for drinking alcohol Hell, make mine a double!When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Flacid_Monk 0 #86 November 19, 2007 Quote Quote >THere seems to be a lot of talk that suggests that once the oil runs out we are screwed. Only if we are dumb enough to not prepare for that day. You over-estimate the intelligence of the American populace. Quite optomistic, I'd say. easily done Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BikerBabe 0 #87 November 19, 2007 Quote<> Where did that come from? I never set a universal standard. In fact I suggested that there is no such thing. "All generalizations are wrong." it's an old "joke" but if you can see the flaw in that statement, you've now seen the logical argument i'm trying to make here. But let me spell it out. My universal standard: Murder and rape are wrong. Your universal standard: There's no universal standard. You are making an absolute statement when you say say "there are no universal standards". JUST like i am when i say "Murder and rape are wrong". YOUR absolute statement is basically saying that NO absolute statements are correct. Well, if no absolute statements are correct, then you have, in fact nullified your own absolute statement. Where it gets sticky is that if you say your statement is NOT absolute, then your statement is relative, which of course means you can't argue against MY statement. It's all relative, right? This is an extension of Russell's Paradox. Google it if you want. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-paradox/ I am not talking about my own personal moral yardstick here. I am using logical reasoning that has been used for centuries for rational discourse and debate. To be honest, i wish relativism held up under scrutiny, because it's easier. Wouldn't life for us be so easy if relativism were true? But it's not, and life's not easy...so the real questions become where do we draw the line between what's tolerable and what isn't, and what do we do if that line is crossed.Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #88 November 19, 2007 I'm just glad someone else understands where I am coming from ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #89 November 19, 2007 Stop it already.....My head hurts......This difference is, for my statement to be mathamatically (and logically correct) only 1 person in the whole universe has to disagree and the Universal Standard notion is null and void. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BikerBabe 0 #90 November 19, 2007 *bangs head on wall* reread what you just wrote! then re-read what i wrote. Or go read about Russell's Paradox! I suppose i should thank you for proving me right. Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #91 November 19, 2007 QuoteThis difference is, for my statement to be mathamatically (and logically correct) only 1 person in the whole universe has to disagree and the Universal Standard notion is null and void. Universal Statement: 1 + 1 = 2 The universal statement is mathematically correct regardless if one or everyone disagrees."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #92 November 19, 2007 'There are no universal truths' is not the same thing as 'there are no universal moral standards.' there is no inherent contradiction in the second statement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #93 November 19, 2007 Of course you're right lass, I'm only an bloke (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #94 November 19, 2007 That would be a maths statement not a moral one. Apples and oranges me old son. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #95 November 19, 2007 QuoteThat would be a maths statement not a moral one. Apples and oranges me old son. But it is a universal truth that does not depend on whether anyone agrees or disagrees."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #96 November 19, 2007 Not if it was universal but who to say? (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #97 November 19, 2007 People's morals and beliefs of right and wrong are based on their upbringing and culture they were brought up under. There is no "Universal Standard" because it all depends on where you were born, what your parents believed and what time period you were born in. If you were born and raised in Saudi Arabia you would most likely believe in Sharia law and believe it to be just and right. You would most likely agree with this sentence of 200 lashes. Myself having been born here in US I disagree. But that is bcause of where ,when I was born and who my parents were and what they believed in. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #98 November 19, 2007 (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 470 #99 November 19, 2007 Quote Universal Statement: 1 + 1 = 2 The universal statement is mathematically correct regardless if one or everyone disagrees. No 1+1 = 10 (I prefer working in binary)Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #100 November 19, 2007 QuoteI am not stating that we have to overthrow their government. What I am stating is that if we are going to allow their government to do such things then we should also allow the individuals repressed by their government to immigrate to the United States of America (or another country of their choice). Just to clarify we do not allow anything. To think we wield such power that other nations need too ask permission or that the ones that don’t ask permission will be punished is very arrogant and the essence of what is wrong with our foreign policy. The simple answer is this is not our affair. If you believe that we the USA want to spread freedom to the world then you are dreaming. We want freedom, liberty for our citizens and in the past have supported who ever can make us stronger/safer, and improve our lives. We have sided with countless dictators, and have stopped a few democracies. We do what is best for us it is simply not our responsibility to care for the world even if we do use that excuse so we can get our way. That is the real world. She as a citizen of that country should know the laws, and culture. Our opinion of what we believe is right or wrong simply does not apply. There are tribes in New Guinea that believe the young males should swallow the sperm of the adults to gain their wisdom and power. To us this is child molestation and disgusting however it is their culture and just as you believe in your hearth that your way is right they believe theirs is. That is why affaires based on culture our best left to THAT culture to change or not change. Remember this is from the guy who thinks all violent rapists, and child molesters should be executed.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
