Culture does not make Right

[WillNever]

Note that every undemocratic regime in the Middle east is considered an ally. Every representative government, a terrorist state. That speaks volumes in and of itself.

All those countries are cut from the same filfthy cloth, sam. Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, not a republic, and Iran's recent rigged election speaks might give us a good idea of what your opinion of a republic actually is. I'd go into the state of the governments of the countries of Iraq and Afghanistan pre-war, and who was in charge of them... but I don't think that's necessary.

I've lived five years in Saudi Arabia. I can tell you haven't.

Is that your country of origin? Or of some other arab background perhaps? Because that would explain your vehemence on this issue... as well as why you would defend abuse of the opposite gender. If that's the case, try to divorce yourself from your ethnicity for a second and think about how much nicer it is to be kind to women, instead of cruel to them. I know, it's hard.

Ah now I see where you are coming from. Is it any wonder that you would support yet another ethnocentric white culture that believes in population replacement as its moral prerogative? Israel does not need anyone to eradicate its apartheid state, its perfectly capable of doing that on its own.

There are plenty of threads on the merits of Israel's actions. Take it elsewhere.

 

[S.A.M.]

All those countries are cut from the same filfthy cloth, sam. Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, not a republic, and Iran's recent rigged election speaks might give us a good idea of what your opinion of a republic actually is. I'd go into the state of the governments of the countries of Iraq and Afghanistan pre-war, and who was in charge of them... but I don't think that's necessary.

Saudi Arabia is an ally of western nations ever since the Sauds were helped to establish their kingdom by the British in the 1900s. Iran had a parliamentary democracy in 1905 which the Russians and the British toppled, and again in 1952, which the Americans toppled. They did not consider it necessary to topple the Ayatollah syndicate as it served their purpose. Similarly while they were willing to supply billions in arms to the mujahideen to topple the secular communists of Afghanistan, they now find it quite amenable to embrace Karzai as he lets rapists walk free in the country.

Is that your country of origin?

No its not.

Or of some other arab background perhaps? Because that would explain your vehemence on this issue... as well as why you would defend abuse of the opposite gender, a notoriously male trait. If that's the case, try to divorce yourself from your ethnicity for a second and think about how much nicer it is to be kind to women, instead of cruel to them. I know, it's hard.

Try to imagine a very obese man, whose wife throws up in the toilet everyday to remain thin and who desperately tries to look younger than she is because thats where her social status lies. The very obese man is very obese because he exploits the poor ensuring that he can steal their land and resources with impunity and put them to death if they resist.

Now imagine this very obese man complaining because his neighbors wife does not expose herself to him.

There plenty of threads on the merits of Israel's actions. Take it elsewhere.

Exactly. So why bring it up?

 

[WillNever]

No its not.

Kay...

Or of some other arab background perhaps?

^^^

Try to imagine a very obese man, whose wife throws up in the toilet everyday to remain thin and who desperately tries to look younger than she is because thats where her social status lies. The very obese man is very obese because he exploits the poor ensuring that he can steal their land and resources without impunity and put them to death if they resist.

Now imagine this very obese man complaining because his neighbors wife does not expose herself to him.

Why, do they have many of those over there?

Exactly. So why bring it up?

I brought up the arabs' desire to destroy the place. You brought up the merits of Israel's actions. Learn the difference.

 

[iceaura]

Hmm you're right. I did miss the invasions, occupations, world wars, creation of a third world, sustenance of a disposable lifestyle through sustained economic exploitation and carpet bombing of other countries in adition to population replacement of coloured peoples by the Pashtuns and Kurds. Not to mention their tendency to conduct pogroms when minorities get too uppity or prolific.

There is no such culture, that has all those features or did all that stuff.

Half of them are not cultural traits anyway, but capabilities.

But you had no difficulty in identifying the "culture" the OP was referring to?

Irrelevant - didn't bother.

Note that every undemocratic regime in the Middle east is considered an ally. Every representative government, a terrorist state.

Israel is considered an ally - it is the most representative government in the region. Undemocratic Iraq was considered a terrorist state - to the point of invading it.

If you could be a little more clear whether you are talking about capability rather than trait, and country rather than culture, as seems likely - - -
”
what do you think?

I think you have capability confused with character, regime confused with culture, and happiness confused with freedom and liberty, in this thread.

 

[S.A.M.]

There is no such culture, that has all those features or did all that stuff.

Depends on how braodly you define culture. I was just taking a page out of Will's book.

Israel is considered an ally - it is the most representative government in the region. Undemocratic Iraq was considered a terrorist state - to the point of invading it.

Israel is representative? Of what? Votes by immigrant Jews? Thats like saying if Australia were to imprison each and every Aboriginal in the state [minus a demographic minority] and allow only the white man to vote, its a representative state. Saddam was also installed, he was a western ally.

I think you have capability confused with character, regime confused with culture, and happiness confused with freedom and liberty, in this thread.

Not at all. I am just wondering how seriously to take a representative of an exploitative culture when he despairs over any aspect of human rights.

 

[WillNever]

I'm not sure why they're saying that either ice. They seem to think that we should be "tolerant" of muslim males' desires to abuse and/or kill other people, if they are women... while being intolerant of the victims' desire to be free from abuse.

The mind truly boggles.

 

[S.A.M.]

Why, do they have many of those over there? .

I've met them in my travels yes. "There" of course is subjective

I brought up the arabs' desire to destroy the place. You brought up the merits of Israel's actions. Learn the difference

You brought up your contempt for the Arabs desire to destroy an apartheid state as an example of standing for a progressive ideal. Its like Martin Luther King promoting South Africa as an example of civil rights.

I'm not sure why they're saying that either ice. They seem to think that we should be "tolerant" of muslim males' desires to abuse and/or kill other people, if they are women... while being intolerant of the victims' desire to be free from abuse.

The mind truly boggles.

I wonder. Do you have the statistics on how many women are killed in either "culture" ? I'd like to see some numbers here. What exactly is the difference that upsets you so?

 

[WillNever]

I've met them in my travels yes. "There" of course is subjective



You brought up your contempt for the Arabs desire to destroy an apartheid state as an example of standing for a progressive ideal. Its like Martin Luther King promoting South Africa as an example of civil rights.

You brought up contempt your contempt for those who look down on the values of brown skinned subhumans living in a place called Arabia.

See what I did there? This is called, making unestablished judgements on an offtopic issue: like Israel's government, or the Arabs' being subhuman-- which I don't actually believe, but am using as an example to make a point in this post about unestablished claims. Bottom line: if you want to talk about whether Israel is right or wrong in their existence, then take it to another thread. Serious.

I wonder. Do you have the statistics on how many women are killed in either "culture" ? I'd like to see some numbers here. What exactly is the difference that upsets you so?

Nay, such figures don't exist. But we know it happens and regardless of the percentage it happens to, what you need to take away from this is that it's wrong all across the board, no matter where it is occurring.

 

[S.A.M.]

Oh I think we all know very well who the brown skinned subhumans are. After all they are brown skinned.



Feel free to address the question on statistics at any time. I'd like to see how much fire there is behind the smoke.

 

[iceaura]

Israel is representative? Of what? Votes by immigrant Jews?

The residents and citizens, whoever they may be.

Thats like saying if Australia were to imprison each and every Aboriginal in the state [minus a demographic minority] and allow only the white man to vote, its a representative state.

Australia would be more representative, in those circumstances, than Iran is now.

Saddam was also installed, he was a western ally.

Undemocratic Iraq was declared a terrorist state, and invaded on that pretext. That is a counterexample to your assertion, which was false.

I think you have capability confused with character, regime confused with culture, and happiness confused with freedom and liberty, in this thread.
”
Not at all. I am just wondering how seriously to take a representative of an exploitative culture when he despairs over any aspect of human rights.

If your complaint is with the lack of standing, don't argue the accurate claims and case.

How seriously do you expect people to take those who deny the oppression of women in the Middle Eastern Islamic countries, on the grounds that the observers are members of exploitative - - exploitative cultures?

 

[S.A.M.]

The residents and citizens, whoever they may be. Australia would be more representative, in those circumstances, than Iran is now.

Any state would be. After all, elimination of a dissenting group pretty much ensures representation.

Undemocratic Iraq was declared a terrorist state, and invaded on that pretext. That is a counterexample to your assertion, which was false.

Not at all. "Undemocratic" Iraq was declared a terrorist state after it refused to play ball and insisted on doing away with the petrodollar. For 15 years before that, the lack of democracy was never an issue.

How seriously do you expect people to take those who deny the oppression of women in the Middle Eastern Islamic countries, on the grounds that the observers are members of exploitative - - exploitative cultures?

Exactly. How seriously do you expect people to take those who insist that women in the Middle East are oppressed when representative governments are toppled and undemocratic regimes not only supported, but also installed by force or stealth?

 

[iceaura]

Exactly. How seriously do you expect people to take those who insist that women in the Middle East are oppressed when representative governments are toppled and undemocratic regimes not only supported, but also installed by force or stealth?

Exactly as seriously as their observations are accurate.

Not at all. "Undemocratic" Iraq was declared a terrorist state after it refused to play ball and insisted on doing away with the petrodollar. For 15 years before that, the lack of democracy was never an issue

You have forgotten the point. Iraq was an example of an undemocratic Middle East state that was not an ally, but instead declared a terrorist state.

Any state would be. After all, elimination of a dissenting group pretty much ensures representation.

That is false. There are many states in which dissenting groups have been eliminated without representative government being established.

 

[Norsefire]

You mean the other hurts no being that your culture considers sufficiently important to merit concern. My point is that the identification of oppression of women and children as being a problem and the degree to which you perceive it to be a problem, is only one of the myriad cultural differences that people could point to...and if other cultures came here to impose their beliefs on us, I suspect you'd dismiss them and their concerns. You assume that our culture and our values are "right" and that any system grounded in different principles is "wrong," and that is a very chauvinistic mentality. If you expect other cultures around the world to embrace your chauvinism with anything other than a derisive dismissal or with gunfire, you're overly optimistic.

My guess is that you believe that morality is objective and that a given action *is* right or *is* wrong. I do not believe that. In my view morality is subjective and that there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.

Thank you! The bolded part is exactly what I've been trying to say. Exactly.

 

[WillNever]

You assume that our culture and our values are "right" and that any system grounded in different principles is "wrong," and that is a very chauvinistic mentality

It isn't chauvinistic to think that good-acting people are better than rapists and murderers. I assume that leaving innocent people to live their lives freely is "right," and that abusing them is wrong. That isn't a chauvinistic mentality and clearly, it's a compassionate one. Try it out some time.

 

[S.A.M.]

good-acting people are better than rapists and murderers

still waiting on the numbers. Statistics on rape and murder?

 

[WillNever]

You need to go back and read my post-edit.

 

[S.A.M.]

So your opinion is based on...your opinion?

What are the numbers for domestic violence and rape in your country?

 

[WillNever]

SAM, I realize that you have a penchant for two dimensional thinking, but in this thread condemning the arabs for violence is not somehow a condonement of violence in the USA. This is a condemnation of abuse ANYWHERE.

It happens everywhere. The difference is that in the USA we don't condone such things. In the arab world, they DO.

 

[S.A.M.]

The difference is that in the USA we don't condone such things. In the arab world, they DO.

How?

 

[WillNever]

In many ways. A woman's testimony is legally recognized as inferior in a court of law, in Saudi Arabia. This opens their society up to a whole horrorhouse of abuses by men, who have only to match their superior word against the inferior word of women. Physical punishment is dealt out to women who don't meet the male-dictated standard of dress. Unpunished "honor killings" take place almost exclusively in muslim countries. We have a thread in another forum here about a muslim preacher calling for the stoning of adultering women, and an article about how women are legally raped by government employees before their executions, because apparently a virgin woman's life is sacred until she's had sex. Then it becomes okay to kill her. Need I go on..?