Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Quote:If 97 per cent of American heterosexual people advocate killing homosexuals, does that mean it is ok? Suppose you are homosexual. What right do you have to interfere in the "other" culture, to impose your moral views on them?
If I felt compelled to defend against an atrocity happening right under my nose then I would be the first on the front lines believe me. If the atrocity happened elsewhere one could lobby their government to accept the refugees of such a situation. I placed the article for you to understand that the women who take part in and ultimately CONTROL the future of the custom are RESPONSIBLE. I am not going to knock on some woman's door uninvited and attempt to convince her of something she doesn't see as a problem. Let those local women who are working towards change knock on her door and try and convince her. If they fail then it isn't the right time for such change. I hope you noticed that in that link the EU stated that it is not their position to try and change FMG in other nations but that they would try and enact laws within the Union banning the custom. I applaud their position.
Quote: Compare your view. You say that even having this kind of debate is a waste of time. We should let sleeping dogs lie, and never try to change anybody's mind about anything.
No darlink, I am saying that I would never bother discussing the issue with someone who isn't OPEN. You don't have to go far on a subject to know who is resistant and who is willing to discuss and entertain another point of view without acrimony, disrespect or insult. I am having this dialogue with you because I am genuinly curious about your position and can tell that you are open and willing to consider my views. Now this doesn't mean you will change mine or that I will change yours, it means we are simply OPEN. I never discuss religion when abroad...NEVER! Why? Because I know that in many countries local custom and belief are so entreched that to question them would be considered an insult. If I go to their temples I show the utmost respect, even if Buddha doesn't mean jack to me. I show reverence for their space because it is not my space. I don't insist that they accept my view of superstition etc. Why would I? Same thing with discussing FMG, which I have with Gambian men and women in Belgium, I listen to what they have to say and learn their point of view, I don't call them barbarians and tell them they should be shot because it is none of my business. They are not trying to forcing the custom on me or my culture, they have a right to their own customs. The first time a Gambian woman said to me that it had been done to her and has happened for generations and was none of business then I left it alone. Her daughter lives with her not with me.
Quote:Suppose the government passes a law making abortion illegal. Suppose you become pregnant and have some problem which threatens your life unless you have an abortion. Is abortion good or bad, then? Your society has decided it is bad.
I would fight the law. I would encourage others to disobey the law. I would leave the country and have the abortion anyway.
Quote:Another hypothetical: Suppose abortion is legal, no questions asked. Your friend becomes pregnant, but decides after 7 months, for purely selfish reasons, that she doesn't want the baby after all. She decides instead to have an abortion. Is abortion good or bad, then?
If she is my friend I would hold her hand and sit in the waiting room.
Quote: What if your friend is from Molvania, where the general opinion is that late-term abortion for whatever reason is fine, as long as the woman wants it? Would you advise your friend not to go ahead? Obviously not, if you're consistent with your expressed views. This abortion is ok for her, or her society, so who are you to interfere. Right?
I would never interfere with a womans choice to have an abortion plain and simple. It is not my life nor my body. If she is fine with her decision so am I.
Quote:Name me a society in which the majorit of members do not believe that incest between a mother and her son is wrong. Show me one where the majority thinks rape is ok.
The question of incest is commonly taboo but that doesn't make it illegal. If an adult son wants to sleep with his mother and she approves its no skin off my nose. Interestingly enough Anais Nin at the age of thirty consciously seduced her father and had an affair with him for a short period of time. She told Antonin Artaud and others, they were horrified. If a friend of mine told me she was planning on moving in with her father as his wife I would suggest therapy, but if she chooses to do so then I would roll my eyes and leave it alone. Rape seems to be 'ok' in cultures where arranged marriages are imposed. A woman cannot decide she is unwilling to sleep with her husband without consequence.
Quoteroposition: it is all right to kill another person for no particular reason, if you want to.I can give many reasons why this is wrong. I can argue on religious grounds. I can argue on utilitarian grounds. I can make a "do unto others..." argument. How many reasons can you give for this being a moral course of action?
Too bad you weren't around to explain that to the Khmer Rouge...I am sure they would have shot you dead on moral grounds.
Quote:Believing something is not the same as having good grounds for that belief.
If I have a gun behind your head it doesn't matter who believes what because then all grounds are good grounds for dying. Please dont misunderstand me, I agree it sucks but that is the way these things occur. We are all happy lovey civilized folk until the shit hits the fan and then its about living and dying not believing and morality. If you can convince a fighting unit to put down their guns then peacefully then by all means try, but the chances are you won't have much luck. Ever hear of a war being quelled through words alone? Ghandi died trying and now Pakistan and India are still going at it. They talk and talk but the guerillas fight and fight.
Quote:Surely you don't believe that?
Yes I do believe that. Slave owners didn't have to justify themselves to anyone especially their slaves. The end of slavery began on the front lines where people were willing to die over the issue.
Quote: At one time, it was perfectly legal to own slaves. Was that morally justified, then? Who are we to judge the morality of the slave-owning culture?
Look you do not understand me. Saying something is bad is useless and unproductive. A plantation owner with a bunch of slaves didn't care how others labeled or judged the issue. When slavery was legal they had the law behind them, that was enough justification needed to own another human being.
Quote:I'm not at all confused. I am quite happy to interfere with somebody's liberty if by doing so I will reduce their interference with the liberties of other people, but only if there is a net positive outcome.
The only net positive outcome you will find is a bullet in the behind.
Quote:But you shouldn't stand by and simply watch injustices without acting. To do so is to abdicate your responsibility to live a moral life.
If the injustice is happening in my midst then I will act if I have the power to do so. I will act if asked to do so by those directly involved. But outside of that no. By the way where was the U.N during the Pol Pot era? Out fishing I suppose. Where were they during the Sarejevo siege? Tibet? They are the ones you should pose this question to since you believe it is their DUTY to act. Every problem that occurs in the world is not my responsibility or duty, even the U.N doesn't always think its their duty.(which is where I find their hypocrisy and complete impotence). Having said that I do not trust them enough to give them more power. They are the ones who get a hard-on by sending their troops into places just to have them stand around and watch. Perverts!
Quote:
This is your argument in a nutshell: "That's just the way it is. We should never try to change anything."I say that religions are not perfect. They get some things wrong. Some of their moral arguments are faulty. We should work towards educating people about the things which are wrong with religions. We should try to change opinions where they are wrong.
YOu know what my position is. If you think that the religious have things wrong then I suggest you send them a letter letting them know this and I am sure they will read it and then completely ignor it.
Quote:Which society or culture would that be? My house? My neighbourhood? My state? My country? The world? You draw an arbitrary line.
Please don't take this wrong but it is only the naive who think they can change the world. You can change yourself and maybe even change a few around you, but you will never change the world nor human nature. How many wars have happened since the conception of the U.N? How many continue? How many peacemakers have there been? How many have been martyred? If you want to die for a cause that is fine. If you want to scream and shout that is fine. If you want to engage in local politics to change what can be changed that is even better. In other words work on changing what you can DIRECTLY, what you have POWER to change. By working on what is right in front of you you create a domino effect that inadvertently changes other things, that may or may not change other things. If you think about THE WORLD then you will be as impotent and exhausted as the U.N on a Saturday night, and no further towards your goal.
Quote:Who are these "others"? We all live in the one world.
Others are all those who do not belong to the community to which I contribute and directly affect.
Quote:What has that got to do with anything?
Well you wrote that China was only beginning to open up to captialism and I am indicating to you that China has had capitalism. War, corruption by the elite and outsiders, mistreatment of the massess led to revolution.
Quote:
"Europe is not in the business of preaching and imposing its culture on other countries and nations. However, Europe must be very clear in defending its values which are built around justice, equality of the sexes and human rights. Therefore, we cannot tolerate that within our borders, a cultural practice becomes an excuse for the violation of fundamental human rights. Irrational traditional practices do not have a place in modern societies, especially since they are aimed at continuing to subjugate women. The global community has clearly itself to human rights and this is reflected both in conventions and international agreements."
I agree with them but this has no bearing on the countries where women insist on FMG. If it did then they would not have to discuss the matter. If simply being exposed to the West were enough then the EU would not have to legislate the matter. The fact is that women continue to practise the custom no matter what others think. The law will help but there will always be those within EU borders who will do it anyway, or what is usual, take their daughters away on holiday and have it done in their indigenous countries.
Quote:
I don't believe people are inherently "good", but they do share some common moral ideas, as I have pointed out previously. As you say, human beings are complex. They do not have only one motivation, but many, sometimes conflicting, desires. The questions of morality concern which of these conflicting aims ought to take precedence. Some people act morally; others do not. But most know when they are acting immorally.
I completely disagree. I think that civility is a thin veil hiding darker urges and given the chance those urges will rise to the surface, when they do the participants couldn't give a fart. I think morality is a product of society not nature.
I must say James that I find this debate really quite stimulating, refreshing and important.
If I felt compelled to defend against an atrocity happening right under my nose then I would be the first on the front lines believe me. If the atrocity happened elsewhere one could lobby their government to accept the refugees of such a situation. I placed the article for you to understand that the women who take part in and ultimately CONTROL the future of the custom are RESPONSIBLE. I am not going to knock on some woman's door uninvited and attempt to convince her of something she doesn't see as a problem. Let those local women who are working towards change knock on her door and try and convince her. If they fail then it isn't the right time for such change. I hope you noticed that in that link the EU stated that it is not their position to try and change FMG in other nations but that they would try and enact laws within the Union banning the custom. I applaud their position.
Quote: Compare your view. You say that even having this kind of debate is a waste of time. We should let sleeping dogs lie, and never try to change anybody's mind about anything.
No darlink, I am saying that I would never bother discussing the issue with someone who isn't OPEN. You don't have to go far on a subject to know who is resistant and who is willing to discuss and entertain another point of view without acrimony, disrespect or insult. I am having this dialogue with you because I am genuinly curious about your position and can tell that you are open and willing to consider my views. Now this doesn't mean you will change mine or that I will change yours, it means we are simply OPEN. I never discuss religion when abroad...NEVER! Why? Because I know that in many countries local custom and belief are so entreched that to question them would be considered an insult. If I go to their temples I show the utmost respect, even if Buddha doesn't mean jack to me. I show reverence for their space because it is not my space. I don't insist that they accept my view of superstition etc. Why would I? Same thing with discussing FMG, which I have with Gambian men and women in Belgium, I listen to what they have to say and learn their point of view, I don't call them barbarians and tell them they should be shot because it is none of my business. They are not trying to forcing the custom on me or my culture, they have a right to their own customs. The first time a Gambian woman said to me that it had been done to her and has happened for generations and was none of business then I left it alone. Her daughter lives with her not with me.
Quote:Suppose the government passes a law making abortion illegal. Suppose you become pregnant and have some problem which threatens your life unless you have an abortion. Is abortion good or bad, then? Your society has decided it is bad.
I would fight the law. I would encourage others to disobey the law. I would leave the country and have the abortion anyway.
Quote:Another hypothetical: Suppose abortion is legal, no questions asked. Your friend becomes pregnant, but decides after 7 months, for purely selfish reasons, that she doesn't want the baby after all. She decides instead to have an abortion. Is abortion good or bad, then?
If she is my friend I would hold her hand and sit in the waiting room.
Quote: What if your friend is from Molvania, where the general opinion is that late-term abortion for whatever reason is fine, as long as the woman wants it? Would you advise your friend not to go ahead? Obviously not, if you're consistent with your expressed views. This abortion is ok for her, or her society, so who are you to interfere. Right?
I would never interfere with a womans choice to have an abortion plain and simple. It is not my life nor my body. If she is fine with her decision so am I.
Quote:Name me a society in which the majorit of members do not believe that incest between a mother and her son is wrong. Show me one where the majority thinks rape is ok.
The question of incest is commonly taboo but that doesn't make it illegal. If an adult son wants to sleep with his mother and she approves its no skin off my nose. Interestingly enough Anais Nin at the age of thirty consciously seduced her father and had an affair with him for a short period of time. She told Antonin Artaud and others, they were horrified. If a friend of mine told me she was planning on moving in with her father as his wife I would suggest therapy, but if she chooses to do so then I would roll my eyes and leave it alone. Rape seems to be 'ok' in cultures where arranged marriages are imposed. A woman cannot decide she is unwilling to sleep with her husband without consequence.
Quoteroposition: it is all right to kill another person for no particular reason, if you want to.I can give many reasons why this is wrong. I can argue on religious grounds. I can argue on utilitarian grounds. I can make a "do unto others..." argument. How many reasons can you give for this being a moral course of action?
Too bad you weren't around to explain that to the Khmer Rouge...I am sure they would have shot you dead on moral grounds.
Quote:Believing something is not the same as having good grounds for that belief.
If I have a gun behind your head it doesn't matter who believes what because then all grounds are good grounds for dying. Please dont misunderstand me, I agree it sucks but that is the way these things occur. We are all happy lovey civilized folk until the shit hits the fan and then its about living and dying not believing and morality. If you can convince a fighting unit to put down their guns then peacefully then by all means try, but the chances are you won't have much luck. Ever hear of a war being quelled through words alone? Ghandi died trying and now Pakistan and India are still going at it. They talk and talk but the guerillas fight and fight.
Quote:Surely you don't believe that?
Yes I do believe that. Slave owners didn't have to justify themselves to anyone especially their slaves. The end of slavery began on the front lines where people were willing to die over the issue.
Quote: At one time, it was perfectly legal to own slaves. Was that morally justified, then? Who are we to judge the morality of the slave-owning culture?
Look you do not understand me. Saying something is bad is useless and unproductive. A plantation owner with a bunch of slaves didn't care how others labeled or judged the issue. When slavery was legal they had the law behind them, that was enough justification needed to own another human being.
Quote:I'm not at all confused. I am quite happy to interfere with somebody's liberty if by doing so I will reduce their interference with the liberties of other people, but only if there is a net positive outcome.
The only net positive outcome you will find is a bullet in the behind.
Quote:But you shouldn't stand by and simply watch injustices without acting. To do so is to abdicate your responsibility to live a moral life.
If the injustice is happening in my midst then I will act if I have the power to do so. I will act if asked to do so by those directly involved. But outside of that no. By the way where was the U.N during the Pol Pot era? Out fishing I suppose. Where were they during the Sarejevo siege? Tibet? They are the ones you should pose this question to since you believe it is their DUTY to act. Every problem that occurs in the world is not my responsibility or duty, even the U.N doesn't always think its their duty.(which is where I find their hypocrisy and complete impotence). Having said that I do not trust them enough to give them more power. They are the ones who get a hard-on by sending their troops into places just to have them stand around and watch. Perverts!
Quote:
This is your argument in a nutshell: "That's just the way it is. We should never try to change anything."I say that religions are not perfect. They get some things wrong. Some of their moral arguments are faulty. We should work towards educating people about the things which are wrong with religions. We should try to change opinions where they are wrong.
YOu know what my position is. If you think that the religious have things wrong then I suggest you send them a letter letting them know this and I am sure they will read it and then completely ignor it.
Quote:Which society or culture would that be? My house? My neighbourhood? My state? My country? The world? You draw an arbitrary line.
Please don't take this wrong but it is only the naive who think they can change the world. You can change yourself and maybe even change a few around you, but you will never change the world nor human nature. How many wars have happened since the conception of the U.N? How many continue? How many peacemakers have there been? How many have been martyred? If you want to die for a cause that is fine. If you want to scream and shout that is fine. If you want to engage in local politics to change what can be changed that is even better. In other words work on changing what you can DIRECTLY, what you have POWER to change. By working on what is right in front of you you create a domino effect that inadvertently changes other things, that may or may not change other things. If you think about THE WORLD then you will be as impotent and exhausted as the U.N on a Saturday night, and no further towards your goal.
Quote:Who are these "others"? We all live in the one world.
Others are all those who do not belong to the community to which I contribute and directly affect.
Quote:What has that got to do with anything?
Well you wrote that China was only beginning to open up to captialism and I am indicating to you that China has had capitalism. War, corruption by the elite and outsiders, mistreatment of the massess led to revolution.
Quote:
"Europe is not in the business of preaching and imposing its culture on other countries and nations. However, Europe must be very clear in defending its values which are built around justice, equality of the sexes and human rights. Therefore, we cannot tolerate that within our borders, a cultural practice becomes an excuse for the violation of fundamental human rights. Irrational traditional practices do not have a place in modern societies, especially since they are aimed at continuing to subjugate women. The global community has clearly itself to human rights and this is reflected both in conventions and international agreements."
I agree with them but this has no bearing on the countries where women insist on FMG. If it did then they would not have to discuss the matter. If simply being exposed to the West were enough then the EU would not have to legislate the matter. The fact is that women continue to practise the custom no matter what others think. The law will help but there will always be those within EU borders who will do it anyway, or what is usual, take their daughters away on holiday and have it done in their indigenous countries.
Quote:
I don't believe people are inherently "good", but they do share some common moral ideas, as I have pointed out previously. As you say, human beings are complex. They do not have only one motivation, but many, sometimes conflicting, desires. The questions of morality concern which of these conflicting aims ought to take precedence. Some people act morally; others do not. But most know when they are acting immorally.
I completely disagree. I think that civility is a thin veil hiding darker urges and given the chance those urges will rise to the surface, when they do the participants couldn't give a fart. I think morality is a product of society not nature.
I must say James that I find this debate really quite stimulating, refreshing and important.